San Andreas Fault - contingency planning

I forwarded your question to the White House. I'll let you know if I get an answer.

Meanwhile you may be interested in this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...sponse_n_836751.html

They will blame Al-Qaeda then invade Syria

I susspect there is no contigency plan or recovery plan. But I hope i'm wrong.

The potential earthquake consequences on a nuclear generating plant have been seen in Japan. and the effect on gravity masonary buildings in Christchurch. The effects on infrastructure (highways, bridges, gas, water, electricity, sewers, telecomms etc) has been seen before in California. The reponse to flooding in St Louis appeared to me to be somewhay limited.

Given the almost inevitability of a major quake, I would have thought that arrangements for water, medical supplies, shelter, food, building materials and maintenace of law&order would be well advanced and promulgated. And that businesses would each have an individual recovery plan in place.

Perhaps hope is the only strategy?

Cheers

Don

The US and Canada have effective emergency response systems within the fire departments, police, ambulance, medical etc. These can be supplemented by military personnel and resources for the worst occasions. To expand standby resources to cover all outcomes would be prohibitively expensive. They'll just deal with it the best they can. I admit I don't really understand the question.

My guess is that if (or when) the movement of the tectonic plates next produces an earthquake similar to, or greater than the 1906 San Fransico quake, what arrangements has the USA got in place to help people cope.

First with the immediate effects of search and rescue and, law&order. Then with short-term shelter, food, water and medical support. Finally with rebuilding strctures and infrastructure plus re-establishing businesses. 

Insurance companies might be obliged to "pay" for some of the effects (with payments to both private and public bodies), but if supply lines for (say) building materials have not been planned or established, people and businesses might be left high and dry for years.

I just wondered whether the USA government had plans in place, or is it a case of every man for himself.

cheers

Don

Every man for himself it would appear, if you lived in Louisiana.

Don/BigH

Rather just put forth some uninformed guesswork why don't you try some research?

http://www.oes.ca.gov/

or

http://www.oes.ca.gov/WebPage/...FA168825740F0060CE32

or

http://bayplanningcoalition.or...ke-tsunami-prepared/

Not as interesting as a series of sarcastic comments though is it?

Jim

Louisiana, is what I was making "sarcastic" comments about.

New Orleans got swift and comprehensive help did ?

Jim

I had already done a search via Google and couldn't find any positive plans. hence my question.

A quick look at your three links didn't answer my question. But thanks for your input anyway.

The first appeared to be irrelevant - perhaps my misunderstanding?

The second was at best an overview of an aspirational high-level plan. No specific details and no evidence of anything tangible in place.

The third showed that a group of companies had felt the time was right to hold a workshop (in July). But that isn't the same as an actual governmant plan. And the link didn't summarise the outcome of the workshop.

Of course (Plan A) I really should try harder to find this sort of info myself perhaps your links might lead to something more tangible. Just thought (Plan B) the mighty brains of this forum might provide a short-cut.

Lokks like its Plan A then.

Cheers

Don

At some point it gets to this, of course. The question shouldn't really be whether there are plans in place (there are certainly plans in place up to a point), but rather, "What is the magnitude of disaster at which these emergency response resources are stretched to the point they are ineffective for a large number of people?". Once one has a sense of the magnitude, then set about estimating the frequency of events that are in excess of that.

Example of which I have reasonable knowledge outside of that provided by the media: Emergency response was fairly effective in Alabama in the case of the recent tornadoes. We have businesses there. Our employees were obviously affected by the tornadoes but the recovery was fairly good. Our business donated a substantial sum to the community that was well received.

Someone will chime in with a counter-example, but my point is that emergency preparedness works up to the point where it doesn't. That's just life, and whilst we can all criticize the inevitable shortcomings; short of stumping up a whole lot more money "just in case" what else is suggested?

It wasn't the "money" that I had in mind. Rather the plant and materials (say).

Plenty of money, but are suitable plant and materils readily available to cope with the sort of earthquake that San Fransisco knows it will have to deal with sooner or later.

OK, I appreciate that plant and materials won't be stockpiled in some mothballed compound 250 miles east. If they were, they could well be out of date by the time they were needed etc etc.

Cheers

Don

The money I was alluding to was the real cost of plant, materials and trained personnel for emergency response that would be tied up "just in case", not some trust fund that could be used to pay for these once the need arose.

It's often occurred to me that one of the more boring jobs in the world must be fireman at an airport.

Every time a plane lands you pass a fire station, and yet we hear of fires on planes absurdly infrequently (and when they do happen they make the news near-globally). It's not inconceivable someone who works in an airport fire-station might not get an actual emergency call from one year to the next. But we all know why they're there, and presumably we're grateful for that, or at least hoping we never need to be.

And they don't even get to rescue cats from trees - although I imagine they do go to emergencies near airports.

This thread seems to illustrate what winkyincanada summed up so well. You cannot plan for everything. If every row in an aeroplane had an emergency exit, then fewer people would get killed in air crashes. But it would take inordinately more fuel to get such a plane off the ground, making flying vastly more expensive and damaging. Few enough people get killed in air crashes as it is. Lives have a price. No matter how much this is disturbing and upsetting, it is certainly true.

More worrying in some ways, and less well planned for, even than San Francisco, is what will certainly happen to Naples one day. And we have some fairly horrific warnings from history about that.

And yes, when the supervolcano goes, the whole planet is doomed, people-wise, so we might as well have a drink instead.

I had somehow presumed that the US would have a plan for San Fransisco. If they have, then it doesn't appear to be well known.

I had expected such a plan would rely heavily on pre-determined (and regulary updated) sources of emergency aid and re-construction labour/plant/materials. Not idly standing by (aka airport firemen) but an integral part of their current national and international economy. Resources that could be expanded and/or re-directed to an enormous disater - not just in the imediate post-disaster relief period, but sustained during the subsequent 10 year (say) reconstruction and re-generation period.

At the moment, it appears that they don't have a plan. And more imporantly, don't see the need for a plan or any benefit in having a plan.

BTW, at many small and regional airports, the firecrew also carry out other duties, such as refuelling. Still one of the most boring jobs around IMHO as Rod says.

Cheers

Don

This raises the question of "what is insurance", "what is a pension", "what is a loan" "what is a debt" etc

In someways its basically doing something for others now, in return for their promise to help you in the future.

In this way, current resources are no longer tied up. Future resources might need to be allocated to fulfill cexising promises. In which case, the basic question (the PLAN) would be, are we confident that the future will be willing and able to cope, should the need arise?

Based on recent evidence on pensions, loans and national debts, i have my doubts.

Cheers

Don

LA handled the Northridge quake fairly well on rescue and then rebuilding.  The older buildings are the problem or cheap construction.  They learned so much from it they upgraded building codes.  As to nuclear it's a regulation nightmare.  Not much you can do but hope it's a series of smaller quakes that release tension.  Every year I read in the Times they've discovered a new fault in the LA basin.  What do you expect from being on the continental crust pressing on another?

History is full of disasters, people die and the living go on. Life is short and we're just dust in the whole scheme of things. Eventually pollution, disease, drought, then famine will be the best population control.  We've already used up the majority of resources the earth had to offer.

Oh well, bed time for Bonzo, sleep tight kiddies.

I think it is safe to say that whatever is done by the US government, it will be done poorly and at a high cost.  I really can't think of anything that they do well or cost efficiently.