Hi all, and Yvonne, I wanted to see the show a second time so as to clarify things in my mind. The program, for those who missed it, is not just about the 1906 earthquake and the cover-up, but includes info on what would happen if the same earthquake would happen today. Sure are a bunch of dirty little secrets. According to the show: 1. Using Photoshop and other new imaging equipment, "they" analyzed photos taken of SF (downtown mainly) just after the earthquake. They show lots of retouching that had been done that makes buildings that had been seriously damaged by the quake appear to be just slightly damaged, so they could claim that the major damage was from the fire - and fire insurance would cover it. Some entrepreneurs of the day deliberately torched their buildings so insurance would cover them. Calif. Gov. Pardee (does anyone know more about his genealogy?) and the other "power-brokers" at that time got together to put a "spin" on the reportage that came out, for several reasons: To make sure people kept settling in the area by making sure that almost all damage was seen as fire damage; To build as many buildings as possible to make SF look like "new" for the 1915 Exposition (meaning that buildings built *after* 1906 had a much lower standard of construction than before); And to sweep as much as possible under the rug, including the number of dead. And, with precious little application of the knowledge they already had in 1906 about how to build safe buildings, they succeeded in making the city appear as good as new. 2. Folks who live there now, if they know where to look outside the tourist/business areas, can find buildings that'd be torn down today as unsafe, but allowed to stand after 1906 and that have never been torn down. Cracks, some pretty bad, with perhaps a half-inch separation between the sides of the cracks, are still standing and many are being lived or worked in. 3. The death toll from the '06 Quake was a lot higher than was officially issued. Someone on the show fairly recently (should've written down her name) went through the Halls of Records and everywhere else she could find info, and researched the *real* death tally, and came to at least 3000, not including those the cops killed to "maintain law and order." That official (law & order) count was something on the order of 25-50 shot by police, if I remember the program right, but it turns out to be closer to about 500. Seems some people may've been shot "because they were there" or because of race. It was kind of like the old vigilante days. And I'm sure there were others shot by citizens with guns, rightly or wrongly. There was footage showing a few of the dead just lying on streets, and talk of the horror of that moment in time, but I couldn't help remembering that folks back then were much more inured to death than we are today, and how different our reactions would probably be under the same circumstances (remembering Caruso's stay at the St. Francis at that time). 4. If an earthquake like the 1906 one were to happen today (they did estimated death tallies, but, again, I didn't write them down): a) Downtown and the south of Market area will be one of the worst hit: The highest highrises will be OK, but many of the ones below 40 stories may not be (something to do with sway factor & other techie stuff). b) The Marina Dist. will be a disaster, due to liquifaction, of course, but much worse than in 1989 (which they compared with the 1906 quake a lot); in fact, anywhere that's been built on landfill, including parts of downtown. c) But the worst hit of all will be another Dist. - I think the Richmond - full of those ticky-tacky boxes Malvina Reynolds referred to in her folk song. In other words, shoddy housing construction will account for the largest number of deaths. d) Nob Hill was, in 1906, one of the least damaged, being built on solid rock, and should be the same today as long as it's saved from fire. A lot of talk was on retrofitting. City Hall's been done (all that was left, as most of you know, was the dome), the Golden Gate Bridge is being done (when this program was made), and the Bay Bridge will be. Other places have been and/or are being planned to, but the cost, as I'm sure you know, is ghastly. But they kept raising the question of whether SF could afford all the needed retrofitting balanced against loss of life etc. They did lots of scientific testing of what happens on various soils when various Richtor factors were applied. Very interesting. Someone on the show momentarily referred to the epicenter, but I'm afraid I didn't catch what was said (I was having a bit** of a time trying to record the show, and still don't know if I succeeded - that's what comes of having too many gadgets all routed through the cable system - the latest was a DVD player). And I don't know if it gave enough info to pin it down: They said something like: "This is what it would have seemed like at the epicenter" but I wasn't watching. Sorry, Carolyn. Lest you think I'm a total newbie re earthquakes in the Bay Area, from 1966 through half of 1973 I lived in Berkeley, home of the Hayward Fault, and although I missed any of the larger ones, there was one during the time I was there. It was gentle enough not to be really scary, but it happened just before the late news, and while they were talking about it, there was an aftershock, with news viceocams swaying.... I think it scared my cat more than me - I've never before or since seen such a reaction - eyes wide as saucers. A few of you might even remember it. Yvonne, might I impose on you again to post this on NORCAL, or could someone else on the NORCAL list post this? [I think this is the longest missive I've posted in a long time! <grin>] Thanks, Carol Tucson At 07:22 AM 1/20/04 -0800, carolyn wrote: >Well, sorry to say I missed the program........... > >Did anyone else see it........any more clarification on the "cover-up" of >damages pertaining to the fire vs quake? >Also, did they mention the epicenter? It is so curious to me that this >seems to be a hard question to get an answer to----could it be that the >science was not able to pin this down and the answer is left to speculaton? > >Best, Carolyn > >carolyn wrote: > >>Thanks Carol- I'll be watching- >> >>It was recently mentioned on another list that Santa Rosa was the >>epicenter of the 06 quake- that was "news to me"! I had heard Olema was >>the epicenter- >> >>I did some googling to see what I could find- I did find several sites >>that point to Olema as the epicenter- and a couple say it was "off the >>coast north of the City" and a couple that say it was "south of the >>city". Even found one where the Clampers are erecting a plaque in Daly >>City to indicate the epicenter was offshore from there........... >> >>I sent two emails to USGS folks asking for their official answer about a >>month ago, and have not had a reply from them. >> >>What information do you folks have on the documented epicenter of the 06 >>quake? >> >>When the Santa Rosa information was posted to NORCAL it was never >>questioned by any of the other listers.........yet, I cannot find >>anything saying it was the epicenter................. >> >>Your input appreciated. >> >>Thanks, Carolyn > > >Carol De Priest ><mailto:[email protected]> >Honest Intellectual Inquiry ><http://www.dakotacom.net/~depriest> > >Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live >forever. ----Gandhi