When and Where Should Prevention be Taken
After the discussion in previous topics and in class about having a fund or creating prevention's I started to think about some matters in the subject. How strong and lasting the crisis or the disaster must be in order for prevention's against it to be taken?
The point that I reflected upon was of when is it worth it to create funds and prevention's to certain types of crisis and disasters. If we take Washington D.C. for an example, it is not the first time that the city has seen snowstorms such as the one we are facing this week but even though flights, school and other still close or get cancelled while in other places a snowstorm of this magnitude would not have the same effect, since the place was prepared for it.
If we take this comparison to a larger scale, nations who are constantly under the effect of a type of disaster usually have some kind of prevention, Netherlands for example. But nations that are less commonly affected by the disaster would not have the same prevention's for it. But sometimes, even though the disaster or crisis is not common they still have a huge impact and can be very devastating. So why governments do not create prevention's for those big but not constant disasters? Is it simply because they do not happen constantly? Which lead us to another question, small scale but constant floods, snowstorms and etc... Can be considered a long term disaster if not prevented, or is just a disaster when it has a large scale. If we stop to think some constant rains can be more deadly than one big flood due to a single storm if looked at the long term.
Source Used:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26165335
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/publications/other/documents/naturalhazards.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment