NationStates Jolt Archive

Since there's a fairly decent chance that my house could burn down soon (http://www.independent.com/news/2008/jul/01/wildfire-burns-above-goleta/), I thought I'd bring up the general question of how you view the building and development in areas prone to natural disasters, such as pyrogenic environments, tornado alleys, etc.

Is it wise? Evidently not terribly wise.

Should it be allowed? If not, how do you deny house-building based on a mere percentage of risk, when so many people are born and need houses, and so many have no homes?

I thought I'd bring up the general question of how you view the building and development in areas prone to natural disasters, such as pyrogenic environments, tornado alleys, etc.

Should it be allowed?

No...but good luck getting people to go along with the idea.

The money generated in areas like New Orleans or California, money that has gone into the economy at large, not just the areas themselves, are greater than an historic event like Katrina or even the California's wildfires or earthquakes (the latter of which are rare in comparison to other things that have yearly seasons).

The more at risk areas in Tornado Alley aren't that developed because they aren't worth it.

For the most part the effect of these disasters can be mitigated. Half of California is on fire and I haven't changed my day to day activity at all (granted I'm surrounded on all sides by at least two miles of ocean, but still...)

Nearly everywhere has a significant disaster risk involved - except where I live, but I won't tell you where that is because I don't want you all to move here! :p

Well, the tornado issue was solved with the invention of the basement, just like the threat of nuclear was solved by not having a nuclear war.

As for people living in dangerous places, we used to have this thing called natural selection. This marvelous thing kept our species going strong by weeding out the incredibly stupid, whether they were born stupid or earned their stupidity. Now, through health care and other services, stupid more stupid people are living long enough to not only reproduce, but also long enough to ensure that their children are stupid.

People living in fire-prone areas should expect fires. People living in tornado alley should expect tornados. And people shouldn't live in slowly-sinking cities, such as New Orleans, because living in a slowly-sinking city is the dumbest idea since building a wooden house in a fire-prone area. Fire burns wood, okay. It's not exactly rocket science or brain surgery.

Well, the tornado issue was solved with the invention of the basement, just like the threat of nuclear was solved by not having a nuclear war.

As for people living in dangerous places, we used to have this thing called natural selection. This marvelous thing kept our species going strong by weeding out the incredibly stupid, whether they were born stupid or earned their stupidity. Now, through health care and other services, stupid more stupid people are living long enough to not only reproduce, but also long enough to ensure that their children are stupid.

People living in fire-prone areas should expect fires. People living in tornado alley should expect tornados. And people shouldn't live in slowly-sinking cities, such as New Orleans, because living in a slowly-sinking city is the dumbest idea since building a wooden house in a fire-prone area. Fire burns wood, okay. It's not exactly rocket science or brain surgery.
New Orleans also sits at the mouth of the largest river in the country, that runs straight across, and is and was a hub of shipping that fueled the economy of a growing nation and managed to exist for 200 some years before a rather enormous and historically powerful hurricane hit it.

Since there's a fairly decent chance that my house could burn down soon (http://www.independent.com/news/2008/jul/01/wildfire-burns-above-goleta/), I thought I'd bring up the general question of how you view the building and development in areas prone to natural disasters, such as pyrogenic environments, tornado alleys, etc.

Is it wise? Evidently not terribly wise.

Should it be allowed? If not, how do you deny house-building based on a mere percentage of risk, when so many people are born and need houses, and so many have no homes?

Seems like California's always on fire...

Seems like California's always on fire...

Only late summer, and mostly where none of us live.

Is it wise? Evidently not terribly wise.

I don't think so.

Should it be allowed?

I only think it should be prohibited in extreme circumstances. Building your house on the side of a hill when it almost certainly will slide down come the rainy season. Things like that. Other than that, I have no problem with you paying exorbitant insurance costs.

If not, how do you deny house-building based on a mere percentage of risk, when so many people are born and need houses, and so many have no homes?

Well, there is plenty of space in low risk areas like Montana, Wyoming, Canada, Alaska, etc. Until they want to move there they shouldn't be upset about paying excessive insurance costs and rebuilding when their house burns down/blows away.

Since there's a fairly decent chance that my house could burn down soon (http://www.independent.com/news/2008/jul/01/wildfire-burns-above-goleta/), I thought I'd bring up the general question of how you view the building and development in areas prone to natural disasters, such as pyrogenic environments, tornado alleys, etc.

Is it wise? Evidently not terribly wise.

Should it be allowed? If not, how do you deny house-building based on a mere percentage of risk, when so many people are born and need houses, and so many have no homes?

It should be allowed. But no one should be guaranteed the privilege of buying cheap insurance while living there, or expect any federal aid (prompt or otherwise) if something happens.

Example: Anyone living on the slopes of Mt Rainier should not be expected to be rescued if the volcano sends massive pyroclastic flows down the mountainside all the way to Tacoma. You knew it was an active volcano with a history of doing that, and you were dumb enough to build a house there. Same with anyone dumb enough to rebuild in the Ninth Ward in New Orleans - you're way below sea level in an area that could receive a Cat 5 hurricane - and there isn't a levee that man can build that would withstand such a storm.

I believe that we're extending too much help and aid to the truly stupid - and we should let natural selection take its course. We shouldn't even attempt to rescue the idiots when the disaster strikes - just let them perish along with their children so their idiocy can be snuffed out.

Every area is disaster prone.

Building on a place that has incredibly frequent disasters (like a flood plain, for example) is silly. Building in an area where there are natural disasters every once in a while, on the other hand, is acceptable as there are few places that don't have their natural hazards.

Since there's a fairly decent chance that my house could burn down soon (http://www.independent.com/news/2008/jul/01/wildfire-burns-above-goleta/), I thought I'd bring up the general question of how you view the building and development in areas prone to natural disasters, such as pyrogenic environments, tornado alleys, etc.

Is it wise? Evidently not terribly wise.

Should it be allowed? If not, how do you deny house-building based on a mere percentage of risk, when so many people are born and need houses, and so many have no homes?


Exactly where on earth is there an area that isn't disaster prone?


Take the US as an example. In the North East, you face blizzards and snow storms, that can shut down cities, and with enough snow can trap people in their homes or collapse them. In the west, you face the possibility of earthquakes, fires, and mudslides. In the south east, you have hurricanes. In the center you have tornadors. And anywhere new a river is prone to flooding. And lets not forget the deadly heat of the mid west.

All are natural disasters that claim hundreds of lives per year.

Disasters are just part of life, all that can be done is to know what is possible in your area and take all the precautions you can to protect yourself.

Here (http://www.harborinsurance.com/guides/disasterprofile.htm) is a map that shows the risk levels for natural disasters in the US. As you can see, there isn't a single part of the country that doesn't have some risk of some natural disaster.

Here (http://www.usatoday.com/life/graphics/natural_disasters/flash.htm) is another map that allows you to choose your natural disaster, and see what states are most likely to be affected by it. Again you will notice that every state suffers from some natural disaster.

Exactly where on earth is there an area that isn't disaster prone?

Take the US as an example. In the North East, you face blizzards and snow storms, that can shut down cities, and with enough snow can trap people in their homes or collapse them. In the west, you face the possibility of earthquakes, fires, and mudslides. In the south east, you have hurricanes. In the center you have tornadors. And anywhere new a river is prone to flooding. And lets not forget the deadly heat of the mid west.

All are natural disasters that claim hundreds of lives per year.

Disasters are just part of life, all that can be done is to know what is possible in your area and take all the precautions you can to protect yourself.

Oh, like the people in the Ninth Ward in New Orleans...

Let's see - three days before the storm hit, Mayor Nagin had 600 functional buses and didn't use them to evacuate people who didn't have transportation or the intelligence to try to leave. Then when the storm hit, they went to the Superdome, where the local government (and state government) had no plan to deal with any crowd. And some idiots stayed in their houses, and had to be rescued days later by military helicopters.

I think that people who are too dumb to evacuate when told should be left to die. And I think that when a local leader HAS the means to evacuate people, and fails massively to do so, should be tried and shot.

A lot of disasters could be mitigated considerably with better housing designs. A upright box with a roof just sitting on top is a shitty design for any windstorm. Why buildings in tornado and hurricane prone areas aren't built as domes is beyond me.

A lot of disasters could be mitigated considerably with better housing designs. A upright box with a roof just sitting on top is a shitty design for any windstorm. Why buildings in tornado and hurricane prone areas aren't built as domes is beyond me.

A geodesic dome built of concrete is also pretty cheap to build.
http://www.aidomes.com/

A geodesic dome built of concrete is also pretty cheap to build.
http://www.aidomes.com/

Bet they'd withstand a forest fire better too.

Bet they'd withstand a forest fire better too.

More energy efficient, because they are better insulated.

A lot of disasters could be mitigated considerably with better housing designs. A upright box with a roof just sitting on top is a shitty design for any windstorm. Why buildings in tornado and hurricane prone areas aren't built as domes is beyond me.

heh heh..

Being a builder, I was going to say something about this being an engineering question, not a moral question. We can build homes out of fireproof materials. We can build homes on stilts, or homes that actually float in the event of a flood. We can (and do) build hurricane proof homes. (hooray for polycarbonate: http://www.palramamericas.com/promo.aspx?id=2)

But there is a reason we don't build them round. OK, three reasons.

1) Hard to get curved building materials. Straight, flat materials are cheap and readily available.

2) Bad geometry. The lot, and all your furniture, assumes 90 degree angles. With curved walls you waste space.

3) Here's the good one. It sucks. Literally. Build a curved cross section, and on the side away from the wind, you get a low pressure zone- same physics as an aircraft's wing. When the wind is pushing on the building, here, the wind will actually be pulling away. It can be enough to rip pieces off, rip windows out, and pull objects and people THROUGH the windows. It's already happened. Curved buildings need special engineering and special windows to compensate, and so they are rarely built, especially not in windy areas.

Since there's a fairly decent chance that my house could burn down soon (http://www.independent.com/news/2008/jul/01/wildfire-burns-above-goleta/), I thought I'd bring up the general question of how you view the building and development in areas prone to natural disasters, such as pyrogenic environments, tornado alleys, etc.

Is it wise? Evidently not terribly wise.

Should it be allowed? If not, how do you deny house-building based on a mere percentage of risk, when so many people are born and need houses, and so many have no homes?
I live in Manila and in its metropolitan area. We are prone to many stuff. There is an active geologic fault across the metropolis (Marikina Fault) capable of producing large earthquakes (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/pacnw/paleo/manila/index.html), storms and typhoons routinely plow into the city and country (with consequent flooding) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_the_Philippines#Climate), there are active and dormant volcanoes nearby (Taal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taal_volcano), 50 km from Manila; Pinatubo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinatubo); Arayat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Arayat)). As such, it would be very hard for us NOT to be housed in disaster prone areas - because almost all of the archipelago is disaster prone. So it's only a matter of time before we die from natural disasters. :D

I used to live in Moore, OK, my house got leveled by a tornado, (well, mostly) then 4 years later, it was leveled by a tornado.......most of Moore was. So, I moved. I live in OKC now, I havne't been directly hit by a tornado since 03, but trees have fallen on my house, windows broken, roof ripped off, minor shit.

I don't see it as "stupidity" to build here, just, really risky. There are areas that are worse than others. If a tornado wants you, there isn't much you can do, but try to get out of the way.

I just pay my insurance and hope for enough warning to find safety.

Vely Intelesting.
But shtoopid!

(granted I'm surrounded on all sides by at least two miles of ocean, but still...)

You're on Alcatraz?

I think that people who are too dumb to evacuate when told should be left to die.

You do tend to think a lot of stupid things, this being one of them. I can tell you right now that not everyone receives evacuation orders, not everyone can be mobile enough to leave, and some people actually experience a level of emotional trauma and distress and get weird about leaving their home of 50 years and whatnot.

But yeah, they should die. Death is fun, right? "Better than sex," right DK?

You're on Alcatraz?

Close, I can see Alcatraz from my island. But mine has a bridge on either end.

Well, I think you should be allowed to build there, but, you have to pay a higher premium to because of the risk...which is what already happens...

Unfortunately most Cities are already along disaster proned areas and thats probably not going to change, hell, i live in Hurricane Central, but, its either that or Jackson, and there's not a whole lot of housing/employment available there, at least not comparatively speaking...

People should look into the risks themselves. Buying a house is a major purchase. For the vast majority of people it is the largest purchase in their life. It is completely stupid not to look into the types of dangers in the area. Consider fire, flood, hurricanes and storms. These do the most damage. Even if you are the only one interested it becomes a way of bartering down the price.

If someone was willing to pay me I could analyse the flood events in a city and work out in arcGIS mapping just how risky their house is to being flooded. I could look at the frequency of fire, cyclones and storms too. You can also look at the records for an area if you dont want a comprehensive analysis. You can note that there was a fire 5 years ago, and 7 before that and 6 before that and 8 before that. The chance of a fire soon would be higher. Especially if you live in the outer suburbs

Whilst there are predicted changes in the weather the areas of risk are still mostly the same. The risks are just greater

There are risks everywhere. people should be responsible with their money and consider the choices. Buy insurance if you think its wise. Just dont cry that the government should give you money when you become part of a statistic no matter how small

You chose to live where you live. So it is your responsibility. No one else told you to live in that area and not get insurance. Its your life. Live it your way and take responsibility for it.

Tornado areas seem like the best. Buy home insurance and instal a storm shelter. If your house blows away you climb out of the storm shelter and live on room service at a hotel for a while then move into your brand new home. ;)

Tornado areas seem like the best. Buy home insurance and instal a storm shelter. If your house blows away you climb out of the storm shelter and live on room service at a hotel for a while then move into your brand new home. ;)

Storm shelter? Why bother with that when you can just hitch a ride to Oz?

Er...wait. No, I don't like those odds.

I think that people who are too dumb to evacuate when told should be left to die. And I think that when a local leader HAS the means to evacuate people, and fails massively to do so, should be tried and shot.

That is my point, though I am not quite as harsh. These people obviously didn't plan for the consequences of a disaster. They expected the cities levies to protect them, and they would have if not for the tremendous amount of water that came from the Gulf.

And yes, the leadership of the city is equally responsible for the failure to get people out of harm's way.

Tornado areas seem like the best. Buy home insurance and instal a storm shelter. If your house blows away you climb out of the storm shelter and live on room service at a hotel for a while then move into your brand new home. ;)

Do you live anywhere near a tornado prone area? You don't always get any warning.

Besides, ever heard of Greenburg, Kansas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensburg,_Kansas)? The city was nearly destroyed last year by a F5 tornado. Not a pretty site. Next to earthquakes, tornadoes are probably one of the worst natural disasters.

I will take a flood or a hurricane over a tornado anyday. At least with those, I have plenty of warning to get out of the way.