Earthquakes, Prediction V Preventation.
Predicting VS Preparing.
Should the government spend more money on predicting an earthquake than on preparing a town for the next?
This case study will be arguing the reasons as to whether the government should or shouldn't spend money on predicting an earthquake than on preparing a town to be ready for the next. There are many different points of views on this argument and I will be justifying these in further detail, as well as giving my own opinion towards earthquake prediction.
An earthquake is a natural disaster when two tectonic plates rub together and send huge amounts of energy and vibrations called seismic waves through the Earth's surface causing the ground to shake violently. This can cause many dangerous outcomes including buildings to collapse, hillsides to form landslides and many people can also get very badly injured or even worse, killed. Over the past 10 years over 700,000 people have been killed due to earthquakes, can we put an end to this? Do this many people really need to die? Is it possible to precisely predict when and where they might happen next?
Some scientists believe they are able to use a special instrument, called a seismometer, to detect the vibrations after the earthquake which, collects a chart called a seismogram that can be used to predict the next earthquake and reduce the amount of damage caused. There are two types of waves earthquakes send out. P-waves which are also known as Longitudinal waves, that start of the earthquake travelling in straight lines moving back and forth to cause minimal damage. Then comes much rougher waves called S-waves which are also known as Transverse waves, these travel sideways moving left and right and cause quite a lot of destruction, depending on how much the earthquake measures on the Richter scale.
In this case study I will be arguing whether it is actually worth spending such a large amount of money for the equipment that will be used to predict an earthquake or if it's not
Should the government spend more money on predicting an earthquake than on preparing a town for the next?
This case study will be arguing the reasons as to whether the government should or shouldn't spend money on predicting an earthquake than on preparing a town to be ready for the next. There are many different points of views on this argument and I will be justifying these in further detail, as well as giving my own opinion towards earthquake prediction.
An earthquake is a natural disaster when two tectonic plates rub together and send huge amounts of energy and vibrations called seismic waves through the Earth's surface causing the ground to shake violently. This can cause many dangerous outcomes including buildings to collapse, hillsides to form landslides and many people can also get very badly injured or even worse, killed. Over the past 10 years over 700,000 people have been killed due to earthquakes, can we put an end to this? Do this many people really need to die? Is it possible to precisely predict when and where they might happen next?
Some scientists believe they are able to use a special instrument, called a seismometer, to detect the vibrations after the earthquake which, collects a chart called a seismogram that can be used to predict the next earthquake and reduce the amount of damage caused. There are two types of waves earthquakes send out. P-waves which are also known as Longitudinal waves, that start of the earthquake travelling in straight lines moving back and forth to cause minimal damage. Then comes much rougher waves called S-waves which are also known as Transverse waves, these travel sideways moving left and right and cause quite a lot of destruction, depending on how much the earthquake measures on the Richter scale.
In this case study I will be arguing whether it is actually worth spending such a large amount of money for the equipment that will be used to predict an earthquake or if it's not