CitizenSugar -- Breaking News, Together.

China to Rebuild Devastated City Somewhere Else

LibertySugar — Wed, 21 May 2008 12:15:00 -0700

Following the recent earthquake, China plans to rebuild one of its worst-hit cities, Beichuan, in a completely different location. Of the city's 161,000 residents, at least 7,227 died in the quake. The region's Communist Party Chief said:

Safety is the top priority in selecting a new location and reconstruction. We plan to build a monument and a memorial to commemorate the quake victims on the previous location.

The questions of when and where to rebuild devastated areas often comes up after a natural disaster. Following the wildfires in Southern California last Fall, actress Jamie Lee Curtis summed up one line of thought:

We live in a drought, we build houses too close, and then we're shocked when this happens? This is not an act of God. This is an act of man.

After Hurricane Katrina hit low-lying New Orleans, some critics spoke out against the idea of rebuilding the city, which could eventually be hit by a similar hurricane. They argued that New Orleans, built like a bowl and located bellow sea level, is geographically susceptible to similar flooding in the future.

Are humans foolish to build cities in places that are prone to natural disasters? Would China's plan to choose a new location work for a place like New Orleans? How should we mitigate risks of destruction and death, when every place is susceptible to some form of random devastation? How risky is too risky?

Source

Disaster Fatigue Hits America: Giving Less to Recent Victims

LibertySugar — Tue, 20 May 2008 09:00:00 -0700

Donating money for the victims of the Myanmar cyclone and the Chinese earthquake has not been an easy sell. Americans have given $12.1 million so far to the Myanmar cause, compared to the $1.92 billion that was collected for the 2004 Tsunami, and $5.3 billion for Hurricane Katrina. Donation amounts for China are not yet known.

One AP writer suspects that Americans have come down with "disaster fatigue." The article explains that the more bad news there is, the less likely Americans are to give. Americans, who unconsciously clump distinct occurrences as "faraway disasters" may feel helpless when hearing of mounting, and incomprehensible death tolls. Thus, by competing to be disaster of the moment, China and Myanmar have unknowingly dissuaded charitable individuals.

There may be other factors leading to a light trickle of donations. For some other explanations,

Isolated Governments Handle Disasters Differently

LibertySugar — Wed, 14 May 2008 14:30:54 -0700

Two Asian countries wary of international intervention are reeling from natural disasters. BBC took a striking look at the contrasting government responses to the Myanmar cyclone and the earthquake in China.

Both countries have denied foreign relief workers and journalists. But, the similarities between how Myanmar's military junta, and China's communist oligarchy are responding stop about there.

China's government is proving it intends to be swift, flexible, and open. It has scaled back Olympic torch events, and instituted a daily minute of silence. With its immediate and extensive relief effort, the government is sending the message that it is accountable for its citizens' well-being.

The Burmese government is stubbornly hesitant to accept outside assistance, despite the fact that they are desperately incapable of taking on the rescue mission. Aid is being randomly handed out, and the government is showing no signs of flexibility, going ahead with a constitutional referendum in the midst of the disaster.

China's wealth and strong infrastructure gives it an advantage to handling the rescue internally. But, do you think China's flexibility is a sign that it's becoming more open and accountable to its people? What can the outside world do to help, when a reclusive government doesn't want assistance? How much blame should a government take for the consequences of a natural disaster?

Source

Big Earthquake Coming to California Sometime in 30 Years

LibertySugar — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:15:39 -0700

The golden state just got a gloomy forecast. Scientists predict that a strong and deadly earthquake will hit California within 30 years. The probability that the "big one" will be at least a 6.7 magnitude is now over 99 percent. An even more dangerous 7.5 magnitude is 46 percent likely, and more prone to Southern California.

Geophysicists hope city planners, building designers, insurance companies, and homeowners will use the information to plan ahead. Check out 72 Hours for some very useful tips on how to get ready for earthquakes, fires, severe storms, power outages, acts of terrorism, and any other imaginable emergency.

So, if you're planning to be in California in the next 30 years, you're going to need some bottled water and canned food! Do you worry about natural disasters where you live? Are you prepared?

Source