Sciences >
Atmosphere & Weather
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould scientists be allowed to divert a hurricane away from a major city, dooming rural residents?
Results so far:
| No | 66% | 384 votes | Total: 586 votes | |
| Yes | 34% | 202 votes |
No
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesGive scientist the control of the path of hurricanes is giving them the license to play God. There are so many moral implications to consider that they would fill volumes. How would the direction of the hurricane be decided? Should it be sent east or west? If the hurricane is headed to Corpus Christy, Texas, do we send it to Mexico? What kind of international incident would that create?
The answer would be for the governing bodies to come up with a strategic plan for total evacuation of the people potentially impacted by the hurricane in the first place. Modes of transportation need to be assessed and escape routes planned. The capability for an area to handle the displaced people upon arrival and the return to the affected area after the storm passes. Agencies with satellite offices opened in the area affected for faster and easier access for those people who need assistance.
We saw the failure of government response before, during and after the 2005 hurricane named Katrina. While thousands left the area, there were still too many people left behind with no way out. Systems need to be set in place to see this does not happen again.
What is the deciding factor in determing where the hurricane should hit, saving lives or the cost of rebuilding a major city? If the answer was saving lives, then how do we determine who's life is more important, the city dweller or the rural inhabitants? Looking at the map of the coastline of the United States there are an abundance of major cities. If a hurricane is diverted away from one then another will be in it's path. In between these cities are communities which fight to survive everyday. There are some that are growing fast as people leave the major cities to escape the violence of the area in which they live. So how do scientist rate the value of their lives, property and businesses?
Usually a decision like this comes down to money. While the reason expressed to the people would be concern for public, the underlying factor would ultimately be which would be less expensive to rebuild. As seen in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina the expense for rebuilding the infrastructure of a major city was enormous. Still 3 years later that city has still not recovered. It will take years if not decades for New Orleans and the surrounding communities to once again be structurally sound enough to support the number of inhabitants who lived there before the hurricane.
If a hurricane was headed toward the southeast coast of Texas, how could we be sure if it's path was altered that it wouldn't veer toward Mexico? This country deals with it's fair share of hurricanes each year. As seen just this week with Hurricane Dolly when hit near McAllen, Texax. The meteorologists were concerned not so much about the wind from Hurricane Dolly as much as the impact of the rainfall on the Rio Grande River. If we were to alter a hurricane away from the major cities near the Mexico border, then the Mexican residents would be dealing with possible devastating consequences of flooding and landslides. Are the people in major cities along the Texas border more important than the people who inhabit the area in Mexico?
What other impact would the changing of the path of a hurricane have from an environmental standpoint? Would altering the path disrupt the weather patterns in other parts of the nation? As we have seen last summer the southern states were dealing with severe drought. Water rationing measures were implemented. Will changing the natural pattern of the weather only make the situation worse? Along with the winds of the hurricane also comes the much needed rainfall to replenish the water supply for those major cities the scientist and government is trying to protect.
While the government has an obligation to help those in the path of a hurricane, the public must also take some responsibility for their own safety. Living in an area that could possibly be impacted by a hurricane requires a measure of self-responsibility. Being aware of the weather predictions and taking precautions for your family and property should be a priority. Material possessions can be replaced but your family's lives cannot.
Changing a hurricane's path is not the answer but being prepared for a hurricane is. Only cooperation between the government and citizens can reduce the number of fatalities associated with a hurricane.
Learn more about this author, Dee Cain.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Yes
In the world of medicine, surgeons are forced sometimes to make decisions that enable them to help some patients while leaving others to their "doom". The decision making process is known as triage, and focuses on concentrating the doctor's effort where the most good can be accomplished. This is an accepted, and even expected, practice. The doctor who over-reaches and tries to save everyone tends to save no one instead. The same rule ought to govern the approach science takes towards intervention in natural disasters. If the power to direct a hurricane exists, and the choice is to let it hit either a densely populated, highly developed city or a sparsely populated and far less developed expanse of countryside, the choice should be clear. In such a case, the question is not "is it right or wrong to doom the rural residents?" The real question is "which path offers the least harm to people, and enables the fastest recovery?"
Wherever a hurricane strikes, it wreaks devastation. People must evacuate or face the wrath of the storm. Much of the local population is rendered homeless, industry is disrupted or destroyed, and property damage is extreme. Consider what this means in terms of numbers affected, economic impact, humanitarian aid, and recovery.
A single major city includes millions of people. The populace of nearby rural areas can be numbered in the thousands. The population in the city is densely packed, while a rural populace is widely spread. Hurricanes are slow in coming, giving people time to flee to safety. From a logistics standpoint, it is much easier for people to evacuate from the countryside. The sheer number of people in the city turns it into a trap, with heavy traffic congestion and a limited number of roads leading out. Fuel demand is high, and can easily overrun supply. In short, the city-folk have a much more difficult time escaping before the disaster reaches them. A well-organized bus scheme could easily support the evacuation of the smaller population of the countryside in advance of the coming storm.
When the storm is over, homes and places of employment have been damaged or destroyed. As a result, a large fraction of the population takes on refugee or jobless status. With the majority of jobs located in the city, the economy takes a much harder knock when it is the target of a hurricane. The resources needed to rebuild must be imported, and the millions of displaced people provided for at the same time. While the nearby rural communities are no-doubt willing to assist, the idea of the few supporting the many is not a practical one. Conversely, the economy of a thriving city can easily support the relatively small influx that a displaced rural population represents.
By the very same token, the humanitarian aid provided by the world goes farther when fewer people are affected. A billion dollars worth of aid split between one million urban refugees amounts to a mere thousand dollars per capita. When a person has lost home and livelihood, that is of limited help. On the other hand, the same billion, divided amongst ten thousand refugees is one hundred thousand per capita - enough to start getting lives back on track.
Recovery is also linked to rebuilding. Cities are highly developed areas, with intricacies of glass, concrete and steel spanning upwards and outwards in a dense superstructure. Travel and communications networks interlace utilities and buildings - all of which takes a great deal of effort to maintain, let alone rebuild. When a city is devastated by hurricane, reparations are extremely expense and lengthy. Rural areas, by contrast, are primarily croplands or pastures. Homes may be destroyed, but they are far fewer and less complex structures than skyscrapers and factories - much more easily rebuilt, both in terms of speed and money. So long as the topsoil is not lost, crops can be replanted. Grasses grow back of their own accord, or new pastures can be found.
With all things considered, rural areas are better able to withstand and recover from hurricanes. It is an all around better choice to "doom" the rural residents than those of the city, and make no mistake - if the ability to save the city exists and is not taken, then the choice has been made to "doom" the city residents. Once the decision to direct the hurricane is made, then the second step must be to commit the resources to helping the people who will be affected. The spared city has great resources available to help their rural neighbors who sacrificed for them. The world has shown itself time and again to be ready to help hurricane victims. With all humanity willing to help, it makes excellent sense to minimize the help that is required, maximizes the impact it will have.
Learn more about this author, Ernest Capraro.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
