Should people who live in known earthquake zones be forced to move before a big one hits?

  • Residents In Earthquake Zones!

    I feel that it is very important for those whole reside near major earthquake zones to become fully aware of what is at steak in the case of an earthquake. I believe that all earthquake zones should be resident free, and only have scientist and geologist in the area for testing and research purposess only.

  • Defiantly they should

    They should move because many many people can loose their lives in a situation like this. This is bad for the people because everyone can loose their friends or loved ones. They can die of this at a very very young age that they have their whole life ahead of them.

  • Of course they should

    Natural disasters have become a reoccurring event in the same spots every time. Anybody that knows that they are going to put their family in a high risk zone is completely oblivious to the destruction and death rates of earthquakes. I respect a person based on their decisions and the people who take this risk have no reason to be there.

  • people should be moved to a safe destination before major destruction.

    An earthquake is the ground shaking caused by a sudden slip on a fault. Stresses in the earth's outer layer push the sides of the fault together. Stress builds up and the rocks slips suddenly, releasing energy in waves that travel through the earth's crust and cause the shaking that we feel during an earthquake. An earthquake occurs when plates grind and scrape against each other. In California, for example, there are two plates the Pacific Plate (which extends from western California to Japan, including much of the Pacific Ocean floor) and the North American Plate (which is most of the North American continent and parts of the Atlantic Ocean). The Pacific Plate grinds northwestward past the North American Plate along the San Andreas Fault at a rate of about two inches per year. Parts of the San Andreas Fault system adapt to this movement by constant "creep" resulting in many tiny shocks and a few moderate earth tremors. In other parts, strain can build up for hundreds of years, producing great earthquakes when it finally releases. Large and small earthquakes can also occur on faults not previously recognized; recent earthquakes in Alabama and Virginia are good examples.

  • No they should not be forced to move

    I think they should not be forced to move because the place where the government relocates them to might not be environmentally safe. Some people might not have enough money to move so they might just have to stick with the house they have and they probably spent alot of time and effort finding the house

  • Of course not.

    People know the risks of living in a certain area. I live in the gulf coast area of America which is known for hurricanes, does that mean we should be forced to move before another Katrina comes? No! Now I do concede that earthquakes are unpredictable from what I know about them, but people do know the risk when they move to a certain area.

  • It's Not Plausible To Evacuate!

    It's not possible to simply move everyone from their homes. For one, it's highly expensive. There also isn't enough space for citizens to be relocated to. However, there should be a system set up in which citizens can safely and quickly evacuate their houses in the event of an earthquake. Devices such as seismographs are put into play to detect when an earthquake transpires, either along a convergent, divergent, or transform boundary. We should definitely evacuate citizens if an earthquake were imminent, but forcing people to permanently abandon their homes is absurd.

  • No, people shouldn't be forced to move.

    Moving is expensive and not everyone can afford to move. If the people who live there are homeowners, should they be forced to lose their investments in their houses? Who would buy the homes in this zone? The government? Unless these moves were completely subsidized by some agency, the people in these areas wouldn't be able to afford to pick up and move unless they're independently wealthy.

  • No, people shouldn't be forced to move, but they have to accept the consequences without demanding public support.

    No, people who live in known earthquake zones should not be forced to move. If they are adults in their right mind, they should be given the freedom all citizens have to choose to live where they wish. However, those who know what the dangers are and choose to stay should not later expect large amounts of public money be spent to reimburse them for the losses they incur. While it is morally right for the government to offer basic immediate assistance in the way of urgent healthcare needs and temporary shelter, the government should not be expected to foot the bill for new belongings and housing.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.