Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

Re: 25% snow load is Conservative

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
In a message dated 98-04-16 15:24:49 EDT, BVeit(--nospam--at)AOL.COM write:

> As someone has said previously (Lew Midlam?) Where are the bodies?
>  
>  A recent article in ICBO Bld. Standards, Mar-April '98, clearly, rationally
>  articulates why 25% of snow is CONSERVATIVE.  It's all Stats 101.
>  
It's great that this reality-check question has registered with some members
of this listserv, even if it is incorrectly attributed.  The tornadoes last
week in Arkansas killed about as many people as Northridge or Loma Prieta, yet
likely will be forgotten a year from now, whereas Northridge and Loma Prieta
have influenced, and will continue to influence, codes for years to come, and
jack up construction and design costs in the process.  In this century, at
least several times more deaths have been caused by tornadoes and hurricanes
than by earthquakes, yet the bulk of the research on natural hazards
mitigation in recent years have been on earthquakes.  And, of course, lets not
forget the increased costs for seismic-related design time, structural
observations, etc., by design professionals.  On a where-are-the-bodies test
with respect to public safety, seismic design should command much less
construction and design resources than it now gets.

BTW, I lifted the question from my wife, a chemist and  industrial hygienist
who is a veteran of battles with NIMBYs and no-growthers who foment paranoia
over the effects of minute traces of 'toxic' chemicals in the environment.
When they raise the safety issue for the umpteenth time at public hearings,
she on several occasions lost her cool and countered with the politically
incorrect, but valid, question.  It's equally valid to ask of code writers and
design professionals.

Frank Lew, SE
Orinda, CA