I like to think that most things are black or white, that there is a cause and effect in action and how we view certain matters may simply be from not having the same perspective as one who sits on the opposite side of the road. I believe because I am not associated with academic or institutional science, my perspective on disaster education is quite different from those who are attached to these types of organizations, though, it need not be.

I would like to bring to light two disaster situations, both which require research and both which are governmentally funded when disaster strikes and ask you to take a moment to think about why one disaster receives more public attention, ie: more funding for public education than the other. Therefore, let us look at funding for flood disasters and preparedness, versus earthquake disasters and the lack of preparedness funding.

For the most part flood research in locating future flood areas is already complete, though it does change and is constantly being updated. There are known areas which will flood and their percentage of chance for flooding has been determined. Though not finite at all times. Flood damages are funded by two means, by purchase of flood insurance which is sold by the government, or paid for after a flood by government disaster funding. By purchase of flood insurance, it creates a fund for the government which offsets the funding necessary for those who do not purchase flood insurance. But it is entirely government funded. People who live in flood-prone areas are urged to purchase flood insurance as well as demanded by home lenders when a home is purchased. Educational materials as well and television time is devoted to urging people to prepare for flooding and purchasing insurance. Generally, it is thought that one should purchase flood insurance if one lives in a flood zone. Depending on the flood zone in which one resides, the premiums for flood insurance can be as expensive as earthquake insurance.

Now, let us look at earthquake research and preparedness and how disaster funding is provided. Earthquake risk zones in the larger sense are known, however, recurrence factors are not yet clearly defined. But they are refined to such a degree that a cost versus risk-factor is known. However, funding for these disasters is provided by private industry and well as the government. While private industry does not urge people to purchase earthquake insurance because to many policyholders would create a financial shortage at the time of disaster, the government which also funds these losses after earthquakes is not offset by collection of advance dollars for these losses. Money for education in the greater part has been provided by private industry and not government, though funding is made available to academic and institutions by the government, however, those who have a choice about how to spend those dollars may not act and allow the funds to sit in the bank.

Mitigation of earthquake hazards is being funded by city governments to some degree in retrofitting projects undertaken by homeowners as well as commercial retrofitting when cities set aside money for loans to retrofit. The City of Petaluma for example has more than a million dollars which it lends to private business building owners for retrofitting and after a few years, it is obvious that this program works from viewing the retro bolts along the sides of a good majority of businesses in the city. About three years ago a city government amendment was passed which required building owners to retrofit within ten years.

What the majority of people who live in seismic risk zones do not understand is that if they do not purchase earthquake insurance, it takes a disaster declaration from the President to make funds available for FEMA distribution. The absence of this declaration means no dollars are provided. However, even when provided, they are less than adequate for an average California homeowner to rebuild their homes. Thus, in a major earthquake disaster a good percentage of people are left without the resources to return to their prior living arrangements.

Currently, there is an absence in dissemination of preparedness information by both private industry and the government. While the government in the near future will provide funding through both academic and institutional organizations, private industry will not.

Therefore, in looking at these two disaster scenario's, how we view the need to prepare is clearly divided. However, in twenty years they may not be for several reasons. At present when you purchase a home in California, the current home seller is required to retro-strap water heaters. This one single act will prevent fires and water damage losses. Legislation is being urged for all tenant-occupied residences for water heater retro projects to mitigate property losses for rental-unit owners as well as their tenants. Most insurers are requiring homes to be retrofitted which is a clear signal to those who have non-retrofitted homes to avoid this step means they will find themselves in a higher risk market and pay as much as three times the normal premiums. When the cost to retrofit an average home is under $1000.00, to pay $3000 a year for insurance for a period of years clearly is not logical. Most western-states cities have already done a great deal to plan for earthquake disasters and have set aside funds for infrastructure upgrades or replacements.

The only thing that is missing today is to inform the general public earthquake disasters can occur at any time and they need to understand all of the ramifications of how it will affect them financially and emotionally if they do not prepare for this eventuality. The government does not benefit in providing this information in the greater sense because there is no money to offset what they will pay for future losses. Private industry can only handle so much risk, so they too have no sense of wishing to jump out there and do this either. Therefore, the disparity is in evidence because on one hand, flood disasters are totally paid for by the government, however, earthquake disasters are not. But in not informing the public to prepare the end result will remain as always, chaotic conditions will prevail, a larger casualty rate will exist and stress on essential services will be stretched to the max.

Earthquake disaster preparedness education can save millions of dollars for the government and who is the government? We are. When the government pays for disasters, we are paying for them through our tax dollars. Thus in closing I wish to say that to educate the public is a win-win situation for all of us. There will be less damage, less chaos and a much lower death toll. How can we possibly lose?

Petra

• The Seismic Safety Zone