I think that it is important to use natural, even if rare, events to learn
about how natural hazards and their consequences can be better managed. So,
from scanning news stories and a little research, this is some of what we
may have learned:
1. There is no consistent warning system for "small" solid objects hitting
the earth, until they get close enough for you to see them. Or is there, and
it failed?
2. Overpressure can cause a lot of damage to specific elements of the built
environment. These impacts are much like some of those encountered in
earthquakes, and mitigating one could mitigate the other. (It would be
interesting to learn whether specific types of glass or windows were damaged
more, or less, as an entry point to considering whether the are specific
seismic safety lessons about windows which can be documented.)
3. Social reactions, as discussed by Cope, may not be too different by
different types of disasters, i.e., to go out and look, maybe not the safest
thing to do for most sudden onset events.
4. There is an global network of infrasound stations set up to monitor
nuclear events, which can also be used to monitor meteors, volcanic
explosions and similar events, apparently with some precision. NASA used
data from these stations to establish the size and explosive energy of the
Russian meteor. See
http://www.ctbto.org/verification-regime/potential-civil-and-scientific-appl
ications-of-ctbt-verification-data-and-technologies/ and
http://news.yahoo.com/russian-meteor-blast-bigger-thought-nasa-says-23492018
9.html.
5. Russia mobilized a large number of responders (20,000 by media accounts)
to provide assistance. Having a large population, large military and large
national civil defense agency seems to be good for the rapid respond to
disaster, even unusual ones. But what if you don't?
6. Cameras, including those on phones, on dashboards, and for monitoring,
played a key role in documenting, and quickly transmitting data about, the
event. This is again a demonstration of the shift in disaster related
information flows from single channel official reporting to multi-channel
mass reporting. If this is the future, we need to rethink the role of
official channels in disaster reporting and response, and not just for
terrorist events (one of the lessons from the tube bombings). Already, news
organizations such as the BBC encourage uploads from those involved in
events, and can base their reporting on these uploads.
So I tend to support Terry's concern that the list should focus on relevant
matters, but also think list members should use the list to share
information and ideas. Thus I thank Ilan for starting the thread and expect
some of the members to look further into the points above.
Regards,
Kelly
|