Many of those who live in central Italy near L’Aquila were greatly impacted by the 6.3 magnitude earthquake that shook the entire town and surrounding areas in 2009. After this, many of the residents in these areas took comfort in the idea that it happened once, and it wouldn 't happen again. But when houses began to shake at 3:36 A.M. on August 24th, 2016 disaster struck once again. Though this earthquake was not as large as the previous one, the magnitude 6.2 was followed by almost 200 aftershocks, with magnitudes up to 5.5 (Povoledo, 2016). To say the least, the small towns of central Italy were not expecting or prepared for an earthquake this destructive.
The town of L’Aquila sits on a very active and dangerous area that has a high risk …show more content…
Six different scientists and a government official quickly dismissed his claim and the word spread that his findings were incorrect. After the 6.3 magnitude earthquake took place in 2009, the six scientists and the official were charged with manslaughter and misinforming the public. They were sentenced to 6 years in prison, but released in 2014 after they appealed.
Following the calamity of the 2009 earthquake, the mayor promised that the town would be rebuilt swiftly and up to modern code. Neither of his promises was kept. The buildings were either built too fast and not safely, or took too long to be rebuilt. The end result of the effort to rebuild was a town that was just as unstable and unsafe as before. So, when the disaster hit in 2016 the town was not prepared by any means.
In 2009 more then 300 people died. When the 2016 earthquake hit the numbers were no better, with more then 1000 people displaced and almost 250 people killed. After 2009 the construction of the buildings should have been sound. In retrospect I imagine that the officials agree now of the great failure of construction after seeing the distruction of the cheap structures. If the buildings recently constructed were up to modern code, supported with steel rods, and made to resist and outlast the intense shaking that comes from earthquakes, then the death and injury tolls would be nowhere near …show more content…
But, I believe that modern societies need to find creative ways to help low income areas that are threatened to be ruined by disasters. In today’s society, lower income regions are often at more risk. For example, areas more prone to landslides are usually cheaper and thus poorer people live there. The town of L’Aquila is not a wealthy area, so when the first disaster hit instead of just letting the town and country deal with the costs, we as a global community should have lent money to these areas. This would have allowed them to rebuild the buildings safely and avoid the repeated collapse. The amount of money that has to be provided by the government is a sunk cost, no matter what; it will be used to rebuild the city. But, instead of just giving the minimum to the town, why not give more and let the prospering economy that comes with a beautiful and safe Italian town help pay back the costs that went into
The town of L’Aquila sits on a very active and dangerous area that has a high risk …show more content…
Six different scientists and a government official quickly dismissed his claim and the word spread that his findings were incorrect. After the 6.3 magnitude earthquake took place in 2009, the six scientists and the official were charged with manslaughter and misinforming the public. They were sentenced to 6 years in prison, but released in 2014 after they appealed.
Following the calamity of the 2009 earthquake, the mayor promised that the town would be rebuilt swiftly and up to modern code. Neither of his promises was kept. The buildings were either built too fast and not safely, or took too long to be rebuilt. The end result of the effort to rebuild was a town that was just as unstable and unsafe as before. So, when the disaster hit in 2016 the town was not prepared by any means.
In 2009 more then 300 people died. When the 2016 earthquake hit the numbers were no better, with more then 1000 people displaced and almost 250 people killed. After 2009 the construction of the buildings should have been sound. In retrospect I imagine that the officials agree now of the great failure of construction after seeing the distruction of the cheap structures. If the buildings recently constructed were up to modern code, supported with steel rods, and made to resist and outlast the intense shaking that comes from earthquakes, then the death and injury tolls would be nowhere near …show more content…
But, I believe that modern societies need to find creative ways to help low income areas that are threatened to be ruined by disasters. In today’s society, lower income regions are often at more risk. For example, areas more prone to landslides are usually cheaper and thus poorer people live there. The town of L’Aquila is not a wealthy area, so when the first disaster hit instead of just letting the town and country deal with the costs, we as a global community should have lent money to these areas. This would have allowed them to rebuild the buildings safely and avoid the repeated collapse. The amount of money that has to be provided by the government is a sunk cost, no matter what; it will be used to rebuild the city. But, instead of just giving the minimum to the town, why not give more and let the prospering economy that comes with a beautiful and safe Italian town help pay back the costs that went into