8 ms·

What does it take to convince people to take risks like this seriously? The challenge is that hypothetical risks 'sometime in the next 50+ years' don't convince

What does it take to convince people to take risks like this seriously? The challenge is that hypothetical risks 'sometime in the next 50+ years' don't convince people to do things, at least in the US. The pacific northwest is at a much higher risk from an array of faults (not just the cascadia subduction zone) and volcanic hazards but even there, where the risks are very well understood, getting a large region to take it seriously looks to be a near impossible task. Most people I have talked to don't even know that there is a risk in the PNW much less the magnitude of it or how to prepare. What are steps that actually work to actually educate and convince people?

com2kid 2y ago
Building codes require earthquake strapping and take landslide risk into account. What more do you want people to do? Seattle has had large earthquakes in its short history as a large American city and honestly even mid 20th century construction held up ok. This isn't like parts of Japan where large earthquakes will happen on regular intervals. Engineers have to weigh costs vs risks.
- blincoln 2y ago
  > Building codes require earthquake strapping and take landslide risk into account. "In Tennessee, jurisdictions can decide whether to opt in to building codes with earthquake provisions, while other states — like Missouri — don’t have state-wide building codes at all, though there are efforts to change that."
  - com2kid 2y ago
    GP comment is talking about the Pacific NW, and WA state at least most certainly does require earthquake provisions.
coding123 2y ago
Most people don't want to live afraid of everything. I learned that lesson in the past 3 years.
- antonvs 2y ago
  You've erased a lot of nuance there between two very different situations.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I would add that everyone dies eventually. Attempts to entirely de-risk life are a futile effort, and reasonable people can disagree on what level of safety is appropriate.
doe_eyes 2y ago
What is the outcome you're hoping for, though? It's not useful for people to live with vague anxiety. Are there specific solutions we want them to pursue, and that aren't being handled by the government?
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  He's probably hoping for emergency preparedness, like any sensible person. That would include stronger building codes, evacuation plans and facilities, emergency supplies, etc. Here in Japan, we have all that stuff, and we don't live with "vague anxiety" (certainly nothing like the high anxiety that most Americans live with these days). Big earthquakes are rare, but smaller ones are very common, but everything in society is engineered to handle it well so it rarely causes problems.
  - throwup238 2y ago
    > everything in society is engineered to handle it well Except nuclear reactor backup systems </tongue in cheek>
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    If the matter rarely being a problem is the bar to meet, then Japan and Seattle have both met that bar. Seattle is less prepared but the quakes of note are also more rare, so both meet the "rarely causes problems" standard. It wouldn't make sense for every place to prepare as much as Japan for things that are less likely there than in Japan. Does Japan have as many tornado shelters as Kansas? Probably not.
  - rprospero 2y ago
    Honest question: how often do you do Tornado drills in Japan? A quick look look at the wiki[1] indicates that you do get them, but fairly rarely. I honestly don't know your cultural perspective on them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tornadoes_and_tornado_outbreaks_in_Asia#Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tornadoes_and_tornado_... I grew up on the edges of the New Madrid fault area and, while earthquakes were never discussed, we did tornado drills about every two months while in school. After I entered the workforce, that got closer to once a year, but you were still expected to have a plan and supplies. It was basic emergency preparedness, like any sensible person. Granted, big F5 tornados are rare, but small ones were common enough to not even be noteworthy. Having left that region as an adult, it was a small culture shock meeting people who never had this kind of training. After all, the places I've visited all experience tornados, though not as often as my old home town. Still, the usual attitude I encounter is "I've never seen a tornado - they don't happen here". It's true that tornados don't happen often, just like my birthplace hasn't seen a serious earthquake in my lifetime, but they do happen. I guess that's why I'm curious about your experiences. I've never been to Japan and I've read enviable reports of your disaster preparedness, but I honestly have no idea how your schools and culture handle tornados.
lenerdenator 2y ago
It's like everything else: it comes down to money. People who don't have much of it (which is to say, most of the area in the New Madrid seismic zone) don't want to spend it on something that might happen at some completely unpredictable time in the future. They don't want the government telling them to do it, either, because in their minds, that's the government telling them to spend money they don't have. More money == more interest in long-term preservation.
- throwaway173738 2y ago
  So you can see how a living wage and parity for tipped professions is actually in the national interest.
  - lenerdenator 2y ago
    Exactly. The problem is, you will have to take money from some parts of the country to subsidize places like the Missouri Bootheel if you wish to see these sorts of improvements made, at least for a few decades. The engine for economic growth simply isn't there. Kansas City and St. Louis make up somewhere between 75-90% of the state gross product. Springfield and Columbia make up a little bit of the difference. The entire rest of the state by land area makes up less than 10%.
    - jajko 2y ago
      ... and thats communism in eyes of many, I'd say most americans (better redistribution of wealth instead of winners take it all and screw the rest, they didn't try hard enough). Healthcare is the same topic. So is public education.
      - sqeaky 2y ago
        This shouldn't be downvoted. Many right-wingers will say anything is "communism" and act like that ends the discussion, because it certainly ends their involvement with the serious part of the discussion. "Communism" and "Socialism" are invoked like magical bogeyman that will destroy everything. To have any discussion on social welfare this needs to be somehow bypassed in discussions.
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
> What does it take to convince people to take risks like this seriously? What risks should a human in the 21st century take seriously? Like, if there is a 1-in-50,000 chance of death or lasting injury, is that something that should have me hiding in the closet? I'd take a 1-in-100 chance very seriously of course, I run into 1-in-100 events many times in any given year. If I am supposed to take a particular risk seriously, how much am I expected to pay to mitigate it? You're slandering their ability to be rational without even taking into the account that they have evaluated it and judged the probability too low to act on without bothering to check if they quantify that correctly. They don't have the wrong numbers, they just set the threshold higher than you do. For me personally, anything below about 1-in-5000 warrants very minor attention, anything in the 1-in-100,000 area isn't even worth thinking about. Covid was scary as shit, early on in some regions it seemed to rise above 1-in-2000 chance of death.
- jmward01 2y ago
  Probabilities are very hard to think about so I personally relate back to driving. We do it every day but admit it is dangerous and take precautions like requiring testing and licensing, regulate the manufacture of vehicles and inspections and set standards for roads and provide emergency support. Anything more dangerous than driving is of high concern to me and probably requires many additional precautions. Anything less and I try to not get that worked up about it. With the above in mind, my comment basically can be summed up as 'It is easier to see the issues in the PNW and the PNW isn't doing what is needed to avoid them so how can we expect better preparation elsewhere?'. Pointing out issues in the PNW is like shooting fish in a barrel. Everyone in Ocean Shores is going to die and that is the tip of the iceberg. Estimates vary but a 1 in 4 chance in the next 50 years of a cascadia event is not a ridiculous estimate. With the preparation in place it is not unlikely that tens of thousands will die in the first few hours, if not even worse than that. The emergency response won't be able to help because the region impacted is massive and the first responders will be part of that region so even they will need to be rescued. The scale of this dwarfs any natural disaster the US has ever faced and reaches a point that it could hurt the country for years after. Bottom line, Cascadia alone deserves a bit more respect than we give it so I doubt I was 'slandering their ability to be rational' when I said we don't take these things seriously.
oooyay 2y ago
Come to Portland. We're due for a massive earthquake and you won't find much in the way of earthquake proofing. My house has straps and when it was renovated some adjustments were made to the structure. Around here, not everyone has that kind of money and our taxes are already incredibly high.
sqeaky 2y ago
> What does it take to convince people to take risks like this seriously? For it to be a bigger risk than other risks actively being worked on. Even a group of millions can only work on so many things at once. The Lower Midwest and the Dixie region of this country have: Gun violence, Racist violence, Tornadoes, some have hurricanes, military service as a key means of social uplift, systemic poverty, low health care rates, lower life expectancy, dubious educational outcomes. All of those kill people every year. When was the last earthquake fatality in the Nidwest? Killer bees kill something like a person per decade, far more than earthquakes (in the discussed regions), and no one thinks those are serious problem.

com2kid 2y ago

Building codes require earthquake strapping and take landslide risk into account. What more do you want people to do? Seattle has had large earthquakes in its short history as a large American city and honestly even mid 20th century construction held up ok. This isn't like parts of Japan where large earthquakes will happen on regular intervals. Engineers have to weigh costs vs risks.

blincoln 2y ago
> Building codes require earthquake strapping and take landslide risk into account. "In Tennessee, jurisdictions can decide whether to opt in to building codes with earthquake provisions, while other states — like Missouri — don’t have state-wide building codes at all, though there are efforts to change that."
- com2kid 2y ago
  GP comment is talking about the Pacific NW, and WA state at least most certainly does require earthquake provisions.

coding123 2y ago

Most people don't want to live afraid of everything. I learned that lesson in the past 3 years.

antonvs 2y ago
You've erased a lot of nuance there between two very different situations.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
I would add that everyone dies eventually. Attempts to entirely de-risk life are a futile effort, and reasonable people can disagree on what level of safety is appropriate.

doe_eyes 2y ago

What is the outcome you're hoping for, though? It's not useful for people to live with vague anxiety. Are there specific solutions we want them to pursue, and that aren't being handled by the government?

shiroiushi 2y ago
He's probably hoping for emergency preparedness, like any sensible person. That would include stronger building codes, evacuation plans and facilities, emergency supplies, etc. Here in Japan, we have all that stuff, and we don't live with "vague anxiety" (certainly nothing like the high anxiety that most Americans live with these days). Big earthquakes are rare, but smaller ones are very common, but everything in society is engineered to handle it well so it rarely causes problems.
- throwup238 2y ago
  > everything in society is engineered to handle it well Except nuclear reactor backup systems </tongue in cheek>
- lupusreal 2y ago
  If the matter rarely being a problem is the bar to meet, then Japan and Seattle have both met that bar. Seattle is less prepared but the quakes of note are also more rare, so both meet the "rarely causes problems" standard. It wouldn't make sense for every place to prepare as much as Japan for things that are less likely there than in Japan. Does Japan have as many tornado shelters as Kansas? Probably not.
- rprospero 2y ago
  Honest question: how often do you do Tornado drills in Japan? A quick look look at the wiki[1] indicates that you do get them, but fairly rarely. I honestly don't know your cultural perspective on them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tornadoes_and_tornado_outbreaks_in_Asia#Japan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tornadoes_and_tornado_... I grew up on the edges of the New Madrid fault area and, while earthquakes were never discussed, we did tornado drills about every two months while in school. After I entered the workforce, that got closer to once a year, but you were still expected to have a plan and supplies. It was basic emergency preparedness, like any sensible person. Granted, big F5 tornados are rare, but small ones were common enough to not even be noteworthy. Having left that region as an adult, it was a small culture shock meeting people who never had this kind of training. After all, the places I've visited all experience tornados, though not as often as my old home town. Still, the usual attitude I encounter is "I've never seen a tornado - they don't happen here". It's true that tornados don't happen often, just like my birthplace hasn't seen a serious earthquake in my lifetime, but they do happen. I guess that's why I'm curious about your experiences. I've never been to Japan and I've read enviable reports of your disaster preparedness, but I honestly have no idea how your schools and culture handle tornados.

lenerdenator 2y ago

It's like everything else: it comes down to money. People who don't have much of it (which is to say, most of the area in the New Madrid seismic zone) don't want to spend it on something that might happen at some completely unpredictable time in the future. They don't want the government telling them to do it, either, because in their minds, that's the government telling them to spend money they don't have. More money == more interest in long-term preservation.

throwaway173738 2y ago
So you can see how a living wage and parity for tipped professions is actually in the national interest.
- lenerdenator 2y ago
  Exactly. The problem is, you will have to take money from some parts of the country to subsidize places like the Missouri Bootheel if you wish to see these sorts of improvements made, at least for a few decades. The engine for economic growth simply isn't there. Kansas City and St. Louis make up somewhere between 75-90% of the state gross product. Springfield and Columbia make up a little bit of the difference. The entire rest of the state by land area makes up less than 10%.
  - jajko 2y ago
    ... and thats communism in eyes of many, I'd say most americans (better redistribution of wealth instead of winners take it all and screw the rest, they didn't try hard enough). Healthcare is the same topic. So is public education.
    - sqeaky 2y ago
      This shouldn't be downvoted. Many right-wingers will say anything is "communism" and act like that ends the discussion, because it certainly ends their involvement with the serious part of the discussion. "Communism" and "Socialism" are invoked like magical bogeyman that will destroy everything. To have any discussion on social welfare this needs to be somehow bypassed in discussions.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago

> What does it take to convince people to take risks like this seriously? What risks should a human in the 21st century take seriously? Like, if there is a 1-in-50,000 chance of death or lasting injury, is that something that should have me hiding in the closet? I'd take a 1-in-100 chance very seriously of course, I run into 1-in-100 events many times in any given year. If I am supposed to take a particular risk seriously, how much am I expected to pay to mitigate it? You're slandering their ability to be rational without even taking into the account that they have evaluated it and judged the probability too low to act on without bothering to check if they quantify that correctly. They don't have the wrong numbers, they just set the threshold higher than you do. For me personally, anything below about 1-in-5000 warrants very minor attention, anything in the 1-in-100,000 area isn't even worth thinking about. Covid was scary as shit, early on in some regions it seemed to rise above 1-in-2000 chance of death.

jmward01 2y ago
Probabilities are very hard to think about so I personally relate back to driving. We do it every day but admit it is dangerous and take precautions like requiring testing and licensing, regulate the manufacture of vehicles and inspections and set standards for roads and provide emergency support. Anything more dangerous than driving is of high concern to me and probably requires many additional precautions. Anything less and I try to not get that worked up about it. With the above in mind, my comment basically can be summed up as 'It is easier to see the issues in the PNW and the PNW isn't doing what is needed to avoid them so how can we expect better preparation elsewhere?'. Pointing out issues in the PNW is like shooting fish in a barrel. Everyone in Ocean Shores is going to die and that is the tip of the iceberg. Estimates vary but a 1 in 4 chance in the next 50 years of a cascadia event is not a ridiculous estimate. With the preparation in place it is not unlikely that tens of thousands will die in the first few hours, if not even worse than that. The emergency response won't be able to help because the region impacted is massive and the first responders will be part of that region so even they will need to be rescued. The scale of this dwarfs any natural disaster the US has ever faced and reaches a point that it could hurt the country for years after. Bottom line, Cascadia alone deserves a bit more respect than we give it so I doubt I was 'slandering their ability to be rational' when I said we don't take these things seriously.

oooyay 2y ago

Come to Portland. We're due for a massive earthquake and you won't find much in the way of earthquake proofing. My house has straps and when it was renovated some adjustments were made to the structure. Around here, not everyone has that kind of money and our taxes are already incredibly high.

sqeaky 2y ago

> What does it take to convince people to take risks like this seriously? For it to be a bigger risk than other risks actively being worked on. Even a group of millions can only work on so many things at once. The Lower Midwest and the Dixie region of this country have: Gun violence, Racist violence, Tornadoes, some have hurricanes, military service as a key means of social uplift, systemic poverty, low health care rates, lower life expectancy, dubious educational outcomes. All of those kill people every year. When was the last earthquake fatality in the Nidwest? Killer bees kill something like a person per decade, far more than earthquakes (in the discussed regions), and no one thinks those are serious problem.