Thanks for the comments. I went back and took a look at the 1964 Alaska earthquake - which as you pointed out was a whopping BIG event. It's amazing really that Alaska came out as well as it did ... considering the enormous size of that 9.2 quake. Based on population estimates, it looks like there were about 90,000-95,000 people living in Anchorage at the time. It's pretty miraculous that only 9 were killed - there must have definitely been factors that helped to save lives.

Personally, when I computed those numbers above for Los Angeles, I was thinking that 20,000-30,000 fatalities was really not that bad [of course - it's not great if you're one of them!]. It still means that 99% of the residents of L.A. would survive the event. The predictions on homeless numbers may be too high, but I guess it depends on how widespread the fire danger is. I can think of some suburbs of L.A. where homes are VERY close together, and they are 2-story (or 3-story) dwellings. There certainly will be structural damage. And you know how people handle fire risks in their homes ... I doubt that many residents are taking strict precautions with fire dangers & flammables. So the possibility of fires seems very plausible to me, and there's no way that anyone will stop fires in those high-density communities. I'm less comfortable with how the outcome might work out down here.

But I do appreciate the counterpoints that you are making. I'd like to hope that you are right.

Pete2