Table of Contents
Summary
The geological phenomena from the San Andreas earthquake cannot occur in real life. The film version was highly exaggerated with much fiction (Khoshmanesh et al. 18). Here is a breakdown of what the directors got right and wrong:
Correct
- They correctly predicted that an earthquake in Nevada might cause an earthquake in Los Angeles. A 7.1 magnitude earthquake in Nevada causes a 9.1 magnitude earthquake in Los Angeles, which causes a 9.6 magnitude earthquake in San Francisco. The triggering pattern is realistic when the magnitudes are adjusted to what is achievable on the San Andreas. Scientifically, an earthquake is likely to occur soon after another due to earthquake triggering.
Incorrect
- They represented faults spreading up into canyons due to the earthquake incorrectly. Earthquakes occur when two layers of the Earth squeeze on each other in a way that would never allow the distance between them to widen. Friction is required to cause the Earth to tremble. To correct this, only faults that do not create earthquakes can expand.
- Because the San Andreas is primarily on land, they were incorrect to depict that it created such a giant tsunami. Underwater faults are the most common source of tsunamis, although landslides and volcanoes may also generate them, and even meteor strikes. They could fix this by showing that the fault started underwater and extended to the mainland.
- They represented people fleeing during a large earthquake incorrectly. Like the one described in the San Andres film, a massive earthquake would knock people off balance. To fix this, they could have opted for the casts to drop down, take cover, and hang in there.
- They inaccurately depicted that San Francisco could experience a non-realistic earthquake with a magnitude of 9.6. They could fix this by using a quake with a magnitude of 8.3, likely to be the worst that could hit the Golden State.
Work Cited
Khoshmanesh, Mostafa, and Manoochehr Shirzaei. “Episodic creep events on the San Andreas Fault caused by pore pressure variations.” Nature Geoscience 11.8 (2018): 610-614.