Thursday, 14 January 2016

The 2015 Nepal Earthquake catastrophe was inevitable?

Author:Nikola Lalic
Date:14/1/2016

April 2015 was a troubled time for the small country of Nepal,located in the middle of the worlds greatest mountain range,the Himalayas.However, no one would have anticipated that one ordinary day would lead to a terrible disaster, in which nearly 9,000 people were to be killed and hundreds of thousands were to be left homeless,in a matter of only minutes.The cause was a powerful, 8.1 on the Richter scale, earthquake, with its epicenter being only 80 kilometers from the country's largest city, and capital, Kathmandu.However, the great question that many scientists now pose is whether this terrible event could have been, at least to some extent,stopped.Seismologist James Jackson from the university of Cambridge in the UK claims to have an answer.

Jackson begins his interview with the "Huffington Post" by claiming:"it was a nightmare waiting to happen".Though the last major quake in Nepal happened in 1934,killing more than 10,000,the very position of Nepal and its cities is dangerous, as it lies in the middle of the Himalayas,a very turbulent seismic sector of the world.Therefore, Jackson claims that such a disaster was bound to happen, sooner or later,which it unfortunately did.However, somewhat contradictory to his previous statement,Jackson also states that the earthquake itself does not kill many people,but instead buildings and objects are the lethal ones.In that case,why did almost 9,000 people die that tragic day? "The consequences are very much man made",Jackson continues.He claims that the way that people build in Asia,and the overall poor infrastructure in Nepal are the main reasons why buildings collapsed and killed such a vast amount of people.If we examine it closely, it is clear that Nepal, like many countries in Asia, is unfortunately very poor,and the average income per person is only 2,300$ a year,leaving large amounts of Nepali's living in poverty.Due to that,buildings in cities tend to be very poorly built,and are not strong enough to withstand any major seismic activity.Furthermore,the city of Kathmandu,which was the main "casualty" of this earthquake,has one of the highest growth rates in the world,growing at a stunning 6.5% in terms of population,and also has one the highest population densities in the world,simply adding to the potential vulnerability of the city.

Jackson closes of by saying that unfortunately,such a disaster was inevitable,and with that I would personally agree to as well, as the Nepal earthquake was,in my opinion,a inevitable event.Essentially,Kathmandu and the surrounding cities were a "tempered bomb",and were exposed to danger all along.That fateful day, on the 25 of April, the "perfect" conditions were created for a major scale disaster,which unfortunately unfolded and created this tragedy.Adding on to the issue, experts are now of afraid of the many economic issues that might occur as a result,because the earthquake itself caused approximately 5,000,000,000 dollars of damage.The only logical solution to the issue would be something very un-realistic,that is to completely change the infrastructure in large cities such as Kathmandu,but such feats would require massive sums of money.Mass rioting,food rationing,and homelessness might become an everyday topic in Nepal,all because of poorly built structures and poverty.
Figure 1: An example of the destruction caused by the earthquake in Kathmandu

Word count: 500

Sources:
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/25/nepal-earthquake-2015-prediction_n_7144748.html
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_2015_Nepal_earthquake

2 comments:

  1. Wow! I really liked how your blog post was so detailed and the topic was very interesting. I liked how you also gave your opinion on most of the text. I think it could have been even better if you would have shared the links to the article and maybe separated the paragraphs a bit more so it would have been easier to read, but overall great job Nikola!

    ReplyDelete
  2. What Went Well: You explained the event and it’s effects straight off the bat, which sets up a good base for the rest of the review. Jackson’s review is also well-explained, and your conclusions are clearly drawn from your evidence.

    To Be Improved: You could’ve cited your sources a little better and avoid restating what’s already been said.

    ReplyDelete