of course there's no tsunami... which would occur from a subduction quake which could only occur miles off the coast and *shock* Seattle's not on the coast. It's bullshit to even put "tsunami not expected" ...well neither is a tornado or swarm of locust.
Even the NOAA Tsunami report says:
"Because the nature of the tsunami depends on the initial deformation of the earthquake,
which is poorly understood, the largest source of uncertainty is the input earthquake. The
earthquake scenario used in this modeling was selected to honor the paleoseismic
constraints, but the next Seattle fault earthquake may be substantially different from these.
Sherrod and others (2000) show that an uplift event at Restoration Point predating the A.D.
900–930 event was smaller. Trenching of subsidiary structures to the Seattle fault that are
thought to be coseimic with the main fault trace (Nelson and others, 2002) indicate that there
were at least two earthquakes in the 1500 years before the A.D. 900–930 event. These,
however, did not produce prominent uplifted wavecut platforms similar to the one made by
the A.D. 900–930 event, suggesting that significant earthquakes have occurred on the fault
that had different and smaller uplifts in central Puget Sound."
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/pubs/PDF/wals27…
In English: "We really are just speculating with this ridiculous map and the largest quake in known history did not produce tsunamis anywhere near the height as this scare tactic scenario aimlessly speculates at and quakes before that didn't even register."