We all know about the M=8.8 quake in Chile yesterday, and the quarter million plus dead from the M=7.0 in Haiti earlier in the month. But there's the question, why did the smaller quake kill so many more people?
The answer is simple, really, Chile has had lots of huge earthquakes and the various governments, be they Allende's, Pinochet's or somewhere in between in the political spectrum, have always been in favor of strictly enforcing tough housing standards, while Haiti, having had no earthquakes of anywhere near that magnitude in centuries (not to mention being dirt poor), didn't think to have earthquake proofing on the agenda.
Earthquakes don't kill people, shoddy buildings in earthquakes kill people.
Now the question is where will one strike next and what to do about it are always pressing. more below the fold.
In December 2003, the tourist city of Bam in Iran was struck with an M=6.6 tremblor. 22 thousand people were killed and the town was flattened. Earlier that year, there was one in southern California of approximately the same magnitude, but nobody died.
Now Iran has lots of earthquakes just like California, but the Mullahs didn't really give a shit about preparation. Sure there was some on the education front, but construction was allowed to be shoddy.
Another reason that quakes and tsunamis can be deadly is memory. Everyone in Chile knew about the monster quake of 1960, they either lived through it or knew someone who did. There were lots of large, but smaller quakes (okay, all quakes since 1960 throughout the world were smaller, but you get the idea) after than, and like California, getting ready for the next big one is a priority. However, sometimes monster events can be decades, if not centuries, apart. For instance, except for a few seismologists and historians, nobody remembered the earthquake and tsunami of 1833. On Christmas 2004, it was just an interesting footnote in a few dusty books. People forget these things as time goes on.
So what should we do? Check the historical record. There was a M=6.3 in Boston waaay back in 1755. There was a couple of smaller ones in 1786, but nothing really noticeable since then. The Mass. Emergency Management office brought this up recently, but not much has been done about it. After all, it's been quiet for almost a quarter of a millennium. Then there's New York, There was a relatively large quake in 1884, about 5.5, and since then there's been almost no quakeproofing. A six or seven is possible and the damage here could be considerable. In fact, every state in the Union has had an earthquake in the last hundred years although all but a few have been very, small.
The Same thing goes for Europe. While Italy and Greece get slammed all the time, Quakes are rare in the north, but not unheard of, there was a M=4.2 just a couple of years ago just outside London, England. Will London be flattened? Probably not, but the possibility of a six or so might do some major damage certainly exists. France is safe. the US Geological Survey has no records of anything near Paris, EVER.
As to tsunamis, there's the possibility that one of the Canary Islands will fall into the Atlantic Ocean and create a six hundred foot high tsunami will will kill us all on th east coast. makes you warm just to think about it.