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 be too 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 2001 atmospheric – 12 incidents / 4,643 dead lithospheric – 4 incidents / 20,480 dead The 15 deadliest natural disasters in 2003 atmospheric – 12 incidents / 39,565 dead lithospheric – 3 incidents / 43,534 dead The 40 deadliest disasters lithospheric – 22lithospheric - 22 atmospheric – 15atmospheric - 15 [(1) compared to 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?