Hey guys,
As the news keeps pouring in from Japan, the United States is forced to look at its own preparedness in terms of dealing with a similar disaster. While Hawaii and the California coast were hit with much smaller, less deadly versions of the tsunami, the United States has not had to deal with the mass destruction or loss of life.
Experts claim that an earthquake with a magnitude of around 8.0 will most likely occur along California’s San Andreas Fault within the next thirty years. While a tsunami would not result from such an earthquake because of the fault’s location, the damage to California could be devastating. Scientists claim that most of California’s buildings are not really designed to withstand the massive shaking which would result from such an earthquake.
In fact the recent proposed budget from California lawmakers has cuts to the programs responsible for earthquake research and response programs.
That’s the west coast… what about all of us on the east coast? Let’s just say that we are a little less prepared. And yes, earthquakes do happen here. The last recorded quake hit southern New England on March 11, 2008! Granted it was only a 2.0, but still…
In 1976 a 3.5 earthquake hit near Newport and experts claim that in the past larger, more devastating quakes have occurred. Early settlers dealt with a major quake in the 1600’s and in 1755 a quake estimated at a 6.0 hit parts of Massachusetts all the way to Maine! The loss of life was minimal because of the population and the size of the buildings then… clearly that would not be the case now.
What do you think?
We live in a fairly safe part of the world....except for an occasional blizzard or hurricane, but small ones. That doesen't mean it won't happen, but we can't spend all that money making the state "Quake-Proof". We need more plows than Earthquake proof buildings. As for California, i hope that 8.0 doesen't happen when i visit in April.
ReplyDelete~Victoria D. Pr.5
What I think is keeping Californians from spending money on earthquake research is the fact that the state is already in so much debt. They need to worry about immediate problems before something that could happen thirty years down the road. Although it's a threat, the citizens need to prioritize and choose what they think is more important.As for the east coast, a 2.5 earthquake is nothing to go crazy over. The damage would be minimal and the risk of death would be very low. What it all comes down to is what the locals feel has to be done first.
ReplyDeleteBeing a paranoid person, I am always terrified on some cataclysmic earthquake or natural disaster happening in the United States, more specifically Rhode Island. As I have said before, we are such a small state that a large-magnitude earthquake could rip us in half, and a tsunami could put the entire state underwater. The concept is absolutely terrifying. The situation in California, however, is a slightly different story.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I think it is a very ridiculous idea to cut programs that research earthquakes in California. I could see this occurring in Kansas, Nebraska, or Oklahoma, where tornadoes are the main cause of destruction, but in California? The state lies near two massive faults. If an 8.0, or greater, earthquaker occurs, with little knowledge of the effects that it could have on the buildings and foundations that they are built upon, the damage could be devastating. Of course, the entire process is a waiting game. Thirty years is quite a long time; and this is not some sort of put-it-off-until-tomorrow situation. The research has to be done to protect California, and buildings have to be structured for safety, and be able to remain relatively strong during an earthquake. Essentially, there has to be measures taken to protect both the eastern and western coasts in the event of an earthquake.
While the chances of having a major earthquake in our part of the country are much lower, it is still possible. Therefore, research must be done, and our buildings and homes must be constructed to better withstand the shaking of an earthquake.
-Jake M.
California should reconsider the budget cuts. It's not like it's in the middle of the country, away from oceans and most other natural disasters. Because it's on the coast and its relatively flat geography, it's vulnerable to typhoons, tsunamis, and flooding in general. Being on a major fault line doesn't help too much either. Statistically speaking, they are probably the most at risk in the U.S. to have a major earthquake. Why would they cut budgets on programs that could potentially save thousands of lives? Makes sense, until the 8.0 rips the state in half. Then they'll be crying about what-ifs and we-should-haves. On the east coast, I'd say cut budgets on earthquake facilities. California? I don't think so.
ReplyDeleteI think that cutting costs in earthquake prevention is a very dangerous thing to do in California because if an earthquake were to happen, it would be a disaster. Considering there probably won’t be an earthquake for another 30 years though, it makes more sense to use the money to go towards fixing current conditions. What they might want to try is when they build a new building, make it earthquake proof and not worry so much about the old buildings.
ReplyDeleteLiving in the east, we do not have a very big issue with earthquakes. The occasional earthquake that we have is not strong enough to cause a big disaster. The money being spent on earthquake protection should go toward helping the economy or schools or more pressing matters.
Melissa Abels
Im scared of living in New England and that to in the Ocean State. We're mostly surrounded by water and it is possible for us to have a devasting tsunami, God forbids, but just saying. All of US should be prepared for the quakes because you never know when could be the next time. I don't feel Japan was fully prepared and they are in such a sad and devasting crisis right now. I don't even like to think about what would happen or how it would be if we ever went through a crisis like that.
ReplyDelete-Saman
If that 8.0 happens in California, say bye bye to that portion of the state. I'm wondering if Japan will even go back to the way it was before the disaster.
ReplyDeleteI am absolutely fascinated by the quickness of worldwide disasters. The tsunami that hit Japan was horrifying, and most definitely devastating. I'm thankful that the US has not been hit with many quakes of major tsunami's but we need not forget about other weather disasters such as Katrina, floods all throughout the east coast, mudslides and wild fires in Colorado and California and other unknown wonders. I'm not saying that we're the victims amongst this, because fortunately we haven't lost as much as other places like Japan and Haiti have.
ReplyDeleteEver since 6th grade I've been hearing that the East Coast is due for a major earthquake and that California is also in a sticky situation with the San Andreas Fault. Any natural destruction to our country would be just devastating but as far as cutting budgets go, I'd say California is crazy. People always think of the moment and never think of the tomorrow. When in reality, It could happen tomorrow..