I was
in Japan when Super Typhoon "Tip" ran most of the length of the
island country in October, 1979. (It
was) regarded as the "largest and most intense tropical cyclone ever
recorded... Rainfall from Tip indirectly led to a fire that killed 13 Marines
and injured 68 at a United States Marine Corps training camp in the Kanagawa
Prefecture of Japan. Elsewhere in the country, the typhoon caused widespread
flooding and 42 deaths; offshore shipwrecks left 44 people killed or
missing." (Quoted from Wikipedia)
Fortunately,
Tip had weakened when it hit Japan and other than some power outages and
flooded roads that affected transportation for a few days, the only impact on
me, personally (a young man at the time), was a lasting respect for the power
of Nature.
As I
watched news reports over the weekend, there were two things that caught my
attention. First were the stories of
survivors who said, when the warnings came, they really had nowhere to go. There was no real safe “haven,” no inland
evacuation routes and few hardened concrete structures in which to take
shelter. TV reports showed entire
families huddled in their homes or other public buildings. The fear on their faces was palpable even
through the camera lens.
Second,
I began thinking about what it would take to create those havens—if not
individual homes, at least redeveloped housing in less impacted areas, hardened
structures, public shelters, etc. I was
reminded of the towns in northeastern Japan that are constructing highly
reinforced and elevated municipal buildings that can survive both moderate
earthquakes and the resulting deluge of a tsunami. Technology exists to do so, like this home in
Hawaii (photo by Jon Starbuck).
- Creative solutions exist, but the how does a family or a community or even an entire country find the means to undertake a rebuilding of resistant housing stock and public infrastructure?
- Are there locational problems that could be resolved during that rebuilding?
- Can “safe” building technologies be simplified and reduced in cost?
- Can governments and corporations work together to implement these technologies where there are most needed in spite of the ability of the populace to pay for them?
- Can the political and financial resistance to relocation of development to safer areas (where that’s possible) be overcome?
After
Katrina, the United States helped rebuild the protective infrastructure
surrounding New Orleans rather than relocating the historic city to a less
vulnerable location. No one will argue
the need to restore the charm of the city and its historic neighborhoods where
they stood. But New Orleans (and the
United States) could afford the luxury of doing so.
Levees and barriers were strengthened, and disaster preparations and
warning systems were enhanced to mitigate the loss of life and property during
future events.
But
is that enough—particularly where there are relocation options? Should we consider more bold steps to
safeguard populations in places? New
Orleans has put their trust in agencies like FEMA and the Army Corps, and the
ability of the government to rebuild should there be any future disaster. Towns and villages in the Southeast Asia (or
the Caribbean or Central America, for instance) aren’t as fortunate. Knowing there are physical and geographical
solutions to protect lives, it is getting increasingly difficult to watch these
disasters unfold without finding a way to help.
No comments:
Post a Comment