Glenn Ashmore wrote:
Most seismologists have discounted that as an absolote worst case
situation.
Far more likely that the side of the island will collaps in smaller
increments rather than all at once.

A far more likely East Coast Tsunami will be from a major slide off
the
North American contenental shelf in the mid-Atlantic region between
Charleston and Cape May. There have been several major slides there
in the
last few thousand years.

Another risk area is the Puerto Rico Trench. A collaps of the north
wall of
the trench will send a big wave into the Virgin Islands and most of
the
Leewards.The slip/strike zone there caused a pretty respectabe quake
just
north of Jost Van Dyke a couple of weeks ago.

The November issue of Boat/US magazine had an article about rouge waves
and gave a few paragraphs to tsunamis, noting they are more a hazard to
marinas and coastal cities that they are to vessels at sea.

They mentioned a 20 foot tsunami caused by a quake in the Puerto Rico
trench in 1918 killed 40 people. A tsunami from Chile hit Hilo, Hawaii
with 35 feet of water in 1960, killing 61... Over 50 tsunamis have hit
Hawaii since the 1800s.

An article in today's San Francisco Chronicle discussed prepartions
that the city is taking in the event of a tsumami warning. The article
had a 1964 photo of damage in Crescent City from a tsumani cause by the
big Alaska quake.

Hey! A big Alaska quake could possibly send a tsunami as far south as
San Francisco. What would be in the water? Imagine the tsunami
inundating western San Francisco, the water recedes, and you see a
polar bear walking the streets. Possible? Perhaps it wouldn't need to
even be a Alaskan tsunami to wash a polar bear into the city. City
disaster planners had a tsunami excercise back in September to reveal
some of the issues they may not have covered. One issue: The SF Zoo
is right across the street from Ocean Beach, and animals may get loose
if the zoo was flooded.