Is The United States Just Lucky?

[Janice]

In our time here, we have not seen any real damage from nature. Yes, we had canes that killed a few thousand, but nothing like the tsunami that killed over 200,000 and aids and starvation that kills millions in Africa. Starvation caused mainly from draughts. What could possibly happen from nature to the United States that would cause great harm? Do we really need to be worried here, are we safer than other countries? We are lucky we get warnings, etc.

[Aslkahuna]

We weren't always lucky for in our past diseases like Cholera and Yellow Fever would take out large numbers of people and the 1918 Flu Pandemic wasn't so easy on us. Beyond that it has been a combination of luck and skill that have prevented worse disasters though the potential for a really bad one is lurking out there somewhere-most likely a seismic or volcanic event and their consequences. The luck factor has come into play in most of the bad CA earthquakes since of the recent ones they have either been way out in the desert or occurred during early morning hours-only the Loma Prieta occurred during the Rush Hour and that on a day when everyone went home early to watch the World Series game being played in SFO so traffic on the 880 was much light than usual. The 1906 Earthquake killed some 3-5000 but the Bay Area didn't even have the population that San Francisco alone has today. Likewise the Long Beach shock of 1933 which occurred after the collapsing schools had let out for the day and when the LA area was nothing like the population center it is today.

Steve


Steve

[Janice]

Thanks, that was a great and informative answer.

[The Big Dog]

I think our technological advantage over the Third World has a lot to do with it in terms of our ability to dispense quick information, the structures we live and work in, and just our general knowledge of nature and the world around us. I'm not sure luck has much to do with it, especially since I've heard it said that the U.S. has the most violent weather of any country in the world.

Think about this: Hurricane Andrew killed less than 50 people in the U.S. If that same storm were to strike, say, Bangladesh, God alone knows how many people would die. Our history says possibly hundreds of thousands. Was Miami "luckier"? Of course not, but we know more about building sturdier structures and evacuating people to higher ground. The same could be said (and has been proven) for a 7-point earthquake if it were to strike Los Angeles versus Iran.

As for drought and the ability to feed ourselves, well, I wouldn't call it luck either. Our early farmers settled where the fertile land is, and we have gained enough wealth through various means where we can buy what we can't make for ourselves. That said, who knows what the future will bring. Climate change could certainly shift farming areas and create deserts where there was once fertile ground.

[streetsoldier]

Not to put a damper on our "good fortune", but...should the New Madrid Fault strike as hard as in 1811-12 (which is long overdue historically), the central U.S., from Chicago to New Orleans to Pittsburgh would suffer immense human losses. These are estimated at 50 million+ within the first 24 hours...more as days go into weeks.

Then, there would be the residual effects; gas/oil/chemical explosions, leakage, plus the damage to all of the buildings (bridges, skyscrapers, etc.) that are in the "zone" (500-mile radius) that are NOT built to withstand such forces. Outside the immediate zone, damages/injuries and deaths will still be a potent factor.

Forget the National Guard/Reserves; those units within these states will be "gone", as will most of the police-fire-EMT-FEMA responses. Those who do survive will be on their own for at least three weeks (as the outer ring will be dealt with first, then moving inland to the epicenter). They will not only have to stay alive with what they have, but DEFEND themselves against those who were unprepared, those who become mentally deranged, and criminal predators; any of which will kill for what they need. It isn't pretty, but there it is.

Now, then; I have to pay attention to this (a) because I was once a FEMA Director and learned about the potential while in training, and (b) because I live but 20-25 miles NNW of the 1811-12 epicenter.

Of course, I do not expect to survive the first hour, yet...hope springs eternal.

[kevin]

In our time here, we have not seen any real damage from nature. Yes, we had canes that killed a few thousand, but nothing like the tsunami that killed over 200,000 and aids and starvation that kills millions in Africa. Starvation caused mainly from draughts. What could possibly happen from nature to the United States that would cause great harm? Do we really need to be worried here, are we safer than other countries? We are lucky we get warnings, etc.

First of all let us separate natural disasters from man made disasters.

Hurricanes, tsunamis, and in Aslkahuna's words 'seismic events' are natural.

Starvation, aids, and the other misfortunes of Africa are almost entirely man-made. There is enough food to go about and feed the world. AIDS could be opposed in Africa by a program of education, prevention, and stability (there are paramilitaries who rape and cause the disease to spread among their enemies).

Truth is, the United States is the most powerful nation on the planet, and has the economic means to meet any disaster with assistance, where you see hundreds of thousands die : they do not have effective government or the economic resources to cope.

[The Big Dog]

I was going to mention New Madrid, but I felt that we would still fare better than other countries. I've never heard anyone say 50+ million, however. I think FEMA has estimated 15,000 -- they still rate it behind the New Orleans Cat 5 scenario. Not that FEMA knows all, of course, but I seriously doubt 50 million dead -- I just can't see how. I don't think an 8-point shockwave in St. Louis would bring down buildings in Chicago. That said, it would certainly be the worst natural disaster this country's ever seen, and yes, it's just a matter of time, and no, they're not even close to prepared for this.

Could happen in New York, too.

[streetsoldier]

The huge figure takes into account immediate deaths, peripheral damages/injuries resulting in deaths, related pollution to air and water supplies causing death/serious injury, and sheer panic-related fatalities...all within the first day or two.

BTW, the ONLY building STL has that's built to withstand an 8.2+ is the Gateway Arch. As to STL being built on rocky bluffs, that only potentiates the damage (unlike down here, where the soil will "roll" and liquefy to some extent, allowing many to escape the initial shockwaves).

I was in north STL County in 1969 when we experienced a 6.7 tremor; it lasted but 15 seconds, but produced $15,000,000 in damage in the Greater St. Louis area. Our home alone had its roof moved 2-3" off-beam, and the next-door bar lost about $3,000 in shattered assorted booze bottles, glassware and burst beer barrels in storage.

I do NOT underestimate what a "big one" is capable of.

[Petmom]

In our time here, we have not seen any real damage from nature. Yes, we had canes that killed a few thousand, but nothing like the tsunami that killed over 200,000 and aids and starvation that kills millions in Africa. Starvation caused mainly from draughts. What could possibly happen from nature to the United States that would cause great harm? Do we really need to be worried here, are we safer than other countries? We are lucky we get warnings, etc.

I just watched the Discovery Channel this evening, it was a show about a super volcano at Yellowstone National Park. The movie was made up, but they had real interviews with people after, and I thought it was interesting.

http://dsc.discovery.com/convergence/su ... lcano.html

[Janice]

Yes, I just saw that too. It could very well happen.

When I mentioned Africa, Aids and starvation from droughts are considered nature. Man did not cause them. All virus's are spread from man to man or animal to man, man did not make the origional virus. And the drought is not giving Africa a place for growing their own food. We can feed them, but we did not cause the drought.

[kevin]

I'm afraid I think you're wrong. Starvation is politics, drought more than often is political (look at Zimbabwe), and AIDs is spread in Africa by people who engage either in unsafe sex or in the thousands of cases of war related rape.

These are caused by people. More correctly they are caused by poor ineffective governments.

[vbhoutex]

Kevin, please explain how you think drought is political. I think I know what you are saying, but I would like your explanation.

[Janice]

Ok, what is the difference in Aids spreading and plagues and fevers? Man or animals spread them all. Cholera and other flu. Non of these are man made.

[kevin]

Starvation, aids, and the other misfortunes of Africa are almost entirely man-made.

Alright, the topic of this thread is why is America always lucky while the world suffers. I propose that there are two classes of disasters. The first is caused by the earth, that is geophysical. The other class is caused by man. With the first class, industrial nations like the USA are able to faster respond. In the later class, industrial nations are often able to avoid from the start.

Starvation :
The world produces more food than is necessary for consumption. The reason why people starve is there is not an efficient system for distributing the food. In some places thugs stop the aid from being delivered. A case in point would be Somalia where aid was used as a weapon.

AIDS :
Industrial nations have available supplies such as condoms, and have treatment for those who suffer. The third world does not have available supplies of condoms. Neither is there education in the prevention of sexually transmitted disease. Furthermore, in the case of Africa, there are men who come down with HIV and believe that a way of curing themselves is to pass the disease to young girls. Also statistics indicate that paramilitaries, militaries, and criminals are active vectors in Africa. They may do so willingly as a weapon, or as a byproduct of their marauding behavior.

Drought :
Surely the rain has nothing to do with man! Not so. In many cases where we hear about drought, it is really just ineffective government. Similar occurances within industrialized nations are met with efforts to divert or conserve water resources. This is also used as a way of getting aid, when in fact the problem is seizure of land (e.g., Zimbabwe). I am no expert on these things, but when your government does not promote irrigation programs while it is starving from a drought, the problem isn't nature : its weak government. In the American Southwest agriculture occurs under low water conditions, because we have intellectual capital along with dollars and cents.

[canegrl04]

I think deadly viruses,floods and earthquakes are about the only things we cannot control.

[Janice]

I sometimes wonder how bad forest fires could get. Seems like we lose thousands of acres each year. What if we had a really horrible season.

And, I do worry about a tsunami off the west coast too. I do not think all scientists know what plates are shifting and where they are.

[Aslkahuna]

The tsunami threat to the Pacific NW is very real-the evidence is strong that a major one occurred along the OR/WA in January 1700. As for New Madrid. It's important to point out that the 1811-12 shocks along that fault brought chimneys down in BOSTON MA and caused damage in DC. The makeup of the ground in that part of the Country results in strong shock waves being transmitted over much larger distances than for similar shocks in CA. Chicago would get roughed up pretty badly by a repeat.

Steve

[Aslkahuna]

Forest fires could be a problem as people move in the countryside. The Peshtigo Fire on the same night as the Chicago Fire killed some 1800 people and totally wiped out the town.

Steve

[streetsoldier]

The tsunami threat to the Pacific NW is very real-the evidence is strong that a major one occurred along the OR/WA in January 1700. As for New Madrid. It's important to point out that the 1811-12 shocks along that fault brought chimneys down in BOSTON MA and caused damage in DC. The makeup of the ground in that part of the Country results in strong shock waves being transmitted over much larger distances than for similar shocks in CA. Chicago would get roughed up pretty badly by a repeat.

Steve

Thank's Steve, for the additional input.

[Brent]

A major quake on the New Madrid would be UGLY for a lot of people. Remember... there are no 10,000+ foot mountains to absorb the shock here. Also remember that structures(including skyscrapers) in the Eastern half of the Country are NOT built to withstand large earthquakes...

Look at this... this is what a mere 6.8 would do(remember, the 1811-1812 quakes were greater than 8)... also compare the area affected to the Northridge 1994 quake.