| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Geology - Earthquakes Forum » Question. Are Earthquakes Dangerous?...
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
|
| Author |
Message |
| Weatherlawyer... |
 Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 9:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 18, 4:04 am, Hatunen <hatu... at (no spam) cox.net> wrote:
Quote: On Sat, 17 May 2008 11:21:40 -1000, Gerard Fryer wrote:
On 2008-05-17 10:14:21 -1000, Jo Schaper <jo345sch765a... at (no spam) s9ocket.net> said:
On the other hand, more people died in the 1906 SF earthquake from the
resulting fire and explosions than the the actual quake or being struck
by falling objects.
Actually, that is not so. We don't really know how many died in the SF
earthquake, perhaps around 3,000, but most of them were from building
collapses (the figure was hushed up; the official number was less than
a hundred). Most of the victims were Chinese in the poorly-constructed
hotels and houses South of Market. If they died in the fire it was
because rescuers could not get to them before the flames.
I think you need to emphasize "the figure was hushed up". The
city fathers didn't want to scare away investment for the
re-building and understated the total deaths and did their best
to make them seem to not be caused by the earthquake but rather
the fire.
The method of using explosives is a time honoured way of creating fire-
breaks.
And the responsibility for the disaster was entirely with the mayor,
who fought tooth and nail with the fire department chiefs in order to
allocate for his own uses, money that could have been used for public
safety in just such a situation.
After the fire he was re-elected and thus in a position to cover his
tracks. His popularity was a mystery until you lot voted for a
chimpanzee AGAIN!!! And made it clear to the whole world what a bunch
of stupid tossers you can be. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Jo Schaper... |
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 1:28 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Gerard Fryer wrote:
Quote: On 2008-05-17 10:14:21 -1000, Jo Schaper <jo345sch765aper at (no spam) s9ocket.net
said:
J. F. Cornwall wrote:
Raymond wrote:
Not a trick question but a sensible one.
Ray
No. However, their effects can be. Like buildings falling on top of
you, bridges collapsing, bricks falling off of building onto the
sidewalk, and tsunamis. Little things like that which may be caused
by large enough quakes. But the quake itself, nah.
Jim
On the other hand, more people died in the 1906 SF earthquake from the
resulting fire and explosions than the the actual quake or being
struck by falling objects.
Actually, that is not so. We don't really know how many died in the SF
earthquake, perhaps around 3,000, but most of them were from building
collapses (the figure was hushed up; the official number was less than a
hundred). Most of the victims were Chinese in the poorly-constructed
hotels and houses South of Market. If they died in the fire it was
because rescuers could not get to them before the flames.
Interesting, because my source for the information was a book written
about the quake written in the 1940s, with their info coming from
newspapers of the time-- the majority of which were not California
newspapers, and which itself was partially an expose of the undercount
coverup. I cannot cite the title/author, because it was among my
father's books, which have since been dispersed. The fire devastation
was also the impression left by an article I read in Smithsonian a
couple years back about the defense of the Federal treasury and Mint
there. I remember there was some lady trying to track down all the
Chinese victims...and was having very little luck, because a fair number
were undocumented. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ... |
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 5:14 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2008-05-18 08:28:59 -1000, Jo Schaper <jo345sch765aper at (no spam) s9ocket.net> said:
Quote: Gerard Fryer wrote:
On 2008-05-17 10:14:21 -1000, Jo Schaper <jo345sch765aper at (no spam) s9ocket.net> said:
J. F. Cornwall wrote:
Raymond wrote:
Not a trick question but a sensible one.
Ray
No. However, their effects can be. Like buildings falling on top of
you, bridges collapsing, bricks falling off of building onto the
sidewalk, and tsunamis. Little things like that which may be caused by
large enough quakes. But the quake itself, nah.
Jim
On the other hand, more people died in the 1906 SF earthquake from the
resulting fire and explosions than the the actual quake or being struck
by falling objects.
Actually, that is not so. We don't really know how many died in the SF
earthquake, perhaps around 3,000, but most of them were from building
collapses (the figure was hushed up; the official number was less than
a hundred). Most of the victims were Chinese in the poorly-constructed
hotels and houses South of Market. If they died in the fire it was
because rescuers could not get to them before the flames.
Interesting, because my source for the information was a book written
about the quake written in the 1940s, with their info coming from
newspapers of the time-- the majority of which were not California
newspapers, and which itself was partially an expose of the undercount
coverup. I cannot cite the title/author, because it was among my
father's books, which have since been dispersed. The fire devastation
was also the impression left by an article I read in Smithsonian a
couple years back about the defense of the Federal treasury and Mint
there. I remember there was some lady trying to track down all the
Chinese victims...and was having very little luck, because a fair
number were undocumented.
There has been quite a bit discovered in the last decade about the
enormity of the coverup. I'll provide references tomorrow.
-G |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ... |
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 9:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2008-05-18 12:14:20 -1000, Gerard Fryer said:
Quote: On 2008-05-18 08:28:59 -1000, Jo Schaper <jo345sch765aper at (no spam) s9ocket.net> said:
Gerard Fryer wrote:
On 2008-05-17 10:14:21 -1000, Jo Schaper <jo345sch765aper at (no spam) s9ocket.net> said:
[...]
Quote: On the other hand, more people died in the 1906 SF earthquake from the
resulting fire and explosions than the the actual quake or being struck
by falling objects.
Actually, that is not so. We don't really know how many died in the SF
earthquake, perhaps around 3,000, but most of them were from building
collapses (the figure was hushed up; the official number was less than
a hundred). Most of the victims were Chinese in the poorly-constructed
hotels and houses South of Market. If they died in the fire it was
because rescuers could not get to them before the flames.
Interesting, because my source for the information was a book written
about the quake written in the 1940s, with their info coming from
newspapers of the time-- the majority of which were not California
newspapers, and which itself was partially an expose of the undercount
coverup. I cannot cite the title/author, because it was among my
father's books, which have since been dispersed. The fire devastation
was also the impression left by an article I read in Smithsonian a
couple years back about the defense of the Federal treasury and Mint
there. I remember there was some lady trying to track down all the
Chinese victims...and was having very little luck, because a fair
number were undocumented.
There has been quite a bit discovered in the last decade about the
enormity of the coverup. I'll provide references tomorrow.
A web search provided the best reference (sitting in my office at work;
how could I forget it?): "Denial of Disaster, the untold story and
unpublisheed photographs of the San Francisco earthquake and fire of
1906," by Gladys Hansen and Emmet Condon, Cameron & Co., 1989, ISBN-13:
9780918684332.
This is a superbly written and produced book--one look at the cover and
you'll want to buy it. It's must reading for anyone interested either
in the 1906 earthquake or in how contemporary reports of a disaster can
be politically manipulated.
-Gerard |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Jan 08, 2009 3:54 am
|
|