I don't know if the statement is backed up by science, but its a falsifiable empirical prediction. It is entirely within the realm of science to make predictions that certain geographic regions will have significant structural and human damage in the event of some hypothetical natural disaster.
>It is entirely within the realm of science to make predictions that certain geographic regions will have significant structural and human damage in the event of some hypothetical natural disaster.
I agree. But that's not the same as saying it's "toast".
That's debatable. It can mean anything from doomed to in trouble.
IDIOMS FOR TOAST
be toast, Slang. to be doomed, ruined, or in trouble:
>Would you object if he said "utterly destroyed" instead?
Yes I would object.
Does it mean everything west of I5 is going to fall into the ocean? All human structures are going to be levelled? Only structures over 2 stories not made out of wood will be levelled? Or just that everything west of I5 will have more damage than everything east.
And I doubt that EVERYTHING east of I5 is going to share the same fate. The I5 is a human made road, not a geographic feature. It doesn't control earthquake outcomes.
In Oregon, the land to the west of I-5 is clay silt from the Missoula Floods that came down the Columbia Gorge 13,000 - 15,000 years ago. The clay silt is expected to completely liquefy in the event of a major earthquake.
Widespread death and destruction. Seriously, other than the houses on Cooper Mountain, I don't seriously expect anything to still be standing in the Tualatin Basin when the big one hits.
It's not a science paper. It's in the New Yorker. It's supposed to be interesting. It also features great lines such as:
"Oh, shit, Goldfinger thought, although not in dread, at first: in amazement. "
"As Goldfinger put it, “In the late eighties and early nineties, the paradigm shifted to ‘uh-oh.’ ”"
"...magnitude 5.0, magnitude 4.0, magnitude why are the neighbors moving their sofa at midnight"
I was actually making the point that the FEMA Director for the Pacific Northwest probably knows a lot more about the scenario in question, and that his statement may be grounded very deeply in fact such that it's not hyperbolic at all.
