Quick when was the last time 140K people were lost in an instant?

[nadinbrzezinski]

August 6th, 1945.

Perhaps this will give you some perspective as to why this is such a large disaster.

Yes, it is not crazy to compare it with a nuclear event, without the radiation.

Now all of you arm chair disaster managers... it boggles the mind of THIS ONE who actually did this for ahem FUN... and actually had to think of absolute worst case scenarios. I got close, due to geography and other issues. But maybe if you look at this in this light you might understand why moving the equivalent of an army division (from multiple nations mind you) just does not happen on a dime.

Just from what I know that ICRC hospital, 50 bed, OR capable, ICU capable, that came from Panama...

Well it took 12 hours to load it, on a good day, on the C-130. It took another six to eight to unload it at the Dominican Republic and load it onto Trucks, and then 18 hours to physically truck it to the other side... plus another 12 hours to get to operational status.

This is just a little picture.

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. Earthquakes can have even more power than nuclear events, right?

[bananas]

12. They can both be very much larger than the examples given

Even a small nuclear war between India and Pakistan could result in a devastating "nuclear winter" which would last years.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x193139
http://www.eoearth.org/article/Nuclear_winter
edit to add: Some people think a nuclear war can't happen,
but Martin Hellman estimates the failure rate of nuclear deterrence at 1% per year: www.nuclearrisks.org
And the "Doomsday Clock" of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists considers nuclear war the biggest threat to civilization: http://www.thebulletin.org/content/doomsday-clock/overview

[Davis_X_Machina]

2. July 28/9 1976

The Tangshan earthquake.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. That is why I love DU, I always learn something

Even if it is about a tragedy.

Thanks...

That one boggles even more of my mind.

[Davis_X_Machina]

10. The Chinese...

...on the heels of the Cultural Revolution, refused most outside aid, and as a result the quake faded from Western memories.

I found out from computer games -- if you play the PRC scenario in Railroad Tycoon III, and don't hold back $$$ and resources in '75 for rebuilding the NE China rail net after the quake, you basically lose. Even on the level of a game, it's sobering to see a city disappear from the screen.

[Parker CA]

5. Geezus, a 7.8 aftershock!?!? That's some insane tragedy. 250k plus dead. Nuts.

[Mari333]

3. yeah, it took us a little longer to do that in Iraq.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. Actually yes it did

it was nine months to spin up. but that was not a division. it was several divisions.

[Liberal Veteran]

6. December 26, 2004

The tsunami in the Indian Ocean.

[MiniMe]

16. That would be my guess too

I think they aren't even sure how many died in that one. Many floated out to sea.

[bigwillq]

23. "......killing nearly 230,000 people in fourteen countries"

:(

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake

[S n o w b a l l]

8. August 6th, 1945?

Huh? Surely you haven't forgotten about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_tsunami

300,000 dead.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Actually did not realize it was that high

mostly because it was all over the place... and not this highly concentrated.

[bananas]

13. It's still a useful comparison.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. of course and why I thank the info

gave money for that, gave money for this... that is SADLY all I can do.

[dipsydoodle]

9. But surely

some less sophisticated field units are of help too and tents were at the airport two days back. :shrug: More speedy use would likely keep more alive who may otherwise die ?

[ddeclue]

15. WRONG: The Christmas Tsunami killed even more than this earthquake just a few years ago.

It killed over a quarter million (250,000) in 14 different countries and was more than 10 times as powerful an earthquake to boot.

FAIL FOR FALSE FACTS!

[WhiteTara]

17. I was thinking of the Tsunami

in 2007 where 250,000 died.

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. Yeah I did not realize, as I adresssed it above, that it was that high

[WhiteTara]

25. remember the lake that spilled over

on to a town in China a couple of years ago and killed 80,000? There are many disasters besides war that decimate.

[Matariki]

19. A WHOLE Nation is in rubble - not just Port-au-Prince

I just can't wrap my head around it. And I'm so afraid that towns outside the capital - that aren't getting the same media attention will be left unhelped. Jacmel, the beautiful artistic and cultural center on the southwest coast is in complete rubble. Many other cities and towns as well.

[hack89]

20. Wrong - there have been at least four instances since 1945

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_natural_disasters_by_death_toll

[Call Me Wesley]

21. Why, in the name of life, do these questions matter?

One life senseless spent is too much. Do we now have to compare death polls to say, 'Hey, that was really bad, even worse than the last one.' That is, IMHO, perverse comparisons.

You can't compare catastrophes. You can't compare death. In your logic, there are 'small' and 'large' disasters. It's like Hiroshima, but without the radiation. Can you explain to me what this really means to you? What differences, human-wise, you make between 'small' and 'large' disasters?

One life spent is a disaster. It doesn't need a cheap powerpoint chart graphic.

Yes, it's crazy to compare it with anything.

[skepticscott]

22. By your logic

an earthquake where 1000 people died is no different than an earthquake where 100,000 people died...in other words, the extra 99,000 lives were unimportant and those people's deaths meant nothing.
Maybe in your pollyanna fantasy world, you can pretend that one life is just as important as a million, but in the real world where the rest of us live, we don't have that luxury. Hard decisions have to be made every day about the allocation of resources that will help save lives, but your kind of thinking won't permit them to be made as rationally as possible.

[Call Me Wesley]

24. Not exactly right, you missed my Occam's razor I use daily.

Let's try this to be more clear: One life spent is a catastrophe. 10,000 lives spent is a catastrophe. 100,000 lives spent is a catastrophe: Every single live spent useless is a catastrophe. They all need the same help, no matter of how big the numbers are.

I was replying to the OP, who wanted some chart of bigger numbers of dead people, or comparisons in general. And they are none, regarding help, compassion and rescue; every single life counts. It simply doesn't matter if ten people are in need or 200,000. You can describe it as 'small' incident or 'large' incident as you like, but every single one needs help.

You missed the point: My reply was against crunching of numbers.

Who's Pollyanna? :shrug:

[REP]

26. I got your point and you are correct

Pollyanna is a children's book character noted for an annoying, naive, simplistic outlook. You're no Pollyanna!

[skepticscott]

28. And you missed mine

If you have only one relief ship, and you can either send it to the site of a disaster where 10 people will die if they don't get help, or the site of a disaster where 200,000 people will die if they don't get help, but not both, which do you choose? Your pollyanna view assumes that that such choices never have to be made in real life, which is nothing but naive and silly denial. Arguing, as you do, that the two situations are no different, is simply perverse, and is an argument from the fallacy of unlimited resources.

[Bluenorthwest]

27. Very off base

As I'm sure the thread has pointed out.