Re: Paradoxes - Nature's Debates - Right To Know
Posted by Petra Challus on September 30, 2002 at 18:20:04:

Hi Roger,

Good point, but I believe invalid. Insurance carriers might go on a moritorium and not accept any new risks at the time, but as for cancellations, sorry, by law, it cannot occur.

As for property values being at risk, at least as far as California goes, one might want to sit on the fence if they felt a prospect home might be in a seismic risk zone for a period of days, but most likely the wheels of commerce would continue to roll.

You see, right now when you buy a home in CA they use the Alquist-Priolo map, which is not complete and may never be and thus millions who live in high seismic risk zones are told they do not. Its perfectly legal because that's the choice of the realtors who order these maps.

But let us look at this situation in an entirely different way. Let us suppose that a scientist does know way beyond chance that an earthquake of a large magnitude is about to occur. He follows the rules and submits his conclusions to the Earthquake Prediction Council and they tell him he cannot predict the earthquake. So he follows the rules and he doesn't make it public.

The earthquake occurs and thousands die and there are millions of dollars in property damage. Then we must ask, do we as citizens who live in seismic risk zones have a right to be told when there is a greater than random chance that an earthquake may occur? Are our civil rights being denied? Perhaps they could be in the near future.

If the National Hurricane Center knows a hurricane is coming and doesn't tell anyone are they culpulable for injuries, death and some property damage? What about the weather forecaster who knows a tornado is headed for a locale and doesn't say anything? One day a sizeable earthquake which can be predicted will take a death toll in the USA and someone out there, a man/woman who is a scientist will follow this path and then we can ask the question as to our right to know.

There is little one can do in regard to property damage, but prediction can help some people avoid being in places in which they will be in harms way. That's the only thing its good for, but if it saves the life of a friend, a mother, a brother, a husband or a child, then to stand up and say they know its going to happen takes something that may not be in presense today. A true humanitarian who is willing to risk all that he or she is to save the life that someone else loves very much.

I rest my case....Petra


Follow Ups:
     ● Re: Paradoxes - Nature's Debates - Right To Know - Roger Hunter  20:04:20 - 9/30/2002  (16852)  (3)
        ● Re: Paradoxes - Nature's Debates - Right To Know - Petra Challus  21:18:28 - 9/30/2002  (16857)  (2)
           ● Re: Paradoxes - Nature's Debates - Right To Know - Mary C.  07:55:29 - 10/1/2002  (16864)  (1)
              ● Re: EQ Prediction Council & Psychological Studies - Petra Challus  18:58:43 - 10/1/2002  (16868)  (1)
                 ● Re: EQ Prediction Council & Psychological Studies - Mary C.  20:47:12 - 10/1/2002  (16869)  (0)
           ● Re: Paradoxes - Nature's Debates - Right To Know - Roger Hunter  04:24:32 - 10/1/2002  (16860)  (0)
        ● Re: Paradoxes - Nature's Debates - Right To Know - Mary C.  20:57:44 - 9/30/2002  (16856)  (2)
           ● Re: Paradoxes - Nature's Debates - Right To Know - Roger Hunter  04:33:06 - 10/1/2002  (16861)  (1)
              ● Re: Paradoxes - Nature's Debates - Right To Know - Mary C.  05:53:33 - 10/1/2002  (16863)  (0)
           ● Re: Paradoxes - Nature's Debates - About Parkfield - Petra Challus  22:24:17 - 9/30/2002  (16859)  (0)
        ● Re: Paradoxes - Nature's Debates - Right To Know - Don In Hollister  20:43:38 - 9/30/2002  (16855)  (1)
           ● Re: Paradoxes - Nature's Debates - Right To Know - Roger Hunter  04:35:57 - 10/1/2002  (16862)  (0)