Sciences >
Atmosphere & Weather
RSS FeedShould scientists be allowed to divert a hurricane away from a major city, dooming rural residents?
Results so far:
| No | 69% | 180 votes | Total: 261 votes | |
| Yes | 31% | 81 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 Author comments or questions.
Yes
"In other news, a class action lawsuit has recently been filed by a small town in Georgia... attempting to hold the U.S. Government liable for damaged caused by the recent hurricane. The lawsuit alleges that while attempting to save a large city, the federal department of weather control diverted the hurricane to their town, making the hurricane damage an act of government instead of an act of god."
This headline, while fictional, could very soon be a reality. Research scientists have recently made a breakthrough in the science of weather control; releasing plans to weaken hurricanes and steer them off course to prevent tragedies such as Hurricane Katrina. The damage done to New Orleans in 2005 has prompted two teams of climate experts, in Israel and the United States, to focus on the science of weather control. In one model, aircraft would drop soot into the near frozen top of a hurricane, warming it up and reducing wind speeds. Computer simulations have shown that even small changes can affect their paths, enabling them to be diverted from major cities.
Moshe Alamaro of MIT told the Sunday Telegraph of his plans to scatter soot particles into the tops of hurricanes, "painting" them black so that they absorb the heat of the sun, leading to changes in the airflow within the storm. Satellites could also use microwave beams to heat the cloud tops. In findings presented at a conference in Trieste, Italy, a team led by Daniel Rosenfield demonstrated that dust dropped into the lower part of Hurricane Katrina would have reduced the wind speeds and diverted the hurricane's course.
With the advent of this new technology, a moral question comes into play. Is it ethical to divert a hurricane from a major city, saving thousands, but dooming a few rural unfortunates to the effects of a hurricane they might never have suffered?
This question is not without merit. In fact, the MIT team has hired a professor of risk management to advise them on the best way to protect themselves from legal action by communities affected by a diverted hurricane. It is advocating changes to U.S. Law and for an international treaty to settle possible disputes between bordering countries. Mr. Alamaro said: "The social and legal issues are daunting. If a hurricane were coming towards Miami with the potential to cause damage and kill people, and we diverted it, another town or village hit by it would sue us. They'll say the hurricane is no longer an act of God, but that we caused it."
This is a tough question; does the safety of many outweigh the needs of the few, or do individual rights trump the need to save a higher number of lives? Here in the United States, our individual bill of rights protects each and every one of us, no matter how rich or poor, no matter what area we live in. It would be a violation of someone's constitutional rights to intentionally divert a hurricane into their home, even if the intent was to save a city. We cannot apply this technology once a hurricane has made landfall, however we could use it when a large hurricane is spotted at sea, headed for a major city. As long as the path is diverted away from any populated land, the science is ethical.
Learn more about this author, Patrick California.
Click here to send Author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
