Apparently your knowledge of seismic events is rather limited. Your narrow answer, paraphrased from industry handouts, responds (incorrectly) to one of many issues. You haven't dealt with supertankers in transit or loading, you haven't even mentioned subsidence and the likelihood of changed elevation, you've ignored both surface abd submarine landslides in fjords and inlets. Expected effects are being intentionally ignored, or perhaps, are simply unknown to you.
BC is the most seismically active area in Canada.
---
In past seismic events, trees were drowned and land subsided. Historically, we're looking at huge impacts, with waves more than 10 metres high, and land subsidence between 1 and 3 metres, worse than we saw recently in Japan.
"Support for the conclusion of a great earthquake on a winter night is provided by an event preserved in the oral tradition of the coastal native people (Heaton and Snavely, 1985; Clague, 1995). In the period not long before European contact, a strong earthquake occurred at night. It was followed by a large tsunami that destroyed the village at the head of Pachena Bay on the west coast of Vancouver Island (Arima et al., 1991). In another account, the canoes came down in the trees."
.....
"The present coastal uplift rate of 1 to 4 mm per year, accumulated over an interseismic period of 500 years, gives an expected earthquake subsidence of 1/2 to 2 meters)."
nrcan.gc.ca
---
People who choose to parrot industry propaganda are everywhere. I hoped you were not one of them, but to each his own.
On this much we agree: the infrastructure should be built. As to whether BC should be party to artificially heightened risks - especially when other provinces want and need the benefits - we disagree strongly.
Regards,
Jim |
