On October 17th, 1989, a 6.9 magnitude earthquake hit the San Francisco Bay Area and killed 67 people. Although the earthquake was one of the biggest in US history, it killed a relatively small amount of people but caused more than $5 billion in damages. One of the biggest devastations of the '89 quake was the collapse of a segment of the Bay Bridge that killed many. This and other destructions of infrastructure led the California government to invest their money into making what they rebuild earthquake proof.
Since the '89 earthquake, California and the Bay Area have done a lot to ensure that the buildings, roads, and bridges ruined during the quake would be rebuilt to withstand future disasters. One of the biggest investments was the replacement of an entire span of the Bay Bridge that would be able to withstand another earthquake of that magnitude. So, a new eastern portion of the bridge was built between 2002 and 2013 that was 'earthquake proof'. The total cost of the new span of the bridge was $6.4 billion dollars.
The Bay Area is very prone to earthquakes because it sits on the San Andreas fault, which was the cause of both the 1906 and 1989 earthquakes. According to several geologists who have observed and studied the San Andreas fault, an earthquake with an approximated magnitude of 8.0 is due to hit very soon. The Bay Area and broader United States are fortunate due to their ability to prepare for future disasters by investing in getting buildings up to code and building infrastructure that can withstand powerful disasters. But what about other countries that do not have the means, man power, or money to do such investments?
Collapsing infrastructure is one of the main ways people die in earthquakes, and must be a main focus in places where earthquakes are prone to happening. If a densely populated country along a fault line is unable to strengthen their buildings and bridges, then should the rest of the world just leave them to suffer when disaster does strike? Or should INGO's and other governments help these countries now to reduce casualties when an earthquake does occur?
http://www.history.com/topics/1989-san-francisco-earthquake
http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2016/05/08/san-andreas-fault-brink-devastating-earthquake/#af9e445e44eb
Your question, about countries who can not afford to build infrastructure to with stand earthquakes, reminds me of what happened in Haiti. Many lives could have been saved if they had better infrastructure.
ReplyDelete