logo
Scientists Warn That Massive Flooding and Tsunamis Could Hit 3 Major Regions in the U.S.

Scientists Warn That Massive Flooding and Tsunamis Could Hit 3 Major Regions in the U.S.

Yahoo24-05-2025

A new study from researchers at Virginia Tech warns that parts of Northern California, Oregon and Washington are at risk of serious flooding — and even tsunamis
The study's authors explain that an earthquake in the Cascadia subduction zone, along with rising sea levels, puts a greater area of land at tsunami and flood risk than previously thought
The scientists hope their findings will encourage communities in the region to prepare for the potential effects of large-scale floodingParts of the Pacific Northwest in the United States are at an increased risk of massive flooding — and potentially even landslides and tsunamis — in the coming years, according to new research.
A study conducted by Virginia Tech researchers published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences says that an earthquake in the Cascadia subduction zone (CSZ) — which stretches from northern California to Vancouver Island, British Columbia — combined with rising sea levels could cause coastal land in Northern California, Oregon and Washington to sink up to 6.5 ft.
is now available in the Apple App Store! Download it now for the most binge-worthy celeb content, exclusive video clips, astrology updates and more!
This would increase the amount of land at risk of flooding in the region from 35 square miles to 116 square miles and would impact thousands of people and properties, per the study.
The researchers additionally stressed that earthquake-driven land sinkage and climate-driven sea-level rise 'need to be considered in tsunami inundation maps.'
They say that current tsunami inundation maps of the region — which show areas that would potentially be affected by an earthquake-caused tsunami — do not take rising sea levels into account, nor the 'amplification effect it will have on future tsunamis.'
Never miss a story — sign up for to stay up-to-date on the best of what PEOPLE has to offer​​, from celebrity news to compelling human interest stories.
The Virginia Tech researchers came to their conclusions by generating tens of thousands of earthquake models to estimate the potential range of damage that can be expected from the next large Cascadia earthquake, per an article on the university's website.
Because the timing of the next large earthquake cannot be known, the researchers created two versions of their models — one in which an earthquake in the CSZ struck today and another in which it struck 75 years from now in 2100, when 'climate-driven sea-level rise will further amplify the impacts' of an earthquake.
The researchers estimate that if an earthquake were to happen today, an additional 14,350 residents, 22,500 structures and 777 miles of roadway would fall within the post-earthquake floodplain — which is more than double that of previous models, per Virginia Tech.
The study's authors ultimately hope that these findings will motivate communities in the Pacific Northwest to prepare for these potential outcomes, especially because it has been estimated that there is a 15% chance that a magnitude eight earthquake or greater will occur in the CSZ within the next 50 years.
'Preparing for these compound hazards can minimize long-term damage, ensure resilient communities and protect critical coastal ecosystems from permanent degradation,' the researchers said in their study.
Read the original article on People

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

HHS Journal Ban Won't Stop Corruption — It'll Make It Worse
HHS Journal Ban Won't Stop Corruption — It'll Make It Worse

Medscape

time41 minutes ago

  • Medscape

HHS Journal Ban Won't Stop Corruption — It'll Make It Worse

Robert F. Kennedy Jr has threatened to bar federal scientists from publishing in top medical journals. This move risks backfiring on two major fronts. First, it will only accelerate private industry's sway over the scientific record. Second, launching new, government-run journals will demand vast resources and years of effort — and still won't earn the credibility of established publications. With nearly five decades in medical and scientific writing, editing, and publishing — across nonprofit and commercial organizations, legacy print and digital platforms, and both subscription-based and open-access models — I write from experience. To see the flaws in Kennedy's proposal, we need to understand what works and what doesn't in science publishing. Primary, peer-reviewed medical/scientific literature has evolved and thrived in a culture of self-criticism, through letters columns, corrections, retractions, and open debate. The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) , The Lancet , and JAMA remain the gold standards in medical publishing because of their rigorous peer review, global reach, and editorial independence from government or corporate influence. Here's where RFK Jr's main objection with the current system seems to lie. The Secretary has portrayed medical journals as hopelessly corrupted by industry. Extensive firewalls, guidelines, and rules have been established to govern the relationship of industry to medical journals. They rest largely on honest disclosure with authors, editors, and readers paying attention. Cracks in those barriers are not unknown. But the solution lies in strengthening these firewalls, not sidelining them. A ban on government employees from submitting to NEJM , The Lancet , JAMA, and other top-tier titles will deliver more power — not less — to pharmaceutical, device, and biotech companies to set the scientific agenda. Far from reducing 'corruption,' such a misguided policy would magnify the role of the very stakeholders RFK Jr decries. And if federal grant support diminishes, the research that is published will become increasingly supported by industry, compounding the mistake. The notion of creating new government-owned medical journals from scratch is not an absurd idea. But Kennedy's illusion of fast-tracking NIH-affiliated "preeminent journals" that stamp federal‐funded work as unquestionably legitimate is a gargantuan endeavor. Building editorial boards, peer‐review standards, submission platforms, indexation in PubMed, and marketing to researchers worldwide takes years of work from countless individuals and would cost a substantial amount of money. Even then, a journal's reputation rests on trust and perceived independence. Readers judge not only the science but also the integrity of the editor–owner relationship. The hazard is that the owner (the government) would have to be trusted by the readers, or no one would bother reading these publications. A government 'house organ' would likely be viewed skeptically if the federal government can withdraw or prohibit publications at will. Banning federal scientists from submitting to journals the administration doesn't like does not cleanse the literature of industry influence — it deepens those ties. And while government-run journals might one day exist, they won't arrive fully baked, credible, or conflict-free. Better to invest in the proven mechanisms of editorial independence, enhanced peer review, and clearer disclosure than in a rushed, state-controlled alternative destined to struggle for trust and impact. If RFK Jr wants a better list of reforms, here's what I suggest: Take on predatory publishers and their fake journals, fake authors, and fabricated institutions and references — a threat that existed even before generative chat powered by artificial intelligence (AI). Take aim at rapacious mainstream publishers, whose excess profit margins and subscription price gouging represent a financial drain on researchers, readers, and academic libraries. Crack down on excessively large author fees to have an article considered/reviewed/published. Promote the publication of reproducibility studies. Raise the alarm about the use of AI in peer view and the creation of manuscripts — including the data in them. These steps aren't as sexy as proclaiming publishing bans for government scientist or launching new journals on whose mastheads you can put your own name. But they have the virtues of solving real problems and not making existing problems worse — which, as a physician, seems like something I've heard before somewhere …

Sen. Warren asks for contingency plans on national security after Trump and Musk's social media fallout
Sen. Warren asks for contingency plans on national security after Trump and Musk's social media fallout

CBS News

time3 hours ago

  • CBS News

Sen. Warren asks for contingency plans on national security after Trump and Musk's social media fallout

Sen. Elizabeth Warren is asking Secretary of State Marco Rubio for information on the Trump administration's contingency plans if billionaire Elon Musk breaches his companies' current contracts with the U.S. amid the ongoing public fallout between him and President Trump. In a letter to Rubio as acting national security adviser and obtained by CBS News, Warren said Mr. Trump and Musk's public disagreements about the upcoming reconciliation bill that escalated into a public online spat could "have serious implications for U.S. national security." The Massachusetts Democrat mentioned Mr. Trump's proposal to terminate Musk's government contracts and subsidies, which the world's richest man followed with a threat that SpaceX would "begin decommissioning its Dragon spacecraft immediately." Musk has since walked back his threat. "No petty social media fight between the president and a billionaire should jeopardize U.S. national security," Warren said. In addition to contingency plans for SpaceX, the senator asked for information regarding the impact on U.S. agencies' satellite communications if Musk's Starlink is turned off. Additionally, she asked Rubio to provide any analysis that the Trump administration has conducted "of its authorities and options under the Defense Production Act to address vendor lock, monopolies, or contractor refusal to meet national security needs." She asked to receive answers to her questions by June 14, whether through a classified briefing or preferably a public response that can be released to Congress and the public, the letter said. Warren has been a vocal opponent of Musk and his involvement in the Trump administration. Last week, she released a report that outlines instances her office has found of Musk benefiting from it. Musk's rocket company has received tens of billions of dollars from the federal government over the last decade, including $3.8 billion in the 2024 fiscal year alone, according to federal records. The bulk of those federal grants are from NASA, which has paid SpaceX billions over the last decade to ferry astronauts and supplies to and from the International Space Station. The agency has also awarded SpaceX upwards of $2 billion in recent years to design and build a lunar lander, as part of NASA's Artemis program, which aims to return humans to the moon for the first time in a half-century. While the public spat appears to have cooled somewhat, Mr. Trump told NBC News' Kristen Welker in a phone interview on Saturday that he has no plans to make up with the mega-billionaire. "I'm too busy doing other things," Trump continued. "You know, I won an election in a landslide. I gave him a lot of breaks, long before this happened, I gave him breaks in my first administration, and saved his life in my first administration, I have no intention of speaking to him." When asked by a reporter Friday if he's still considering rolling back subsidies to Musk as a money-saving move, Mr. Trump suggested he was open to it. "He's got a lot of money, he gets a lot of subsidy. So we'll take a look at that," the president said on Air Force One. "Only if it's fair for him and for the country. I would certainly think about it, but it has to be fair." This isn't the first time the president has needled Musk over his companies' federal subsidies. In a 2022 feud, Mr. Trump claimed Musk would be "worthless" without hefty subsidies for "electric cars that don't drive long enough" and "rocketships to nowhere." The two mended their relationship then and Musk spent hundreds of millions to help elect Mr. Trump in 2024. The billionaire went on to lead the Trump White House's cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency until last week. contributed to this report.

‘Cognitive dissonance': Trump's science policy at odds with MAHA goals
‘Cognitive dissonance': Trump's science policy at odds with MAHA goals

E&E News

time9 hours ago

  • E&E News

‘Cognitive dissonance': Trump's science policy at odds with MAHA goals

The White House's inaugural 'Make America Healthy Again' report decried industry influence over environmental regulations. President Donald Trump's scientific integrity order, signed one day later, doesn't even refer to political interference. The May 23 executive order spelling out the standards for top-tier science 'doesn't mention the elephant in the room, which is political interference,' said Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, who recently retired as EPA's head of its research office after nearly 40 years with the agency. 'In fact, they almost seem to be encouraging it,' she continued. Advertisement Absent from the order are any mentions about independence to ensure federal researchers can do their work without political influence. That could be crucial for EPA, where Trump administration officials are planning to dissolve the agency's only office dedicated to independent research.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store