Seismic-Safe, But at What Cost?
Seismic-safe buildings save lives and reduce damage. Despite these benefits, the technologies have drawbacks. Seismic-safe features, such as cross braces, may reduce the amount of usable space in a building. It is also expensive to add theses features to an existing building. Communities must make trade-offs between the benefits and the costs of seismic-safe buildings.
How do cities establish building codes and decide how much money can be spent on seismic-safe construction? Where do you think the most emphasis and funding should be focused?
For more information see the following websites:
CA Seismic Building Codes
Earthquake-building-codes-california
Build-earthquake-resistant-housing
I think seismic safe is a great way to help us stay alive while we are in earthquakes. The amount of usable space in the building wouldn't really matter to me-unless it was some big project or something I needed a big space to do, I would much rather live than have more space. I am glad that there are some smart people in the world who invented this kind of stuff and that they made it a law that people have to build this with the house/structure that they were making.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Brooke 100%! I am glad people made up these things and processes! It helps us today with our everyday lives!
DeleteI think the Seismic Safe is a great idea to keep us safe and alive during Earthquakes with a strong magnitude that causes a lot of damage. The space wouldn't matter to me UNLESS i was doing something in the space or something to do in that space or if the space had valuables. I am very glad people have invented the Seismic Safe project to keep us safe and alive! I would want the Seismic Safe in my home. I would rather stay alive during and Earthquake. I wish that each home that is being built is Seismic Safe, because everybody deserves to stay safe in an Earthquake.
Delete-Natalie Period 7
I completely agree. We should make this so people can be safe during earthquakes.
DeleteI think you are right, too! It is a good idea to make buildings safe so you dont get, hurt. Also, I wouldn't mind losing space if it means that I am safer.
Deletei soo agree with u brook it is so true and so i would ratehr be alive that have more space in a house
Deletebrook you are very correct
DeleteI totally agree! This will be great for safety!
DeleteI totally agree! This will be great for safety!
DeleteHemi 5
Deletetrue Natalie true seismic safe houses are helping our everyday lives but what if that isn't enough, what if the earthquake is too strong for the buildings? what then we cant rely on technology to save us we have to think for ourselves too.
I agree with all of you! Seismic Safe, is a great idea to make bridges safer EVEN if it means having smaller living space. Because the space in buildings we live in doesn't matter. It wont kill us to make our living space smaller! What will kill us is when our bridges are not safe, and we fall off because it breaks in an earthquake.
DeleteI think we should install the security in newer buildings when they are built but I believe it would be too costly for the older buildings. As for the problem of less space, wouldn't you rather live than have less space? Also many people don't need more space. In areas with lots of earthquakes I especially think we should install this security.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, I don't think we should waste the security on the old buildings, just try to focus on the new ones. And yes, there is a big difference from living with small space and dying because you have so much space.
Deletei agree with what you said about wasting security on older houses however i do not agree with what you said about living with less space or dying because huge areas were effected in the loma prieta earthquake probably several thousand people but only a little over 100 died so there is not a huge chance of dying.
DeleteI disagree, people who live in older houses are in danger of earthquakes, if not more.
DeleteI definitely agree with you! I also agree with Angelina that we should focus on security in new buildings instead of older buildings.
DeleteHemi 5
DeleteOK so fine you have big house that costs a lot of money and you want the security but you don't have the money for it then what?
I agree with you Nikolina. I think it is a lot better to build a few sturdy buildings than to have them all be unstable and not durable during an earthquake. The odds will be slightly better if there are new buildings. As we know most people die in a quake by objects falling on them,but that wont happen as much if the buildings are stronger.
DeleteI agree with you Nikolina. I think it is better to build a few sturdier buildings than have all of them old and unstable. That way the odds and slightly better of someone or something dying in a quake. As we know most people die in an earthquake from objects falling on them. This won't happen as much if we build better buildings.
DeleteShruthi Period 2
I think they can decide on the costs spent on seismic-safe construction only after they have planned out their budget for every thing else like community services.I think most of the spending should be spent on our safety but i also agree that the money should be split easily with other city/town needs
ReplyDeleteI think these buildings are a great idea, but I'm not sure if it is worth all of the drawbacks to continue reinforcing all of the buildings already standing. Maybe from now on they could work on making the new buildings seismic safe instead of the old ones.
ReplyDeleteI think so too. It's too much money to do it on the old buildings.
Deletehemi per 5
Deletei agree that new buildings should be seismic safe but how about historical landmarks you don't want those tumbling to the ground now do we so i think you should reinforce important buildings
I really think that we should have seismic safe buildings. It's just so sad to look back on all of the people who have lost there lives in an earthquake, and if we make our buildings and bridges seismic safe, less people will die. Even if we have to pay extra for these seismic safe ways, it's a good idea and hopefully it will work.
ReplyDeleteMichaela, period 1
I dont like to see that so many people die in an earthquake because if they made their house or business safer, they could have been saved if they spent a little more money to keep their house safe.
DeleteYes, that's the main idea I think, not to worry about what it costs but think about what you can improve for the next earthquake.
DeleteYes, its great to be seismic-safe and pay for a safe building than pay hospital bills.
DeleteEven though everyone already said things about it being worth it to make seismic safe buildings, imagine having to change EVERY BUILDING IN THE U.S into a seismic safe building. It would greatly not only injure, but nearly kill the U.S economy. People should just be prepared for earthquakes. It's much cheaper. Or maybe before building, they should be prepared before building.
DeleteI totally agree with you and I hate watching the new or listening to the radio after a quake because you always here of the people that died or got injured and I get so sad. I wish there was a way that we could save everyone that gets injured from quakes so at least they won't die too. I think seismic safe things are great and again, I totally agree with you.
DeleteI think we should just make buildings with this but definitely not in every building in the US. We should only make this where it is needed because of nearby faults.
DeleteNitish 8th Period,
DeleteNot every home in the US needs to be seismic-safe, only homes along major faults. Also, there is still a 50, 50 chance that a survivor will survive because it is possible that the person/family cannot get to their box of provisions, or they might die before getting to the stash.
That is a great way to put it Michaela, period 1. I would hate to look back and say, "Wow. I didn't know that so many people we know died in an earthquake."
DeleteI agree with you because it would be really sad to have people lost in earthquakes. It may be expensive but it would all be worth it if less people died in earthquake. I also think that the people would pay for getting their house earthquake safe or pay extra to get an earthquake safe house.
DeleteMichaela is exactly right! IT IS SO SAD to see the amount of people who die in a quake. The buildings help reduce the amount of people who are killed in an earthquake.
DeleteHemi per 5
Deleteok so yeah you can save your life if you spend some money here and there but what if you didnt have that kind of money what you just go bankrupt to save the house and get kicked out so we have to think about the what ifs there are always obstacles to go over in life.
We should have seismic-safe buildings, because this will help you stay safe in an earthquake. It is sad looking at the damages that other earthquakes have made and we should make it so not as much damage will be made. It may be pricey and may take away space. But in an earthquake. It will be would be worth it
ReplyDeleteI agree with Libby, because she stated that people's lives had been lost and a lot of damage has been caused. She also said that seismic wave proof buildings should be built and anything was worth saving lives, or preventing destruction.
DeleteI agree with Libby, but this could possibly empty the U.S economy. And people should also be prepared for earthquakes too. The government can't just start building seismic safe buildings just because people aren't precautious about earthquakes. In fact if people were prepared for earthquakes, there would be MUCH less deaths.
Deletemitish that is correct
DeleteTaylor period 2
DeleteI agree with you, Libby. having safe buildings is worth the money rather than deaths.
Hemi Per 5
Deletei agree with Libby too and my mom always said that your life is more than all the money in the world. so i think we should put some money into seismic safe buildings
I think it is really important to make buildings safe. I think is worth it to spend the money on enforcing and making buildings seismic safe. I think when people renforce their houses, and experience an earthquake and their house doesn't fall, they wont mind losing the space. Even kust bolting down your house to the foundation or screwing in cabinets. I really think it is a good idea to have your house be earthquake safe so you dont get injured or killed during a large earthquake.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sarah because she also said that it was worth spending money to keep buildings safe. And she also said that anything in the process of making your house safe counts. We all know the saying, "Better safe than sorry." I think that she is completely right when she says that they won't mind losing the space if their life is saved.
DeleteI agree with Sarah because my family has all our cabinets, dressers, and hot water heater bolted to the wall incase of an earthquake. I also think she is right about people not minding less space because if it was death or life with less space, I think I would choose life with less space. I am so glad that I live in a safe home and I bet everyone else is too.
DeleteI agree with you totally Sarah period 3 totally 100%! Good job!
DeleteI agree with you Sarah because it may be expensive but it would all be worth it after seeing less people die in earthquakes. You may have a little less space, but that would be better than dying in an earthquake.
DeleteWhatever the price, WE LIVE IN A PLACE PERFECT FOR BIG EARTHQUAKES!!!
ReplyDeleteSeismic safe buildings would greatly reduce the number of deaths and casualties during a large earthquake, and though expensive, will help to cut costs to rebuild buildings in the long run. 1 billion in damages could be cut to HALF if we use more and seismic safe buildings. Of course, it is our responsibility to take further step to ensure our safety such as preparing an earthquake kit, and to drop, cover and hold.GO SEISMIC SAFE BUILDINGS!!!
I agree we should all try to still be ready for an earthquake if our home does not provide enough strength in an earthquake.
Deletei soooooooo agree with you too
Deleteyes i agree with you all
DeleteI think that siesmic-safe buildings are a smart and great way to protect us when earthquakes happen because that means less people will be crushed by buildings or drown because bridges collapse.
ReplyDeleteyes. we should save people using some money instead of feeling guilty if people get crushed and knowing, you could've prevented it.
DeleteHemi 5
Deletei agree but no building will ever be 100% earthquake proof because who knows scientists may find a way to stop a 12.0 quake but what if there is all of a sudden a 13.0 in the future most likely not but its an if, anythings possible.
I think seismic-safe buildings are a great way to minimize the accounts of death or injury. If I had to choose between being alive or having little space I'd pick being alive for sure. If I had a large family I might not choose to have a seismic-safe home. We are also in a place were a big earthquake is expected. We should not entirely rely on seismic-safe buildings to keep us safe. We should have a kit and drop, cover, and hold, for sure.
ReplyDeleteFiona McHugh Per.2
I agree with you, i would totally choose being alive than having less space in my house any day.
DeleteTaylor period 2
Deletei agree with you, but sometimes you may have to rely on buildings. if you were in a drop, cover, and hold when a building collapsed, you most likely wouldnt stand a chance.
Pleasanton is in the Bay Area, which produces many earthquakes. That means Pleasanton has to have a stronger building code than other cities. The buildings should have light but strong roofs, and they should pave the land below the house down before they build the house, because liquefaction can come and have the house sink in. The most funding should go to the roof and walls, in my opinion. The price may be high, but it's worth it if it means we get to save lives.
ReplyDeletei agree we should spend money if it helps save lives
Deletei agree with you all the way. we should especially work on building a better, safer house for the people of the bay area
DeleteI agree with you Hailyn, if we pay the extra money for it now, it will save us money and lives in the future, if there ever is a major earthquake.
DeleteThe truth is, buildings don't fall down as soon as an earthquake starts. That's because the buildings can support their own weight and a few others. Even if they are badly built, they still have a chance. But when the plates move side to side, the buildings fall and collapse and bad things happen. When i researched a bit about seismic safe buildings, i fond out that seismic safe buildings could withstand the side to side movement. Even if they withstand better, the bad part is that it reduces space, but the price is still the same for seismic safe homes. And like Mr. Riddle said in the blog, it would be expensive. Even though seismic safe buildings are a good idea, it would hurt the U.S economy.
ReplyDeletearin period 1
DeleteI agree with nitish seismic safer buildings are safer thats one pro but there are two cons their expensive and reduce space
i agree with you nitish although the seismic safe homes are safer in a earthquake their two cons are that they are expensive and also take up space
Deletei agree with nitish although the seismic safe buildings are safer in a earthquake their expensive and will reduce space in your home
Deletei agree with nitish although seismic safe homes are safer in a quake they are expensive and they reduce space
Deletei agree with you part way. You're better off safe than sorry
DeleteHi Guys! This is Mr. Riddle. Any of u that want 2 use letters and numbers as words or want 2 extend words 4 impact like "It was soooooooooooo cool" will get a totally awesome 0. (spelled zero). I also hate it when you dot your i's with little hearts. :/
ReplyDeleteif you already did it is it ok?
DeleteHarsh!
DeleteI think we should make all buildings seismic safe. Even though it will cost more just think of how much safer so many more people could be. I would want to know if I am safe or not. Wouldn't You? If there was a big earthquake right now just think of how many people that would get killed or injured from it. If we made buildings seismic safe we could reduce that amount of people that get killed or injured. I really think that we should make all buildings seismic safe because I would rather live than die and I think you would too.
ReplyDeleteI think that we should have seismic safe buildings because it will protect us and we won't get hurt and things won't get damaged. However, I also think that it is too much money and if we built many seismic safe buildings, we would be broke and the U.S.A.'s economy would go really bad. But,it's also a total waste of money because we could use other to protect our selves.
ReplyDeleteI think that buildings should be built seismic- safe because you would benefit from the buy, or in other words, it would be a good buy. It would help keep lives safe, and less ruins would come from the earthquake. i think that it would be less money to build seismic-safe buildings, then having to rebuild a whole city from scratch. less families would be upset of family loss, and that would decrease the depression.
ReplyDeleteI think seismic safe is a great way to help us stay alive and keep are buildings standing while we are in earthquakes. i think we should build earthquake proof buildings instead of normal buildings. we should put some money over to earthquake proofing some of the more populated buildings. I believe we should proof the buildings.
ReplyDeleteI think that we should make most of our buildings seismic safe, even if it costs a lot of money. It is more important to have our citizens safe, than to have them in danger. Especially in the Bay Area, which is one of the most earthquake abundant places in the world. It is predicted that we will have a major earthquake in the next 30 years. Better safe than sorry.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that home owners should have to pay for earthquake renforcement, all current homes that have been recently built should have earthquake protection. If a home owner would like to update their home, it should be up to the state (in our case California) to pay for the update. This might be expensive but I have two points to to make that make to cost worth the while. The first is that many home owners are just to lazy to contact the state, it's not the states fault if people don't want an update, it isn't their job to contact Californian residents. The second is that if home owners don't have an affordable option to updating the safety of their home and a high-magnitude earthquake strikes, the state will have to pay for the damages caused by the earthquake. It all comes down to the state, better sooner than later.
ReplyDeleteI think seismic-safe buildings are a good idea, no matter what the price. We live in an area where earthquakes happen all the time, and need to be prepared for them, no matter what the price. I would rather pay extra money to keep my home and family safe, even if it made my living space a little smaller.
ReplyDeleteaustin naylor period 8
ReplyDeletei think seimic wave safe is way to go i think we should put SOME of the funding towards safety
There have been many earthquakes in the Bay Area! We definitely need to have a stronger building code than other cities. We need to produce a way to stop liquefaction. Maybe like Hailyn said to pave below the house down so it will stay. That also might help the house stay more sturdy. I think the most funding should go to the roof because it would be terrible if your roof came crashing down on you.
ReplyDeleteTaylor period 2
ReplyDeleteI think we should continue to make seismic safe buildings. If we had a big earthquake and didnt have safe buildings, there would be more money lost than spent on making them safe. It would be okay if there was less space in buildings; people dont need a gigantic amount of space to work. if they stop making safe buildings, more people will get injured or worse from falling rubble. Some buildnings may be able to withstand earthquakes, but others arent.
Hemi 5
ReplyDeleteI think seismic-safe buildings are a great way to minimize the amount of death or injury every year. If I had to choose between being alive or having little space I'd pick being alive for sure. If I had a large family I might not choose to have a seismic-safe home. We are also in a place were a big earthquake is expected. We should not entirely rely on seismic-safe buildings to keep us safe. We should have a box to put our earthquake emergency things in.
Hemi 5
ReplyDeleteHome builders should install little earthquake safe lockers in the wall and we could put all the stuff we need to survive after a earthquake hits because the San Andreas fault hasn't released an earthquake in a long time.
Hemi 5
ReplyDeleteDCH
Drop, Cover,Hold
that is what all schools learn and its good but even if you have seismic wave safe buildings you could never be to careful.
Better safe than sorry that's what i always say.
I think we should make earthquake safe materials on major highways and bridges in major cities like Los Angelos and San Francisco. As Mr.Riddle said it cost a major amount of money, but we would lose a lot more money if major building,highways, and bridges were destroyed. However we should not do it on every single house because it would be too expensive. That is what I think.
ReplyDeleteI think that we should build seismic safe buildings, because it would probably cost less than to rebuild a whole city from scratch. It would be money well spent and would safe lives of many people.
ReplyDeleteI think that the government should use the taxes to get that done for every home in the most earthquake areas and build different kinds of buildings that can also with stand an earthquake for less money
ReplyDeleteDear Natasha,
DeleteI agree that the Gov. can use taxes to get houses earthquake safe, but I ALSO think that they shouldn't tax people more, just so they can make buildings earthquake safe.
hemi Per 5
Deletei agree that the gov. should use some of the taxes toward earthquake safety but not all some have to go to education to military and ect.
I think that the people should not earthquake safe houses and buildings, because it's expensive and it takes up space. Instead they should make earthquake proof buildings so then it already is safe. Also, if they're going to make buildings safe, they should only do it to buildings of people who want it, Because not everyone wants their building (or house) earthquake safe.
ReplyDeleteHemi Per 5
ReplyDeletei think the gov. should put some of the taxes (some not all) to Earthquake safety and like it or not the house/school maybe a bit smaller than usual but better than dying knowing that you thought comfort over safety.
i think that seismic safe houses are an excellent idea. takes up to much space? get a larger seismic safe house and like others have said above, i would rather be alive rather than having to little amount of space.
ReplyDeleteVinay Per. 7
DeleteDear Lilly Per. 7
I understand how you would be happier alive than with no space but if we were just educated on how to prepare we could survive without seismic safe houses and have enough space
i think seismic safe is great because i would rather be alive than have space to do stuff because i do not want to be dead and having some space is better than being dead
ReplyDeleteVinay Per. 7
ReplyDeleteI believe that there is no need for Seismic safe houses and that it would be too expensive. If people could just learn how to prepare there would be no use for them.