DRRR Pre Activty

Pre-Activity
DRRR
CHARLES DARWIN SAWAL
Name three (3) natural phenomena that your community considers as
hazards. Explain why they are considered as hazards
FLOOD
Flooding of farmland can result in crop loss. Livestock, pets, and other
animals are often carried away and drown. Humans can get caught in
the high velocity flood waters and can drown in the water. Floodwaters
can concentrate garbage, debris, and toxic pollutants that can cause
the secondary effects of health hazards.Floods have large social
consequences for communities and individuals. As most people are well
aware, the immediate impacts of flooding include loss of human life,
damage to property, destruction of crops, loss of livestock, and
deterioration of health conditions owing to waterborne diseases.
Earthquake
Earthquakes represent a particularly severe threat due to the
irregular time intervals between events, lack of adequate
forecasting, and the hazards associated with these: - Ground
shaking is a direct hazard to any structure located near the
earthquake's center.e first main earthquake hazard (danger) is
the effect of ground shaking. Buildings can be damaged by the
shaking itself or by the ground beneath them settling to a
different level than it was before the earthquake (subsidence).
... Liquefaction is a hazard in areas that have groundwater near
the surface and sandy soil.
STORM
Storm surge and large waves produced by hurricanes pose the
greatest threat to life and property along the coast. ... The
destructive power of storm surge and large battering waves can
result in loss of life, buildings destroyed, beach and dune erosion and
road and bridge damage along the coast.Storm hazards are common
all around the world. They can be defined as specific weather
conditions that bring about calamity upon the population. ...
Weather conditions like tornados, hurricanes and droughts are a part
of storm hazards.
"Buildings kills people, not earthquakes".
Most people who die in earthquakes die from structures collapsing, or from massive objects falling from
structures and striking people in the street, or in structural fires caused by the earthquake (people do also die
from earthquake-caused landslides, but human-built structures kill far more people). Unless the ground rips
open and swallows you, you will not die from even severe ground shaking if you are standing in the middle of an
open field.I've seen a number of collapsing structures built of unreinforced masonry in the wake of earthquakes
throughout the developed world. Owing to those badly built houses, most of the people who died during these
earthquakes were killed. Earthquake deaths are a man-made epidemic, so a man-made solution needs to be
available.Earthquake is one of nature’s “most destructive forces”. It is caused by the tectonic plate movements
in the earth’s crust. The crash between these plates releases energy that causes vibrations on the ground also
causing the buildings to shake, sometimes, too violently.It means that the solution to reducing deaths in
earthquakes is to have appropriate building codes. If the buildings are (correctly) engineered to withstand the
shaking, then the people inside should be fine. If not, many people could die.
Is the magnitude of a natural hazard a guarantee for a
disaster? Why or why not?
Not necessarily. If the area surrounding the epicenter of a major seismic event is sparsely populated
with few or no structures, the result will not be a disaster. If, on the other hand, it strikes in a heavily
populated area with old masonry structures built on landfill, you betcha! The word “catastrophe”
comes to mind.Preparedness and mitigation have their part to play.Let’s say a 6.5 strikes Portland,
Oregon or Seattle, Washington. Unreinforced masonry buildings fall, killing dozens of people and
clogging downtown for hours or days.Now let’s say the same 6.5 strikes Tokyo, Japan or Santiago,
Chile. People turn to each other and ask, “did you feel something?”I’m exaggerating a little, but
some places are just far more resilient than others (Chile and Japan, having both received very
severe earthquakes in the last century or more, have made great strides to rebuild their population
centers with superior construction techniques.)
Explain how a seemingly harmless normal river flows in the
middle of a rapidly developing city, can later cause a disaster?
A harmless normal river that flows in the middle of a rapidly developing city can later cause a
disaster if something like the next scenario happens: if there is a mountain or a hill near the city that
has been deforested or the river has been polluted with plastics and other solid waste and then a
tropical cyclone or a hurricane hits the city. The deforested mountain or hill may cause large volumes
of water or landslide which may cause flooding from the river, which could be worsened by the
plastics and solid waste pollution. If this affects the city dwellers, it will be considered a disaster. A
natural hazard only becomes a disaster if it affects human beings.First off, nobody builds what they
hope will be “a rapidly developing city” alongside or astride a “seemingly harmless normal
river”.Throughout history, humans have built cities in areas that fostered additional growth -
perhaps a crossroads enroute to distant trading partners; perhaps near fertile fields that grew a
bountiful harvest that could be traded with others; perhaps near to mines, or the seacoast (and
fisheries) - many reasons.

DRRR Pre Activty

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DRRR Pre Activty

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

DRRR Pre Activty

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pre-Activity

You might also like