Oct 1, 2011 -- 7:24PM, TemplarS wrote:

Oct 1, 2011 -- 4:24AM, DotNotInOz wrote:

 

Nowhere is as safe as we'd like, as we're all aware, but I agree that it does seem foolish to have rebuilt San Francisco when there was a vast territory with many safer areas for a city. But then, perhaps people didn't know that future catastrophic quakes were more likely than not there. We know so much more today about the conditions that result in more severe earthquakes in some places than others.  

 

Quite the opposite; there had been a major quake in the Bay area 40 years before the '06 quake, and the area was known to be prone to quakes (a good read on the '06 quake is "A Crack in the Edge of the World" by Simon Winchester).  But as usual (see: global warming debate of the late 20th/early 21st century), economic interests prevailed.

Hmmm...that does make sense; I stand corrected. It's been years since I read anything on the '06 San Francisco quake and then it was from a historical and sociological standpoint. Obviously, I was speaking out the wrong orifice. ;-)

I suspect that "This is home" was also a powerful factor for many people desiring to rebuild. A feeling of home overcomes more sensible considerations oftentimes in such circumstances.

Sep 30, 2011 -- 5:21PM, TemplarS wrote:

Sep 30, 2011 -- 4:48PM, Wanderingal wrote:

 

I wonder that the Japanese still live on that terribly dangerous island chain between the earthquakes and the volcanoes and the tsunamis.

People are like that.  They rebuilt San Francisco, didn't they, even though those people had a whole continent in which to relocate.  Anyhow, where would the Japanese go?

Nowhere is as safe as we'd like, as we're all aware, but I agree that it does seem foolish to have rebuilt San Francisco when there was a vast territory with many safer areas for a city. But then, perhaps people didn't know that future catastrophic quakes were more likely than not there. We know so much more today about the conditions that result in more severe earthquakes in some places than others.  

Another similar issue in the U.S. is people building homes in areas that periodically are subject to disaster such as the areas prone to mudslides or wildfires in California. That is somewhat more foolish, I'd say, since the frequency of mudslides and wildfires is much greater than that of major earthquakes.

But much of what people do doesn't make a great deal of sense...

Sep 30, 2011 -- 4:48PM, Wanderingal wrote:

 

I wonder that the Japanese still live on that terribly dangerous island chain between the earthquakes and the volcanoes and the tsunamis.

 

People are like that.  They rebuilt San Francisco, didn't they, even though those people had a whole continent in which to relocate.  Anyhow, where would the Japanese go?

I saw one of these- I believe it was "Surviving the Tsunami".

The live footage was frightening indeed.  

But one thing which struck me was this.  In spite of what must have be one of the most advanced tsunami warning systems around, and in spite of detailed response/evacuation plans:  

- People missed the warning.

- The effects were miscalculated (the water came far further inland in one area- Sendai plain, as I recall) than was thought possible.

- And serious mistakes were made.  A number of school children were moved from the third floor of their school to the ground floor gym, because it was thought the threat was over. Wrong: fortunately one parent saw the incoming water in time to move the kids back to safety.

When dealing with nature- no plans are foolproof.

I'll keep this near the top for a bit for anyone who might be interested in these amazing documentaries.