it could be interesting to refer back to two discussions that took place on
this list. One was to do with scales of natural hazards, wherein there was
much debate whether indicators such as deaths and property damage are
appropriate for measuring hazards. They can be the basis for disaster
scales, but not hazard scales.
The second discussion was a recent one on `who benefits from disasters'.
Again there were certain benefits discussed, such as improved soil fertility
from floods and volcanic eruptions, which were more relevant in the context
of hazards rather than disasters!
best,
anshu sharma.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rebecca Slocombe <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
<[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, November 23, 2000 12:27 PM
Subject: natural hazards and disasters, misleading names, or not?
>Hi everyone. Ive been reading your messages and considering you are all so
>knowedgeable I was wondering if I could pick your brains for an essay
>question I have been set at university.
>
>The essay is "Use specific examples to discuss the ways in which the ters
>"natural hazards" and "natural disasters" can be misleading or
>inappropriate.
>
>Any information would be freatly appreciated.
>Thanks
>Rebecca
>___________________________________________________________________________
__________
>Get more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer download :
http://explorer.msn.com
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|