Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Would not it be wise then to condem and destroy such buildings NOW as opposed to waiting for the inevitable? It is not IF but WHEN an earthquake will hit. But Calfiornia has been hit by many quakes without buildings falling down and killing people. Even in the big quake that hit Reseda in the last 80s, some apartment buildings fell but few people died.
That's a LOT easier said than done. China's recent improvements have been INCREDIBLE, but as others have mentioned, you have thousands of years of infrastructure to rebuild. The US has only a couple of hundred years worth, and even WE have buildings on the East Coast that would not fair well in such a monstrous quake. Same is true of many cities in Europe (unless they were destroyed in the World Wars and then rebuilt to modern standards). That's the drawback of actually having some substantial history.
The fact is, it's going to take China a LONG time to bring so many buildings up to modern standards, but the fact is - as mentioned - most of the modern buildings did JUST FINE.
There were 115 deaths in Alaska from that quake (a huge 9.2 moment magnitude).
That is a big difference from the thousands killed in quakes in other areas... China, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Italy, Japan, etc.
And
1) the population of Alaska is SPARCE compared to those countries, with a MUCH lower population density.
2) Tell me exactly how many of those pre-existing hsitorical structures - you know, the ones that were built before modern engineering techniques and materials were devised - there are in Alaska will you?
The fact is, you can't easily compare one quake to another. Even the Richter factor gives only a partial view. Not all 7.9's are the same. The shallowness or depth of the quake will make a HUGE difference, as will the nature of the soil in the area, the closeness of the epicenter and the nature of the movement (whether "rolling", "side to side" or "up and down").
It's silly, ignorant, and pointless to compare one quake to another unless you are specifically schooled in such things - which, based on your comments, I rather doubt you are.
There were 115 deaths in Alaska from that quake (a huge 9.2 moment magnitude).
That is a big difference from the thousands killed in quakes in other areas... China, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Italy, Japan, etc.
You forget that Alaska is one of the least populated states in the country. So the low death number occured because there weren't that many people who were in the affected area to begin with.
They are saying 10,000 dead and rising. Lots of damage and fallen buildings. Contrast that with when the USA has earthquakes- we end up with a few broken windows and stuff on the floor. Our buildings don't fall down and people don't die here.
You forget that Alaska is one of the least populated states in the country. So the low death number occured because there weren't that many people who were in the affected area to begin with.
Back in 64...Alaska was pretty sparsly populated. Especially Anchorage. If we had the same earthquake today...the toll would be much worse.
Myth: The aftermath of Katrina will go down as one of the worst abandoments of Americans on American soil ever in U.S. history.
Fact: The response to Hurricane Katrina was by far the largest and fastest rescue effort in U.S. history, with nearly 100,000 emergency personnel arriving on the scene within 3 days of the storm's landfall.
Myth: The failure to evacuate was the tipping point for all the other things that went wrong.
Fact: When (Mayor) Nagin issued his voluntary evacuation order, a contraflow plan that turned inbound interstate lanes into outboard lanes enabled 1.2 million people to leave New Orleans out of a metro population of 1.5 million. The Corps estimated that 72 hours would be required to evacuate that many people; instead, it took 38 hours. Many who stayed did so by choice.
Really? Your "facts" seem to disagree with the official analyses conducted by the Congress and the Department of Homeland Security, among others.
The White House cited failures by the Homeland Security Department and other agencies in planning, communications and leadership in a report on Hurricane Katrina Thursday and proposed a broad reworking of how the government would respond to the next catastrophe.
You can read the official Homeland Security Report through this link if you wish.
Really? Your "facts" seem to disagree with the official analyses conducted by the Congress and the Department of Homeland Security, among others.
The White House cited failures by the Homeland Security Department and other agencies in planning, communications and leadership in a report on Hurricane Katrina Thursday and proposed a broad reworking of how the government would respond to the next catastrophe.
You can read the official Homeland Security Report through this link if you wish.
1) the population of Alaska is SPARCE compared to those countries, with a MUCH lower population density.
2) Tell me exactly how many of those pre-existing hsitorical structures - you know, the ones that were built before modern engineering techniques and materials were devised - there are in Alaska will you?
The fact is, you can't easily compare one quake to another. Even the Richter factor gives only a partial view. Not all 7.9's are the same. The shallowness or depth of the quake will make a HUGE difference, as will the nature of the soil in the area, the closeness of the epicenter and the nature of the movement (whether "rolling", "side to side" or "up and down").
It's silly, ignorant, and pointless to compare one quake to another unless you are specifically schooled in such things - which, based on your comments, I rather doubt you are.
Ken
I have reading about Seismology for 25 years, so I'm aware of the depth of earthquakes.
I'm well aware of the population of Alaska back in 1964. There is more to the story, though. Look at some of the photos of the city. A section of the main street dropped 10 to 20 feet, and yet many building still stood. Some didn't and some suffered a partial collapse, but many didn't withstand the shock waves. No way would the buildings in China hold up as well. THAT is one reason the casualties were so low in Alaska... in addition to a small population, the buildings were well-built.
But, based on your comments, I rather doubt you understand that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
*amazed by such ignorance*
