Roofs, walls, plumbing, electrical systems, etc are all in active use every moment a home is occupied from the moment it is built, tornados are statistically rare events with the odds of a fatal event being even greater.

The U.S. averages 80 tornado fatalities per year, while we average over 3,500 non-boating related drownings. Would you regard the government mandated wearing of life jackets within 100ft of any lake, pond, pool, hot tub, or bathtub reasonable?

Life jacket = $25
Storm shelter = $5,000-10,000+

BTW, ironically the 9 children who died at the school on Monday actually survived the tornado, they drowned when the federally mandated fire sprinkler feed main broke and flooded the basement. So in a twisted way a regulation actually caused their death. I'm not advocating the removal of sprinkler systems, just trying to impart some reality. We do not need more emotion based bureaucracy/laws in our private lives.



Technically (and by very definition), because one is elected does not negate them from being a bureaucrat.

This sort of stuff amounts to political commentary, and is not allowed under the forum rules. I take it that RedGreen is some sort of con serv ative, and he uses the language that some pundits on the right typically employs to insult government employees (e.g., "we don't want a *bureaucrat* to make our healthcare decisions!"). This is the sort of stuff that could potentially make Doug Ritter's job harder when he has to work with "bureaucrats." Finally, the whole "anti-regulation" stance is another political statement, having nothing to do with the focus of this forum.

There is no restriction on your political beliefs on this forum as long as you don't discuss them. That's what makes this a good forum.

You're the only one who mentioned pollitical affiliation/politics, projected pollitical based assertions, and thinly veiled personal attack (banned under forum rules) based on perceived pollitical affiliation. My non-pollitical comments were timely, factual, and directly related to the posted topic concerning surviving a devastating tornado.

And no, I still do not understand why more people do not choose to install a shelter in their home in these areas.

I have family & friends near there and generally there is no discount as it does not actually protect the home (what is insured) only the occupants, but some life insurance companies offer a credit for them. The most inexpensive option we used on the farm (aside from a simple earth shelter) were LPG tanks. Simply cut one in half, weld a plate to the opening, cut a hatch and hinge it, then anchor to the slab. You can make two, two adult shelters for under $1k and it only takes up about 10 sq/ft of a garage floorspace. Typical tanks are 3/8-1/2” and more than capable of withstanding an EF-5 (3/16" flat plate has been tested/rated to 250mph in above ground applications).

There is nothing "factual" about a statement like "installing a shelter should be up to the individual, not up to government bureaucrats." This is an opinion, a political opinion at that. It's about policy and the role of government in society. How is the philosophy of governance "directly related to... surviving a devastating tornado"? It's not. It's about your view of government. Claiming otherwise is dishonest. Turning my well-intentioned advice for you to something about me is hypocritical.

Here is how wikipedia defines "bureaucrat."

German sociologist Max Weber defined a bureaucratic official as the following:[1]

He is personally free and appointed to his position on the basis of conduct.
He exercises the authority delegated to him in accordance with impersonal rules, and his loyalty is enlisted on behalf of the faithful execution of his official duties.
His appointment and job placement are dependent upon his technical qualifications.
His administrative work is a full-time occupation.
His work is rewarded by a regular salary and prospects of advancement in a lifetime career.
He must exercise his judgment and his skills, but his duty is to place these at the service of a higher authority. Ultimately he is responsible only for the impartial execution of assigned tasks and must sacrifice his personal judgment if it runs counter to his official duties.
Bureaucratic control is the use of rules, regulations, and formal authority to guide performance. It includes such things as budgets, statistical reports, and performance appraisals to regulate behavior and results.


Note the key phrase "appointed to his position." This definition rings true to me, because I fit most of it during my long career with the National Park Service. During that time I worked with all sorts of bureaucrats. Some were fat, lazy, and incompetent, but far more were energetic, conscientious, and thoughtful. Some were short; some were tall. Some were intellectual; some were earthy. A few were drop dead gorgeous; most of us, regrettably, were not. Bureaucrats bear a startling resemblance to people. Some employ the term as a pejorative, but most bureaucrats are simply trying to accomplish their job. They really don't stay awake at night figuring out how to make life difficult for the rest of us.

Not that accuracy means much in a discussion such as this but today the medical examiner confirmed that the children died of mechanical asphyxiation, not drowning. Most likely they lost their lives when debris fell on them and crushed the breath from them. Not a broken sprinkler main, and not the twisted machinations of an unfeeling self-interested Weberian bureaucracy. They were in the path of a tornado, one moment alive and the next they were gone. Children. I find it sorta sad that you can join them in the same sentence with the effects of bureaucracy, when they are not even laid to rest today. Please give it a rest.

Agreed. Government can overstep itself, bit this strays dangerously close to forum boundaries. Now if the building regulations came from a neutral party, ie American Society of Civil Engineers or similar, I would be more supportive. This seems like typical knee jerk reaction.

As to basements, theyre possible, but not practical. An article on CNN a few days ago mentioned less than 1% of homes in that area had a basement. I have seen shelters dug into the slab of the garage, little more than 4' deep and 8-12 feet long, but it gives some protection.

One point worth noting in light of the total destruction of so many buildings, is that incorporation of a safe room/shelter is much easier and cheaper if it is planned into the design from the outset, rendering the additional cost fairly trivial; maybe you would have to give up granite kitchen counters in order to have a safe room and stay within budget. Some might regard that as reasonable.

I'll bet the good citizens of Moore can figure out a solution that suits them.

I posted the "drowned" claim first. That' what the news media reported at the time, and I doubt anyone at the scene realized it wasn't drowning until the medical examiner looked closely. When you find a body pinned under water drowning is the first thing that comes to mind...


Had they merely been pinned down by the debris and not killed at that point, they likely would have drowned.

The problem with a government mandate in the form of a code requirement is that it is a one-size-fits-all-solution when people definitely don't have one-size-fits-all finances. Some people might just need to put off buying a jetski, but it's a much bigger deal to most. And when you factor in that it will almost never be needed it's easy to imagine Joe Sixpack thinking that the money would be better spent on more fire-resistant materials, etc.