Top Law Schools

Interested in seeing how people respond to this.

Does the following prevent you from apply to/attending law schools in the pacific northwest?

"Seattle Could Experience Megaquake In Near Future

An earthquake hotspot just 50 miles off the Pacific Northwest coast is on the verge of unleashing itself on Seattle, Portland and Vancouver, similar to the damage that shattered Chile...

Recent computer simulations have shown a hypothetical magnitude 9 quake could shake the area between 2 to 5 minutes. This would be strong enough to potentially cause poorly constructed buildings from British Columbia to Northern California to collapse and severely damage highways and bridges.

A quake of this caliber would send tsunami waves rushing to shore in minutes.

The Pacific Northwest "has a long geological history of doing exactly what happened in Chile," Brian Atwater, a geologist with the U.S. Geological Survey and University of Washington, told AP. "It's not a matter of if but when the next one will happen."

Chris Goldfinger, head of the Active Tectonics and Seafloor Mapping Laboratory at Oregon State University, told AP there is an 80 percent chance the southern end of the fault off southern Oregon and Northern California could break in the next 50 years and produce a megaquake."

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/18 ... ar_future/

Since PNW schools are very regional, would you be concerned that you would be stuck working there? I was astonished by the 80% figure. I wouldn't say no to a place like UW because of this, though.

yes, and Im not looking forward to December 12, 2012 either. Let me know if you want a spot on my ark that Im building in my backyard

HowdyYall wrote:yes, and Im not looking forward to December 12, 2012 either. Let me know if you want a spot on my ark that Im building in my backyard

I wouldn't base a life decision on it - the science behind long-range earthquake prediction is just too shaky.

ScottRiqui wrote:I wouldn't base a life decision on it - the science behind long-range earthquake prediction is just too shaky.

I see what you did there.

Adjudicator wrote:

ScottRiqui wrote:I wouldn't base a life decision on it - the science behind long-range earthquake prediction is just too shaky.

I see what you did there.

With the added smiley, even Ray Charles saw what I did there. I'd like to think people would have gotten it anyway, but I lost my faith at the last second...

This was my earthquakes professor at UCLA, John Vidale... he's now the Director of the Pacific Northwest Seismic Network and a professor at UW---- should I ask him?:

--ImageRemoved--

Well, despite those terrifying eyes, I facebook messaged him... I'll let you know his eventual response.

Don't worry about it. Everyone dies.

This thread. What is it.

It makes total sense to base your decision off of a perceived risk of natural disasters. This is exactly like when I decided not to go to college in Tokyo because of the constant Godzilla attacks.

2Serious4Numbers wrote:This thread. What is it.

I don't even know anymore. But it's hysterical

The intensity in that picture is ridiculous. I would have seriously been concerned he might tear off his shirt and scream SMASH at any moment while in his class

This is a stupid consideration. Your chances of experiencing a terrorist attack if you live in NYC or DC are far greater.

Cavalier wrote:This is a stupid consideration. Your chances of experiencing a terrorist attack if you live in NYC or DC are far greater.

direct involvement or association.. Because I'm pretty sure a 9 on the rhicter scale would involve many more ppl than an attack (short of nuclear obviously). Just sayin' you may need to quanlify that statement

Cavalier wrote:This is a stupid consideration. Your chances of experiencing a terrorist attack if you live in NYC or DC are far greater.

Greater than 80%?

rad law wrote:

Lmao

Wow, he already responded:

"Nice to hear from you again. We still have no skill at predicting earthquakes, practically zero. So the chance of our coastal M9 earthquake that comes every 500 years is 1 in 50 for the next decade. And contrary to some reports, it will not flatten the Puget Sound. $100-300B in damages, tops. It would be terrible if the Seattle Fault broke as it did around the year 900AD, but chances of that are about 1 in 300 over a decade. There are some other faults around, and volcanos, and the chance of a tsunami on the coast, but the biggest risk is mildew from the winter rain."


That's what the experts are saying, apparently. But JUST 100-300 Billion Dollars??? I can't tell if he's joking or what.

holy shit this is new

There are like 4 jobs for every 20 law grads and the disaster you're worried about is an earthquake? Choose your law school based upon any factor other than maximizing post-grad employment and you're bee praying for a quake to strike your apt before you get evicted...

NorCalBruin wrote:Wow, he already responded:

"Nice to hear from you again. We still have no skill at predicting earthquakes, practically zero. So the chance of our coastal M9 earthquake that comes every 500 years is 1 in 50 for the next decade. And contrary to some reports, it will not flatten the Puget Sound. $100-300B in damages, tops. It would be terrible if the Seattle Fault broke as it did around the year 900AD, but chances of that are about 1 in 300 over a decade. There are some other faults around, and volcanos, and the chance of a tsunami on the coast, but the biggest risk is mildew from the winter rain."


That's what the experts are saying, apparently. But JUST 100-300 Billion Dollars??? I can't tell if he's joking or what.

Does he know his face has been forever framed in this thread?

Working in sf. Earthquakes? Psh

NorCalBruin wrote:Wow, he already responded:

"Nice to hear from you again. We still have no skill at predicting earthquakes, practically zero. So the chance of our coastal M9 earthquake that comes every 500 years is 1 in 50 for the next decade. And contrary to some reports, it will not flatten the Puget Sound. $100-300B in damages, tops. It would be terrible if the Seattle Fault broke as it did around the year 900AD, but chances of that are about 1 in 300 over a decade. There are some other faults around, and volcanos, and the chance of a tsunami on the coast, but the biggest risk is mildew from the winter rain."


That's what the experts are saying, apparently. But JUST 100-300 Billion Dollars??? I can't tell if he's joking or what.

Most scientists have little capacity for irony when it comes to their area of expertise-I'd assume he meant it. Also, 1 in 50 odds of 'the big one' occurring aren't as favorable as I would have assumed. Not exactly reassuring.

Concept wrote:I

Chris Goldfinger, head of the Active Tectonics and Seafloor Mapping Laboratory at Oregon State University, told AP there is an 80 percent chance the southern end of the fault off southern Oregon and Northern California could break in the next 50 years and produce a megaquake."[/i]

.

I'm not that scared of "could" percentages...