Could ask the same about SF, LA, maybe Portland OR, Seattle, Vancouver and really anything in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Madrid_Seismic_Zone

I'd trust the Japanese more in anything related to earthquake proof building, in spite of their little fuck-up with Fukushima.

At the end of the day, no matter where and when you are, it's your mandatory share of risk in the lottery of life.

Deal with it.

The recent claim (maybe 10 ya) was that Yakuza influence forced inspectors to sign off on foundations that were not sound. So they do not have the required pilings. I don't know how that could be fixed, but I don't assert it couldn't be. I assume if it is, it would have been done by now.

> According to a study by Tokyo University, 87% of the city's buildings have been constructed according to modern anti-seismic standards.

Compare that to earthquake preparedness in Portland and Seattle. Being underprepared for the next Cascadia earthquake is a policy choice.

> ..Coastal areas in the region have prepared tsunami evacuation plans in anticipation of a possible future Cascadia earthquake.

> However, the major nearby cities, notably Seattle, Portland, Vancouver, Victoria, and Tacoma, which are located on inland waterways rather than on the coast, would be sheltered from the full brunt of a tsunami.

> These cities do have many vulnerable structures, especially bridges and unreinforced brick buildings; consequently, most of the damage to the cities would probably be from the earthquake itself.

> One expert asserts that buildings in Seattle are vastly inadequate even to withstand an event of the size of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, let alone any more powerful one.

> Kenneth Murphy, who directs FEMA's Region X, the division responsible for Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Alaska, put it quite dramatically: "Our operating assumption is that everything west of Interstate 5 will be toast."

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1700_Cascadia_earthquake#Futur...