Christchurch earthquake: 'Dead bodies lying around'

Damocles said:
Right. 8.2 hits San Francisco, the stadium cracks and there is some road repair and a few people die, not from building collapse. I know this to be the case because when I was in the Navy I was there when it happened. Now compare it to what happens in NZ and your crowing about how our building codes suck is a bit off.
Click to expand...

The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake measured 6.9 on the Richter scale which is more than a hundred times less than the 8.2 you are quoting. Christchurch had the first quake last September which measured 7.0 but was a long way from the centre of the city and deep underground resulting in little damage.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/17/newsid_2491000/2491211.stm
 
Seriously, Tom. The idea that the US is somehow low on building code is idiotic. We build major cities directly on fault lines, huge earthquakes hit, people aren't dying on this scale.

I'm not saying NZ sucks or anything, just that the idea that the US sucks at this is directly against the reality of what actually happens. There is a reason that a 6.0 in India kills people while in the US almost nothing happens. BTW - I was there for two earthquakes. The one you are listing is the one that stopped the World Series, but not the one I was speaking of.. The one I spoke of hit Monterey at 6.2, it was much larger in San Francisco which was quite a large distance away from us (although I will admit I'm guessing at the scale number, it may have been as low as 7, but I'm pretty sure it was more than that.)
 
Damn Yankee said:
Leave it to Brits to use this as a chance to diss the US. :palm:
Click to expand...
I don't mind it, they have every right to "diss" us all they want. I just find their "diss" in this case to be entirely out of sync with the actual evidence. The US building codes in LA or SF, as well as other cities on fault lines have proven to be effective. The pretense that we're somehow "less" than they are is a hopeful push to gain back some of their former greatness.
 
Older buildings will always be susceptible to this kind of thing, in the case of LA and San Fran they went in and buttressed historical buildings against such things. The sky scrapers in LA are built to withstand very large earthquakes and it is one of the safer cities during such episodes. You are more likely to be injured in a residence than in one of those buildings.
 
Damocles said:
Seriously, Tom. The idea that the US is somehow low on building code is idiotic. We build major cities directly on fault lines, huge earthquakes hit, people aren't dying on this scale.

I'm not saying NZ sucks or anything, just that the idea that the US sucks at this is directly against the reality of what actually happens. There is a reason that a 6.0 in India kills people while in the US almost nothing happens. BTW - I was there for two earthquakes. The one you are listing is the one that stopped the World Series, but not the one I was speaking of.. The one I spoke of hit Monterey at 6.2, it was much larger in San Francisco which was quite a large distance away from us (although I will admit I'm guessing at the scale number, it may have been as low as 7, but I'm pretty sure it was more than that.)
Click to expand...

I am sure that US building codes are very strict in earthquake zones, I remember seeing a TV programme about San Fran and some of the buildings there are on rubber foundations. I think there is an 8+ earthquake due sometime but even the 1906 earthquake was estimated at just below 8 at 7.9 Actually, if anything I would have said that the Japanese have the highest standards if only because they have the most experience of killer quakes.
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
Right. 8.2 hits San Francisco, the stadium cracks and there is some road repair and a few people die, not from building collapse. I know this to be the case because when I was in the Navy I was there when it happened. Now compare it to what happens in NZ and your crowing about how our building codes suck is a bit off.
Click to expand...

American Standards are generally far, far easier to meet than BS. I speak from experience. End of.
 
Damocles said:
I don't mind it, they have every right to "diss" us all they want. I just find their "diss" in this case to be entirely out of sync with the actual evidence. The US building codes in LA or SF, as well as other cities on fault lines have proven to be effective. The pretense that we're somehow "less" than they are is a hopeful push to gain back some of their former greatness.
Click to expand...

Ask anyone with construction experience. I am not simply referring to 'building codes' I am referring to the fact that quality controls in construction, specifications and, I guess, requirements due to location, are demonstrably lower than BS. Don't even get on to your safety standards which are recognised internationally as being quite inadequate.
When Las Vegas tycoons decided to build casinos and hotel complexes in Macau, they had to adopt international standards before they could mix evn a bucket of concrete.
If you do not believe me check it out...if you can find an American construction company to tell you the truth, that is.
 
Lowaicue said:
Ask anyone with construction experience. I am not simply referring to 'building codes' I am referring to the fact that quality controls in construction, specifications and, I guess, requirements due to location, are demonstrably lower than BS. Don't even get on to your safety standards which are recognised internationally as being quite inadequate.
When Las Vegas tycoons decided to build casinos and hotel complexes in Macau, they had to adopt international standards before they could mix evn a bucket of concrete.
If you do not believe me check it out...if you can find an American construction company to tell you the truth, that is.
Click to expand...

so you say that international building codes are more substantial that california's building codes

each time there is an earthquake in ca scientists study the damage and check to see that our (i live in ca) building codes are sufficient

ca has required periodic upgrades to existing structures for earthquake safety

landlords fight these upgrades as long as they can but they are eventually brought up to code

earthquakes are beginning to show up in places other than the ring of fire and where there is no known history

looks like it is time to change building codes worldwide - say places like india and china
 
Schadenfreude said:
so you say that international building codes are more substantial that california's building codes

each time there is an earthquake in ca scientists study the damage and check to see that our (i live in ca) building codes are sufficient

ca has required periodic upgrades to existing structures for earthquake safety

landlords fight these upgrades as long as they can but they are eventually brought up to code

earthquakes are beginning to show up in places other than the ring of fire and where there is no known history

looks like it is time to change building codes worldwide - say places like india and china
Click to expand...

I am sure that regs in earthquake zones are up to international standards, but in general terms it is much easier to meet American Standards.
I don't know if you are familiar with bridge bearings, for example, but they are usually cast in situ and because the gap can vary by several mm from one bearing to another a special super flowable, high strength grout is required.
Strength tests and flow tests exist in all national standards. American standards didnt even recognise the necessity for the product let alone the various lab and on site tests and trials required. So all the huge bridges built here in the last 20 years have been to BS and 120 year design life. That means they used British products.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top