Here is a very interesting report from 2010 predicting what has now occurred in Nepal: http://t.co/fm6rGBTBVp This is a pdf file that will have to be downloaded to be read. The paper in question is the second one. It predicted damage similar to what occurred in Haiti in 2010, predicted that the quake would be seismically significant (>7.0) and would occur in the central region of Nepal. It also warned of similar vulnerabilities in other parts of the region such that similar tolls can be expected in other parts of the region in the future. Unless developing countries start taking measures to mitigate these risks, we are going to continue to see heavy tolls in these regions.
I wonder if they'll be saying the same thing when the San Andreas fault slips again. http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/earthq3/when.html
The difference is that the quakes on the fault in Nepal had a known periodicity (recently discovered). Sadly, only last week, scientists were in Nepal for a conference on the risk of a large quake there. Too little, too late, I suppose.
If they had the resources to mitigate those risks, they wouldn't be developing countries any more. I'm not sure what they could reasonable be expected to do, especially with limited outside support or assistance.
I wasn't suggesting that they must go it alone. But it is their country, and so they must take the lead on risk assessment and mitigation. We can help, and so can many others. What is really sad wrt to Nepal is that just last week scientists had met there to discuss the growing threat in the region.
And the San Andreas doesn't? Maybe you missed the part in the link that says "Geologic studies show that over the past 1,400 to 1,500 years large earthquakes have occurred at about 150-year intervals on the southern San Andreas fault." Guess when the last major quake on that portion occurred?
The periodicity of the San Andreas fault is longer than for the fault that ruptured in Nepal. Moreover Nepal's fault showed signs that it could fail at any time. And we are talking about two completely different tectonic settings. The Nepal fault is a megathrust (a much more damaging fault system), while the San Andreas is a right lateral transform fault. The worst part is that it likely isn't over. the history of this fault system is that when the central region fails, it transfers its strain to the adjacent section to the west, and so it is believed that this western section is now primed to fail.
You're missing my point. These huge disasters should be a thing of the past because there are many things that can be done to minimize the damage. It takes commitment and help from the international community, but it needs to be done, sooner rather than later.
You seem to be missing the point. Visit a third world country and witness true poverty. They don't have materials like steel rebar and modern concrete to make quake resistant buildings and bridges. The number one priority is usually potable water, number two is food. Of course, I assume you have already sent money to these countries, right?
The San Andreas is not a big worry. The New Madrid fault, if it really goes again, will make the San Andreas look like child's play. The thing is, it will go again, tomorrow, or 100 or 500 years from now. Such is the nature of really scary faults. California building codes recognize seismicity. St. Louis, not so much. (by "go again" I'm talking 7.8+)
Indonesia didn't have the money to set up a tsunami warning center either, but that didn't stop other nations (notably the U.S.) from helping them develop one. What is your problem, anyway? Are you suggesting that because poor people are poor that we should just ignore them and let nature takes its course? Because that would be selfish and inhumane.
Other countries was willing to set up a tsunami warning center for Indonesia because it was a benefit to said countries. But we aren't talking about a few million to set up some electronic gear are we? No, to reinforce all the building in every third world country would cost tens of trillions of dollars if not more. Food and clean water is a better way to spend that money.
This comment pretty much sums up the reality of the situation. Many parts of Nepal are by and large, third world..there are no monies to shore up buildings and make them resistant to earthquakes. Nepal is poor, their primary industry is tourism...mainly hikers interested in the Himalayas. Reports predicted the New Orleans flood risk for a direct hit by a hurricane...there wasn't enough public monies to invest in the infrastructure to protect an American city..a First World nation. At the risk of sounding overly sarcastic...perhaps a magic money tree can be planted in the center of Kathmandu and later harvested to invest the millions, perhaps BILLIONS necessary to safeguard populated areas from devastating earthquakes.
New Orleans...right here itn the good old U S of A. Obviously a levee tax had to be voted in to pay for this sort of expense. One city in an industrialized nation.. Billions invested to protect it from flooding again. Nepal is the 3rd poorest country in Asia. What are they going to do? Tax someone earning the equivalent of $1.25 a day, who does not yet know where their next meal may come from. This earthquake is going to hurt their largest industry...tourism. The poor will only get poorer. Of course, why don't the kind Americans help... Look if the OP wants to help build a safer Kathmandu, send your own money. I have nothing against Nepal, but there is no shortage of poverty on this planet; sending food and potable water will save far more than steel rebar.
Straw man argument. I'm not talking about reinforcing every building in every third world country. I am talking about helping countries in earthquake prone regions improve disaster response, and determine the most cost effective ways to mitigate damage and casualties, tailored to their needs. But milorafferty, you are right, we aren't talking about a few million dollars. We are talking about human lives. Every major disaster affects not just the people in the immediate region. These disasters have lasting, wide-ranging impacts. They affect us all.
Huh? But besides the fact of you talking in circles... If it's such a big deal to you, what are YOU doing about it? Are you in Nepal right now? Or are you just saying that everyone else should spend their money to help others?
Dude, I am a geologist and a former consultant. I'm trying to have a discussion here about the future, and what can be done to mitigate such horrific disasters. If you want to make this personal, then you and I have nothing left to discuss.
"Dude"?? Now that's funny. A "former consultant"? That means nothing. I'm a "former consultant" as well, but it doesn't mean I know squat about earthquakes. You still have not offered an idea on how to help people.
In this case, it is true that the fault where the recent Earthquake occurred has such large quakes only once every 80 years. However, it is also true that the energy has now been transferred to another section of fault that is apparently ready to break. So you can't simply be fatalistic about this and hope for the best. If you think they are poor now, just wait til the next one strikes.
