Seems to me that if you are camping there and there is a big enough quake to rupture the dam, its going to shake you awake and you'll want to bug out to high ground within a couple of minutes anyway to avoid that large wave that would come almost as quickly as the reservoir water. Anyone do the math yet for how many minutes it would take for the water to get to the campground?

more force 4 wrote:Seems to me that if you are camping there and there is a big enough quake to rupture the dam, its going to shake you awake and you'll want to bug out to high ground within a couple of minutes anyway to avoid that large wave that would come almost as quickly as the reservoir water. Anyone do the math yet for how many minutes it would take for the water to get to the campground?

The people who worked at Shakie's Drive In back in the day were told if they felt a shaker, they have 6 minutes to get to high ground. Though come to think of it, that may have been about tsunami not dam burst.

Just thinking it through...my understanding is that in a 9.0 quake the movement is so violent you basically can't stand and it can last several minutes. So there goes maybe 3 of your 6 minutes. You better be a fast runner.

nanmoo wrote:

tbrown wrote:wtf? if you're there 8 hours of the day, then you're 2/3 LESS likely to get hit than if you're there 24 hours a day. Doesn't seem like rocket science.

That logic is so flawed. You are 100% as likely to get hit if it happens during the day if you're there regardless whether you are there at night or not. The statistical probability it happens at night is no greater than day. So if they're willing to tolerate 200 people there during the day (as there was today) then why not a couple dozen at night?

This sort of logic is not flawed at all, in risk management it is extremely common. If you cant influence the hazard (ie stop the quake or shore up the dam) the next step is to influence the consequence or the negative outcome of the event. for example you could put up flood walls to limit the impacted area. If you are going to allow people to roam the impact area, the key factor becomes time of exposure, a casual day visit is much less than a camper, who again would be much less exposed than a resident. This time of exposure logic is why we can have highways under rock bluffs where you would never allow a residence to exist. seconds per day exposed to a random event vs hours. My trips to JR probably average about 2-4 hours; a camper would certainly stay longer. additionally, when it comes to people visiting JR, presumably day visitors are reasonably awake and mobile, vs asleep and ensconced in a RV at night.

The part of the logic that is flawed is you are damned (ha!) if you do and damned if you don't if this catastrophe were to occur any time other than 10 pm to 6 am. So if you tolerate the risk for the majority of the day, why not a little bit further at night for a few souls willing to take on that risk. This isn't a private business it's a public park, and absolving risk for the public good is part of the business which is why you don't sign waivers to go do _____ activity in a Provincial/Regional/National Park.

Regardless, it seems BCH would be liable if their dam took out some people not the CRD.

it's too bad the photos got removed, they really show what many people would not know, there is a seriously big lake up there behind a sketchy looking dam. what was known about seismic design over a century ago?
i suspect the hot topic will cool down quickly and since enforcement will cost $$$, some signs will go up and it will return to business as usual.

heres a pic

umm....anyone know if those summer thermal westerlies get up to that nice blue lake??

juandesooka wrote:umm....anyone know if those summer thermal westerlies get up to that nice blue lake??

Shhhhh, SECRET spot