etworks.com.au> 3189550a   
   XPost: alt.building.construction, alt.trades.construction.us, alt.survival   
   XPost: alt.construction, alt.talk.weather, rec.travel.usa-canada   
   From: newsonespam-spam@woa.com.au   
      
   Harbin Osteen wrote:   
      
   > Hi Jack:   
   > Yea, they could be a prob, but with a burm house (half in the ground, and   
   covered with earth)   
   > would be safe in a earthquake, because it moves with the earth, and building   
   on the south   
   > slope of  a hill to take advantage of alternative power should get you above   
   any tsunami.   
      
   I think your assumption is wrong.   
   Earth quakes travel by pressure waves through the ground.   
   When the earthquake reaches your house, it is simple going to punch in   
   the wall on the source side, unless it is sufficently strong (and   
   massively costly) to effectively resist that force.   
      
   AFAIKI, all earthquake design is about resisting the destruction of   
   building to give people time to evacuate to a "safer" area.   
      
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)