Scientists Warn a 'Megaquake' Event in Coastal Cities Could Be 'Imminent'
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
A scientist has warned that "the next big event" could be "imminent" if a megaquake shakes the Pacific Northwest.
Tina Dura, a geosciences professor at Virginia Tech, was the lead author on a new study that examined the risk of major coastal flooding in Washington, Oregon, and Northern California from two factors happening together: powerful earthquakes and rising sea levels due to climate change.
'We worry about the next big event being imminent'
Normally, scientists and planners consider rising oceans caused by melting ice and warming water.
But Dura's group took a closer look at a different threat that could happen very suddenly—land dropping by up to two meters during a major earthquake along the Cascadia subduction zone, which stretches from Northern California to Washington.
Stock image.
Stock image.
Photo by Allan Swart / Getty Images
Dura said the researchers worry about "the next big event being imminent" since more than 300 years have passed since the last significant earthquake.
"We expect something like the Japan 2011 and Sumatra 2004 earthquakes and tsunamis to occur there," Dura told Accuweather.
In an email to Newsweek, Dura clarified that the next great Cascadia earthquake could be "tomorrow or decades from now".
"But geologically speaking, we're well within the window of possibility. The last event was in 1700, and paleoseismic records show these earthquakes recur roughly every 200 to 800 years," she said.
"The National Seismic Hazard model shows that there is a 15% chance of a large (over magnitude 8) earthquake happening sometime in the next 50 years.
"By 2100, there is a 30% chance of a large earthquake happening. To me, those probabilities are high enough that we should be preparing for the effects of such an earthquake."
Why Earthquakes Are So Impactful on the West Coast
Earthquakes on the West Coast are especially dangerous because of the region's position along the Cascadia Subduction Zone, a fault line where the Juan de Fuca plate is slowly sliding beneath the North American plate.
This tectonic boundary is capable of producing megathrust earthquakes that strike with little warning and affect hundreds of miles of coastline simultaneously.
Unlike smaller, localized faults, Cascadia events can trigger widespread land subsidence, powerful tsunamis and long-lasting infrastructure failures, making them among the most catastrophic natural hazards in North America.
Why It Matters
The potential for a great earthquake is a massive flood risk multiplier.
The study found that if a major Cascadia earthquake struck today, floodplains could grow by as much as 300 square kilometers (about 116 square miles), more than doubling the number of homes, roads, and structures exposed to flooding.
By 2100, when climate-driven sea-level rise is projected to significantly worsen baseline flood levels, that number could climb even higher—up to 370 square kilometers (143 square miles), tripling the exposure.
"The risks from a Cascadia earthquake go beyond shaking and tsunamis," Dura told Newsweek.
"Sudden land subsidence during the quake can instantly expand flood zones and leave low-lying areas permanently more vulnerable to flooding, especially as sea levels rise.
"These overlapping hazards can turn a bad disaster into a much worse one if we don't plan ahead with the full picture in mind."
What To Do
Dura said preparation should take place on multiple fronts.
"At the individual level, people should know their evacuation zones, have a go-bag ready, and plan for at least a week without outside help," Dura told Newsweek.
"At the societal level, we need to invest in resilient infrastructure, update land-use plans to reflect compound hazards like flood plain expansion after earthquakes, and prioritize the most vulnerable communities in emergency planning."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
Trump admin plans first ‘Golden Dome' test of space-based missile defense system: report
Pentagon officials are aiming to test President Trump's space-based Golden Dome missile defense system to safeguard the US in the fourth quarter of 2028, according to a report. That timeframe lines up with Trump's ambitious goal to 'have it done in three years' and comes amid pitches from defense contractors to score coveted contracts to develop the cutting-edge system. 'They want a win to point to in November [2028],' a defense official told CNN. 'And DoD [Department of Defense] wants to avoid anything they perceive will slow them down.' Advertisement The test, which will be conducted by the Missile Defense Agency, is expected to be called FTI-X, which stands for 'Flight Test Integrated,' in a nod to how it will assess the Golden Dome's vast array of sensors and weapons systems, according to the report. Development of the state-of-the-art missile defense system is expected to cost about $175 billion, according to Trump, who tapped Gen. Michael Guetlein, vice chair of operations at the Space Force, to oversee the ambitious project in May. 4 President Trump wants the US to develop a state-of-the-art missile defense system to protect the homeland from advanced attacks. Getty Images Advertisement 4 The Golden Dome system is intended to safeguard the colossal continental US. AP Congress has already allocated $25 billion in funding for the Golden Dome in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Trump signed into law last month. Military officials have explored space-based missile defense technologies for decades, including during Ronald Reagan's Star Wars program, also known as the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). Space-based missile defense technology can be advantageous because it can help thwart an enemy missile much earlier in its trajectory than other technologies that the US currently has in its arsenal. Advertisement It can also reduce geographical barriers and catch certain types of enemy missiles at a stage when they are slower and easier to intercept. However, there are many drawbacks. The US would need to make significant technological advances to develop that system, which is likely to be very costly and could entice other countries to weaponize space. 4 Skeptics have raised questions about whether the Golden Dome can be completed on time and within the budget President Trump laid out. Getty Images The defense official called it a 'hard problem, and technically very risky,' CNN reported. Advertisement 'The possible number of satellites needed to achieve a probability of engagement success is going to be very high, given the time and area needed to cover the continental United States,' the defense official said. Plans for the test in 2028 are expected to be 'phase one' of the project. A deluge of defense contractors and other private companies have been jockeying for contracts to help develop the massive defense system. Precise details of how the Golden Dome system will function are not fully known. Trump has taken inspiration from Israel's feted Iron Dome system, which helps defend populated areas from short-range attacks. Trump's plans would encompass much more sophisticated missiles, such as ballistic and hypersonic missiles, that may potentially be fired off from much more distant locations than what Iron Dome defends against. 'Once fully constructed, the Golden Dome will be capable of intercepting missiles even if they are launched from other sides of the world,' Trump teased in May. 4 Precise details about how the Golden Dome system will function are not clear. Getty Images Guetlein has admitted that the Pentagon faces enormous challenges in successfully completing the project. Advertisement 'I think the real technical challenge will be building of the space-based interceptor,' Guetlein said at a summit last month. 'That technology exists, I believe. I believe we have proven every element of the physics, that we can make it work.' 'What we have not proven is, first, can I do it economically, and then second, can I do it at scale? Can I build enough satellites to get after the threat? Can I expand the industrial base fast enough to build those satellites?' The initiative comes amid advancements in the American space industry, with tycoons such as Elon Musk working to bring down the costs of launching satellites. The Defense Department didn't reply to a request for comment Sunday.
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
What to know about the earthquake that shook the New York area Saturday night
There were no initial reports of serious injuries or significant damage in New Jersey or across the Hudson River in New York City. City officials said that as of late Sunday morning they had not been called to respond to any building-related issues. The Big Apple has more than 1 million buildings. Many posts on social media reported the ground rumbling, and the U.S. Geological Survey reported more than 10,000 responses to its 'Did You Feel It?' website. Advertisement Though people in the United States might associate earthquakes more often with the West Coast, scientists say these types of incidents on the East Coast are not unlikely. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up How frequent are earthquakes in the New York area? The area feels an earthquake about once every couple of years. 'The northeast part of the United States does not see large earthquakes very often,' said Jessica Turner, a geophysicist with the National Earthquake Information Center, which is a part of the USGS. Since 1950, only 43 other quakes of this magnitude and larger have occurred within 155 miles (250 kilometers) of Saturday's event, according to the USGS. A much larger, 4.8-magnitude quake that struck in Tewksbury, New Jersey, a little farther west of the city, in April 2024 was felt as far away as Boston and Baltimore. Some flights were diverted or delayed after that quake, and Amtrak slowed trains throughout the busy Northeast corridor. Advertisement A smaller, 1.7 magnitude earthquake that hit the Astoria section of Queens, New York, in January 2024 stirred residents. The region sees a more damaging one only a couple times a century, if that. New York was damaged in 1737 and 1884 by earthquakes, according to USGS data. How do East Coast earthquakes compare with West Coast ones? The difference between East Coast and West Coast quakes lies in the 'mechanism,' said seismologist Lucy Jones. California is at the edge of the San Andreas fault system, which has two tectonic plates: the Pacific Ocean plate and the North American plate. Two plates move and push to build up stress, meaning earthquakes happen relatively frequently. New York falls in the middle of a plate, far from the nearest boundaries in the center of the Atlantic Ocean and in the Caribbean Sea — resulting in residual stresses and making it difficult to predict where earthquakes will occur. The area is also home to the well-known Ramapo Fault line. Geologists have not seen evidence that would suggest it has had a large earthquake in some time, but there have been smaller ones. Saturday's quake cannot necessarily be associated with this fault, experts say. The same size earthquake is felt over a much larger area in New York than it would be in California. 'The rocks on the East Coast are particularly cold and hard and therefore, do a better job of transmitting the energy,' said Jones. In California, the various faults are more akin to a broken bell, which doesn't transmit energy as well. Does this signal more to come? Every earthquake makes another one more likely, but within a range, scientists say. Advertisement 'At just 3.0, the chances are there will not be another felt event,' Jones said, estimating about a 50-50 chance there will be no activity that can be recorded. 'Most likely is an unfelt, magnitude 1 or 2 aftershock.' Associated Press writers Julie Walker in New York City and Michael Hill in Altamont, New York, contributed.
Newsweek
3 hours ago
- Newsweek
Processed Food May Raise Lung Cancer Chances—Scientists
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. A new large-scale study has found that people who consume higher amounts of ultra-processed foods (UPF) face a significantly increased risk of developing lung cancer. Published in the medical journal Thorax, researchers from Chongqing University in China analyzed the dietary patterns of over 100,000 adults and found that those with the highest intake of UPF had a 41 percent greater chance of being diagnosed with the disease. Newsweek contacted the American Lung Association for comment via email on Sunday. Why It Matters Processed food has already been linked to numerous chronic health conditions, including obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. This new research adds lung cancer to the growing list of serious health concerns associated with the modern industrial diet. With UPF making up a substantial portion of many people's daily intake, the findings raise urgent public health questions about food quality, regulation, and long-term health outcomes. Stock image of a selection of ultra-processed-foods. Stock image of a selection of To Know The study drew on data from the U.S. Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial, following more than 100,000 adults aged between 55 and 74 over a period of 12 years. Among participants, those in the highest quartile of UPF intake faced a markedly higher risk of developing lung cancer, even after researchers adjusted for smoking, socioeconomic status, and other lifestyle factors. UPF in the study included packaged snacks, instant noodles, sweetened beverages, processed meats, frozen meals, and industrial baked goods. Notably, the increased risk applied to both major forms of the disease, non-small cell lung cancer and small cell lung cancer (NSCLC and SCLC). The researchers found that even after accounting for smoking, which remains the leading cause of lung cancer, diet remained an independent risk factor. The study concluded that higher consumption of UPF is associated with an increased risk of lung cancer, NSCLC, and SCLC. Although additional research in other populations and settings is warranted, these findings suggest the health benefits of limiting intake. Public health experts have long warned that UPF, while convenient and inexpensive, carry long-term health risks that are often underestimated. Critics point out that these foods are not only nutrient-poor, but often high in sugar, sodium, and additives that may interfere with normal metabolic and immune functions. BMJ Group, publisher of the British Medical Journal, noted that as this is an observational study, "no firm conclusions can be drawn about cause and effect," with researchers unable to factor in smoking intensity, which may have been influential. "In addition, dietary information was collected only once, so couldn't account for changes over time, and the number of cancer diagnoses was small." Although the study was observational and cannot confirm a direct cause-and-effect relationship, researchers said the strength of the association warrants serious attention. Some experts, however, cautioned against drawing firm conclusions from observational data alone, urging further research to explore underlying mechanisms. What People Are Saying Kevin McConway, emeritus professor of applied statistics at The Open University, per Science Media Center: "It's yet another of a class of studies about ultra-processed foods that, in my view, are doing nothing much to advance what is known about associations between the consumption of UPFs and human health. "I'm well aware that studies with other kinds of methodology are going on—I just wish that researchers would concentrate more on those other types of research, instead of repeatedly cranking the handle of doing studies like this one." What Happens Next The study may intensify calls for clearer food labeling, public education campaigns, and stronger policy action to reduce the dominance of UPF in the global food supply. Future studies could examine specific ingredients and production processes to determine what aspects of UPF may contribute most to cancer risk. In the meantime, health authorities are likely to renew efforts to promote diets based on minimally processed, whole foods—such as fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and lean proteins—as a way to reduce cancer and other chronic disease risks.
