On a recent thread, there was some discussion about the toll that earthquakes take in certain parts of the world such as India. I happened to hear a brief NPR report this morning which may shed some light on this.

According to the report, corruption in the building trade in India's cities is so rampant that builders routinely allocate 25% of their budget to bribing officials. One common cost saving measure is to use more sand than appropriate in the making of concrete, which unfortunately weakens it severely. Some municipalities there have thoughtfully crafted building codes, but their enforcement is difficult if not impossible.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), February 05, 2001

Answers

Earthquakes and death occur in countries where there is a lack of birth control. Natural disasters occur to reduce the population quickly. India is the most populous country in the world, and the most poverty stricken.

-- margie (margie2@secno.net), February 05, 2001.

margie;

I forgot that the Indians have a pope. Forgot too that natural disasters just naturally know where lots of people live. Forgot last that China was now number two in population.

Thanks. Explains a lot.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), February 06, 2001.

Actually, the original post hits the nail on the proverbial head. With a lack of governmental controls (e.g., building codes, enforcement of same, etc.), this is a result.

It's magnified in areas that are prone to natural disasters, like India.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), February 06, 2001.

Of course you're both right. I was being glib at a bad time. My bad.

Tectonics give and take away. The forces that produced the Himalayas gave the sub Asian area both mineral rich alluvium and a rain trap. Perfect spot for growing crops and people.

Real problem is that the game will never be over and most people in danger areas couldn't spell Himalaya or Andreas on a bet.

Doomer shit I guess.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), February 06, 2001.

No, Carlos, it's not "doomer shit". Poor people live where they can afford to live. In the U.S., the Atlantic and Gulf Coast beaches (hurricane country) and California (earthquake country) are the only places I can think of where people who CAN afford to live "in safety" choose not to because of the beauty. Don't think I can honestly disagree with their choices, either. If I had a choice, I'd live on a beach in a heartbeat.

I don't know that much about India, so I can only guess that with their large population, there aren't many "good" (read: safe) areas left in which people can live. The death and devastation are thus pretty much "given" results of natural disasters.

I think what makes it so much worse is the government corruption, because it would seem that a lot of the death and suffering that accompanies the inevitable earthquakes and cyclones/typhoons and ensuing floods could probably be avoided (or at the very least, mitigated in some way). We always complain how bad we have it here, but do we really when put into such perspectives? Certainly gives me pause.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), February 06, 2001.