In a nutshell, the piece sketches some of the forces enabling denial of potential damage from earthquakes. When you have millions invested in a property, of course there is no danger from faults - faults, what faults? I paid a gemologist good money to tell me there are no faults under my building.....
It is the same issue that comes up in any discussion of potential risks, and expensive mitigation. It is not really any different than telling people they shouldn't build in river flood zones, below landslides, on barrier islands subject to hurricanes and sea level rise, etc etc. The annoying part is that all too often, the people who deny there is any risk, or actively suppress any effort to publicize those risks, are the same people who after a quake/flood/slide demand that the public help pay for them to rebuild in those same areas.
I hope your "gemologist" bought some nice jewellery with the money you paid him?
Previous Topic
Index
