Thank you for all the thoughts, reactions, and advice! My suggested summary of the discussion:

1. We need to investigate more how to get people to care about saving lives in disasters and why they might not care.

2. We need to investigate more the role of corruption, culture, and location.

3. Not all deaths during earthquakes occur from infrastructure collapse.

4. Further hazards--such as slides, fires, tsunamis, and floods--result from earthquakes.

For point 4, the impact on casualties might be unclear. A house buried under a landslide or avalanche might have already collapsed in the earthquake, killing the occupants before the mass movement struck. Irrespective of the hazards, the cause of death was still vulnerability.

Points 1 and 2 link to other Radix discussions http://currents.plos.org/ disasters/article/the-good- the-bad-and-the-ugly-disaster- risk-reduction-drr-versus- disaster-risk-creation-drc on disaster risk creation.

I understand the rationale behind using the term 'man-made', but for me, unless it is placed in quotations and is critiqued from gender and feminist perspectives, I am not convinced that it would add constructively to the view that we all can and should contribute to dealing with disasters. See the Gender and Disaster Network http://www.gdnonline. org

Have I missed or misrepresented any points? Any further suggestions? Thank you again for this discussion,

Ilan

http://www.ilankelman.org

Twitter @IlanKelman