CHAPTER 1

NATURAL DISASTERS AND THE HUMAN POPULATION

“Disasters occur where and when the Earth’s natural processes concentrate energy and then releases it, killing life and causing damage”

[text, p. 4 discussing Table 1.1: “All the disasters were the result of extreme events of natural phenomena operating at the high end of the energy scale for a short time in a restricted area”]

“Our interest is especially peaked when this energy deals heavy blows to humans.”--- perceptions of (1) “control” and (2) “timing” are

crucial to these “… heavy blows to humans”

Ultimately our perceptions influence how we assign risk of a hazard to a situation--- The question… “Is anything really safe?”--- Why are some hazards perceived as risks by some segments of the population and not others?

… and thus the differing responses--- I would add a question on how we get the public to intelligently act on these decisions.

Again, no single answer… the issue might be summarized with concepts of presentation--- Media speaks language of the populous

--- “ “spoon feeds” the populous with digestible “sound bites”

--- “ provides “analysts” where the news might betoo complicated [their call – not mine]

--- Scientists give us none of this: dry facts; hard to understand statistics; convoluted explanations; etc

[Amazing that public trusts Science as a “demi-god”, but doesn’t understand what science is saying]

Control

Interesting: The public frequently perceives involuntary risks (fire; drought; global warming; etc) in much the same way as voluntary risks (living on a flood plain; on a earthquake fault; etc)… and we want to think they happen somewhere else… Table 1.1 would lead us to conclude that Asia has a “corner” on natural disasters

Aside: look at how we act toward “severe thunderstorm warnings” or “tornado warnings”… we hardly hear them, because they’re not going to hit here!!!

Aside: do you think that a heat wave is a natural disaster like a hurricane or an earthquake????

Time

Knowledge of the probability of an hazardous event--- try to explain Hurricane Andrew or Katrina to someone 10 yrs after the fact--- or take your grandchildren downtown and tell them how it looked like a

“war zone” after the tornado--- or what the “Big One” is going to look like when it hits Southern California

… by describing the San Francisco Earthquake (1906)

Time is also a dynamic in response to natural hazard / disaster(1) short-term we are more likely to act in

despairing ways – suicide and depression

(2) longer-term we tend to become more “stoic” (“the way it is”) and altruistic (becoming more empathetic and act-oriented)

*Interesting that reaction to technological disasters is much more anger and much less “coming-together”

1999, 105,000+ persons died in natural hazards and disasters

2001, 35,000+ persons died in natural hazards and disasters

2003, 83,000+ people died in natural hazards and disasters

* Atmospherics tend to recur as leading events and causes of death (see Table 1.4, p. 7)

* Great variations in fatalities exist yr-to-yr (but can be phenomenal 11/14/70 – 400,000+by hurricane in Bangladesh; 2004 SE Asia tsunami 500,000+ presumed dead) *

The 16 deadliest natural disasters in 2001atmospheric – 12 incidents / 4,643 deadlithospheric – 4 incidents / 20,480 dead

The 15 deadliest natural disasters in 2003atmospheric – 12 incidents / 39,565 deadlithospheric – 3 incidents / 43,534 dead

The 40 deadliest disasters 1970-2001 1970-2004lithospheric – 22 lithospheric - 22atmospheric – 15 atmospheric - 15

[(1) compared to 1947-1980 figures, Table 1.4; (2) exactly same numbers?]

These types of death and destruction tolls are likely to increase --- global populations are increasingly being forced into ever-more marginal physical environments(mountain slope; swamp/marsh fill areas; fault zones; deserts / drought-prone; etc)

… and the global media has both the means and desire to disperse instantaneous coverage (… insuring maximum shock value)

Figure 1.11 (p. 16) gives us a compressed perspective of the J-Curve population change dynamic that we have learned since elementary school (compressing also distorts)- showing us that world populations have undergone radical growth shifts in response to changes in human technology and culture shift

--- this has resulted in changing demographic transition ( inc. population shift / age

ratio change), perceived threat of Malthusian and Neo-Malthusian population risk (including the Malthusian Trap and carrying capacity), and a greater risk of mass destruction (cultural and economic) from natural disaster

Finally

We cannot discount the potential impact of telecommunications and the global media- the global media has both the means and

the desire to disperse instantaneous coverage (insuring maximum shock value)… good or bad??? …. Do we need to see a disaster in

real time?… what about potential for mistakes?