Something that surprised me during the Health and Earthquakes talk was when Professor Meade mentioned that earthquake-proof buildings could not be “re-used” per se after an earthquake, just like you shouldn’t keep using the same bike helmet after falling off a bike. To me, this takes away some of the appeal and the point of being “earthquake proof.” One part of a building being able to resist earthquakes is obviously it not crumbling as easily, but another should be for buildings to not need to be entirely rebuilt after earthquakes, as that would render earthquake and non-earthquake proof buildings similar in their cleanup and recovery costs. Because I personally have doubts as to the possible effectiveness of an early earthquake predictive system, I would place a lot more emphasis on designing and building structures which can not only withstand the impact of one earthquake, but which prove durable enough to last for at least another large earthquake with only need for repairs but not a complete reconstruction.
top of page
bottom of page