1. This documentary used several pieces of evidence to support their claim that we are in a dangerous location. What were those pieces of evidence? List them.

-They can trace earthquakes in banks of rivers and streams and they found evidence of a big one about 300 years ago.

-A huge forest was killed (about 300 years ago)

-Natives have stories of a huge earthquake and tsunami before the Europeans came (about 300 years ago)

-In japan they recorded a Tsunami that they didn’t know where it came from 300 years ago.

-The Japanese said they’ve never seen anything like it, and the tsunami killed whole forests.

-Subduction zone earthquakes are worse because when it slips it send huge earthquake waves.

-The fault line goes from Oregon to British Coloumbia, making it effect a big range of places, and for a long time (about 5 minutes)

-Citites like Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver have huge populations, and a potential threat is Skyscrapers falling.

2. Using the list of evidence above, explain why one of those pieces of evidence alone is not enough, but why together they make the documentary’s argument credible.

-The native story that there was a huge earthquake and tsunami, they can’t prove to us that it happend.

-But finding proof of an Earthquake in the soil of the riverbank and a forest destroyed by a tsunami (both 300 years ago).

3. This documentary comments on the destruction a seismic event could have on Vancouver. Describe what you learned from this documentary on how Vancouver could be impacted.

-Skyscrapers

-since we are sheltered by Vancouver Island I don’t think the Tsunami will reach us.

-long duration of Earthquake effecting buildings and people’s lives.