Jump to content

Create a Free Account or Sign In to connect and share in green living and alternative energy forum discussions.

Which is worst?

10 replies to this topic

#1 greenking



  • Shifter
  • 60 posts 2 rep

Posted 02 March 2012 - 09:02 AM

earthquake or major flooding?

#2 still learning

still learning


  • Veteran Shifter
  • 886 posts 162 rep

Posted 02 March 2012 - 03:17 PM

The one that you are caught up in.

Wikipedia says that in 1931 a flood caused the death of 1 and 2.5 million people in China.
Wikipedia says that in 1556 over 800,000 people died because of an earthquake in China.

Same Wikipedia entry says that there's been several pandemics in which over a million people have died, that over 100 million people died of smallpox during the 20th century,   Then there's famines, over 15 million people perished in China just half a century ago.

Wars?  Over 40 million died during World War II.

#3 joeldgreat



  • Pro Shifter
  • 162 posts 6 rep

Posted 02 March 2012 - 05:42 PM

Just putting it in a different perspective as the numbers were already mentioned above. For me, it really depends on which I'm at when each natural disaster strikes. If I'm on top of a building, then I would be prefer a flood rather than an eartquake. It would mean that earthquake would be much worst for me. The opposite thing would be if I'm in an open field near a river.

Either way, I will never choose any one of these as both were very much destructive.

#4 Ansem



  • Shifter
  • 91 posts 5 rep

Posted 03 March 2012 - 10:05 AM

I say flooding, earthquake is just cleaning up the mess but a major flood will change entire landscapes, move buildings instead of collapsing them and will leave you with nothing but mud behind.

#5 katniss



  • Shifter
  • 31 posts 2 rep

Posted 04 March 2012 - 05:44 PM

I consider an earthquake to be the worst natural disaster. You just have to look at some examples, in recent years to see why they're so bad, take for example: hati 2010, and japan 2011. They have many primary, and a huge amount of secondary effects (think all those nuclear reactor problems in japan, and the 2004 tsunami, they were all due to an earthquake).

The one fact which makes earthquakes more dangerous than other natural disasters however is the fact that, unlike any other natural disaster, because of their nature earthquakes can happen at any place, at any time, with no warning. A surprise.

#6 Shortpoet-GTD



  • Validating
  • 8,025 posts 758 rep

Posted 05 March 2012 - 03:04 PM

Floods-move to higher ground. Most flooding has advanced warning i.e. raining for days-
so it's not the worst imo.
Earthquakes can strike without warning because we haven't figured that out yet.

Even with advances in warnings for tornado's, they can form and touch down (as seen recently in Kentucky
and Indiana) in minutes. Not enough time to seek shelter. Especially, when they come in at 3 a.m.
(And not be nit-picky, but is should be "which is worse" or "what's the worst")

#7 Sandra Piddock

Sandra Piddock


  • Pro Shifter
  • 329 posts 34 rep

Posted 05 March 2012 - 04:14 PM

We've had mild earthquakes here, and actually slept through them. The last one we had, three weeks ago, the first thing we knew about it was when we read about it in the local paper a few days later. I've never been involved in a real flood, and I don't think I want to, anymore than I'd want to be involved in a major earthquake. It's bad enough seeing the aftermath on television.

#8 Guest_arboramans_*

  • Guests

Posted 05 March 2012 - 04:21 PM

Humanity chooses to live on fault lines due to the abundance of mineral riches found near them.

Has anyone seen the documentary series - "How the World made us" ? It talks at length about this subject

#9 rbaker_59



  • Shifter
  • 86 posts 3 rep

Posted 02 April 2012 - 09:35 AM

I have been around mild floods and that was bad enough.  As far as what is worse, would depend on the severity and what happens during that time.  In both incidences, people have lost their lives, homes, possessions, etc.  I really don't want to be around either one.

#10 dconklin



  • Pro Shifter
  • 413 posts 14 rep

Posted 17 April 2012 - 07:07 PM

I have seen our river take houses down and smash the houses against the bridges while raging down stream.  Tho it is a shame, flooding does do a lot of damage.  I do think earthquakes are worse tho.  They can predict a flood before the waters rise.  There is no real detection for an earthquake.  They are both devastating.

#11 MakingCents



  • Pro Shifter
  • 335 posts 23 rep

Posted 18 April 2012 - 10:51 AM

I think earthquakes tend to be more devastating because they aren't always predictable.  So people don't know they are coming and can't prepare ahead of time.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users