3 ms·
Eh? I don't think "a traditional disaster" means what you think it means. The Cerro Grande Fire destroyed about 420 homes and caused ~$1 billion in damages bu
by dalke 11y ago
Eh?
I don't think "a traditional disaster" means what you think it means.
The Cerro Grande Fire destroyed about 420 homes and caused ~$1 billion in damages but no one died. The Bel Air Fire destroyed 484 homes but again left no fatalities. Tropical Storm Fay hit Texas and nine counties in Texas were declared disaster areas, but again, no fatalities.
- FussyZeus 11y agoBut that's just stuff, the majority of which was probably insured and even if it wasn't, all of it can (theoretically) be replaced. People can't.
- dalke 11y agoI don't understand your response. When was there ever a tradition where something had to have deaths in order for it to be called a "disaster"? I gave three counter-examples of events which were labeled disasters but which had no fatalities. While what you said is (theoretically) true, all evidence is that it's appropriate to use the term "disaster" for something which 'displaces tens of thousands of people and costs several hundred billion dollars', and there's no need to distinguish between 'traditional' and 'modern' definitions. How does your comment fit into that context?