more on A MUST MUST read on the real world of disaster prep

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: rod van meter <rdviii () gmail com>
Date: September 7, 2005 7:57:47 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net, beberg () mithral com
Subject: Re: [IP] more on A MUST MUST read on the real world of  
disaster prep




On 9/8/05, David Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:

Begin forwarded message:

From: Adam L Beberg <beberg () mithral com>
Date: September 7, 2005 5:52:15 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: greenman.k () inkworkswell com
Subject: Re: [IP] A MUST MUST read on the real world of disaster prep


David Farber wrote on 9/7/2005 12:48 PM:




The correct question is do we have the will to tell people they can
live anywhere they want, but if that place is below sea level, or on
a beach in a hurricane zone, or right on top of a fault line, or in a
forest that burns down every 10 years, they cannot have insurance,
must buy houses with real cash not credit, and will not be bailed out
by the taxpayer for living somewhere in Mother Nature's "I warned
you!" zones.

And that would be where, exactly?

Let's see... not California...not near the New Madrid fault...not New  
Orleans (or Houston, Alabama, Florida, or Mississippi)...not, based  
on an earlier IP message, Pennsylvania...not in Tornado Alley...not  
in the south of France, where heat waves kill tens of thousands...not  
Hawaii (hurricanes AND volcanoes!)...not Seattle (Mt. St. Helens, you  
know)...nowhere where severe winter storms threaten large  
populations...AFAICT, this leaves, roughly, Columbus, Ohio.  It'll be  
a tight fit for all of us.

In my hometown (Williamson, WV), flooding is the big threat.  After  
the 1977 disaster, some govt agency (HUD?) helped with rebuilding --  
but on the condition that you either move your house behind the big  
new floodwall the Army Corp of Engineers erected for parts of town,  
or raise your house above the 100 year flood plain, based on various  
disaster statistics.  There are now a number of awkward houses, brick  
above a ten-foot-high cinder block "basement", with the porch up in  
the air, and stairs that are difficult for the elderly to navigate.   
Move up the hollers instead, you say?  My sister, in another part of  
the state, lived not beside but within walking distance of a small  
creek, well away from the river, and wasn't required by her lender to  
have flood insurance.  The creek unexpectedly flooded, putting four  
feet of water in her house in a matter of hours.

Risk is a gradient, not a step function.  New Orleans (and Los  
Angeles, and Williamson) are where they are for a variety of reasons,  
some good, some bad, many historical but random.  Relocating a small  
community is disruptive and heart-wrenching; moving a big city is  
impractical, at best.  Moreover, it will alter but not eliminate the  
risks.  Should we perform a risk evaluation when making build  
decisions?  Yes.  But saying we should effectively ban building in an  
area because it crosses some arbitrary risk threshold (which is,  
after all, only probabilistic, anyway) is simplistic and not very  
helpful.

--Rod



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/