Need a book? Engineering books recommendations...

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

RE: Deliberate Spreading of Falsehood by National Research Counci l

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Well, Yank, we must be doing something right. The earthquake that just
occurred in Colombia was 6.0 magnitude, and they have found upwards of
1700 bodies. Local authorities expect to find many more buried in all
the COLLAPSED  buildings. Northridge was a bigger event ( 6.something)
with about 60 people killed. I would also hazard a guess that Northridge
also occurred in much more populated area. Why don't you move to
Columbia where you'll be safe from all the badly designed buildings in
California? We won't mind.

 Monte Griffiths, S.E.

> ----------
> From: 	Yank2002(--nospam--at)[SMTP:Yank2002(--nospam--at)]
> Reply To: 	seaint(--nospam--at)
> Sent: 	Monday, January 25, 1999 9:30 PM
> To: 	seaint(--nospam--at)
> Subject: 	Deliberate Spreading of Falsehood by National Research
> Council
> To Andra and Rick Ranous ... and others:
> (1) You are saying that "It seems to me that you are looking for
> everyone to
> blame (about earthquake problems) but yourself. Remember you chose to
> live
> where you do. You must evaluate the risks you have presented ..." 
> Comment: The example given in my previous post was a hypothetical
> example, not
> applicable to my personal situation, but applicable to over 40% of
> property
> owners in California. 
> (2) You are saying that "the National Research Council is NOT
> duplicating the
> work of fire departments" and that "the fire departments are not
> universally
> charged with emergency preparedness." My comment: Numerically limited,
> certified earthquake emergency staff including the National Research
> Council
> does not have the access nor the financial resources for contact with
> general
> population that would be comparable to the geographical reach of fire
> departments. Therefore, in spite of the fact that it is not their
> principal
> function, fire departments are, in fact, the primary and the most
> effective
> disseminators of messages in regard to pre- and post-earthquake
> preparedness
> issues. 
> By giving "stern warnings" directed at the inhabitants of
> earthquake-prone
> areas, the National Research Council is very ineffectively duplicating
> the
> work of fire departments. The "warnings" of NRC are, by far,
> numerically less
> visible than those made by fire department stations which,
> geographically, are
> efficiently dispersed throughout California. Ask any group of 100
> people
> walking along Wilshire Blvd., say, in Westwood (Los Angeles), at lunch
> time,
> what is the National Research Council. You will find out that all 100
> of them
> don't even know that such an organization exists (and these 100
> persons
> questioned along the boulevard are, by far, better educated than the
> average
> Californian). But all 100 of them know where their nearest fire
> station is.
> They also know that the information in regard to earthquake
> preparedness can
> be obtained at the fire station. 
> In addition, in the past 20 years (or so), it was quite common to see
> firemen
> driving their big fire-trucks visiting property owners at their
> personal
> residences asking and answering questions as to people's knowledge of
> what to
> do when the earthquake strikes.  I have personally experienced such a
> visit at
> my house, so this is not secondhand information. I have never
> experienced a
> visit from the earthquake emergency task force or other similar
> organization,
> and I don't know of anyone who did receive such a visit. 
> The fire departments are also very active in  making available special
> video
> (film) presentations in regard to earthquakes to any employer (and
> his/her
> employees) at the place of their employment, if requested. In the past
> 12
> years, I attended two such presentations. They were very detailed and
> very
> educational. The personnel of the fire departments go periodically
> through
> "earthquake drills" so that the most up-to-date information is
> available to
> each individual fireman. 
> (3) To the best of my knowledge, the statistical information used by
> insurance
> companies and by universities in California will tell you that the
> greatest
> dollar amount ("per-unit-capita") after the Northridge earthquake was
> spent on
> wood structures. If the statistical numbers on either side are
> incorrect --
> what can I say?
> (4) You are asking, "Why am I looking for everyone to blame but
> myself?" The
> comment to the first (#1) position of this post answers your question.
> Your
> question, however, should be, "Why does the government and other
> non-private
> bureaucracies blame everyone else but themselves for the sad state of
> seismic
> affairs (such as the Northridge event) ?"
> Here are a few examples of statements authored and delivered by
> government
> officials and members of organized "seismic" groups such as the
> National
> Research Council in regard to "who is to blame" and what they think
> about
> "design professionals."
> (a) "Loma Prieta Earthquake" publication, p.5, Lesson 2: "
> .......government
> and business leaders expressed great surprise that these professionals
> knew so
> much about liquefaction, about unreinforced masonry buildings, about
> older
> structures lacking adequate steel reinforcement, and about connection
> details,
> but so little was done. There is the need for a communication program
> to close
> the knowledge gap among researchers, practicing professionals,
> decision
> makers, and the public." Comments: (1) This statement strongly
> insinuates that
> professionals were withholding the information from authorities ON
> This is a very serious charge.  (2) Yes, there is a need for the
> "decision
> makers" to learn the basics of structural engineering, seismology,
> geology,
> soil engineering, etc., so they understand what is being discussed at
> their
> "decision making" meeting. Also, it is sort of interesting, but I did
> not know
> that there is a degreed profession called "a decision maker" in
> matters of
> public safety which is taught in colleges and universities. 
> (b)  "Loma Prieta Earthquake" publication, p.5, Lesson 2,
> Recommendations:
> "Earthquake professionals must work harder to close the gap between
> what is
> known and what is used ....." Comment: Darn it, I always suspected
> that
> structural engineers are lazy and are not working hard enough. But I
> would
> also like to suggest that instead of working "harder," the "decision
> makers"
> should use their brains -- if they can -- and work "smarter." 
> (c)  "Loma Prieta Earthquake" publication, p.5, Lesson 2,
> Recommendations:
> "There is a strong need for advocacy; narrowing the gap by enacting
> new policy
> depends on earthquake professionals having a commitment to do so."
> Comment:
> Yes, I agree. Structural engineers are not committed to their work and
> they
> don't care whether the building collapses or not. It is also
> regrettable that
> they are expected by unreasonable codes to produce some spaced-out
> numbers
> that don't mean anything to anyone, especially to "decision makers". 
> (d)  "Loma Prieta Earthquake" publication, p.5, Lesson 2,
> Recommendations:
> "Practicing professionals must ADEQUATELY inform policy makers of the
> risks
> and the costs and benefits of various strategies." Comment: It appears
> that
> engineering professionals produce various strategies for their own
> amusement.
> The whole issue, as established and directed by glorified "earthquake
> decision
> makers" is so much out of line with reality that it is more
> entertaining to
> analyze the results of their own daytime work in the evening hours
> rather than
> to watch the replays of the Johnny Carson Show. I also suspect that
> they do
> not pass these NOT ADEQUATELY developed strategies to "decision
> makers" on
> purpose, as structural engineers, as I heard through the grapevine,
> are
> members of a world-wide conspiratorial secret society whose objective
> is to
> destroy life on earth by earthquakes. 
> (e)  "Loma Prieta Earthquake" publication, p.6, Earth Sciences, Lesson
> 6,
> Recommendations: "Seismologists and geologists must increase their
> efforts to
> understand and quantify the nature of strong ground shake ....  and
> engineers
> must give special attention to the placement and design of structures
> in these
> areas."  Comment: (1) If seismologists and geologists do not
> understand what
> they are doing, then the entity responsible for their incompetency are
> the
> universities that produced these "professionals". We should ask the
> universities whether they feel responsible for the professional
> incompetency
> of their graduates. I also hope the seismologists and geologists read
> the
> above statement made by NRC so they also are aware of what "decision
> makers"
> think of their abilities. (2) The engineers do not pay attention and
> do not
> care how the structure is designed and they are incapable to give
> special
> attention to anything only because everything they do is a "special
> attention"
> case. (3) if an organization (governmentnal or otherwise) has enough
> courage
> to deliberately and publicly offend the professions which, within the
> limitations established by "the decision makers," are doing their
> utmost to
> protect the safety of the public, then one should seriously
> investigate the
> qualifications of "decision makers" in the positions in which they
> function. 
> (f)  "Loma Prieta Earthquake" publication, p.8, Lesson 12: "With
> appropriate
> application of existing knowledge and more attention to detail,
> practicing
> professionals licensed to site, design, and retrofit buildings ..
> could
> significantly reduce the loss of life and the damage resulting in loss
> of
> function." Comment: see Comment 4(e). 
> (g)  "Loma Prieta Earthquake" publication, p.9, Lesson 15:
> Recommendation:
> "The codes and most seismic strengthening of buildings are intended to
> protect
> life and to minimize catastrophic damage." Comment: I might agree with
> the
> above statement, except I don't know what measuring "yardstick" to use
> when
> describing the damage as catastrophic. Is it a 10% of the assessed
> value of
> the structure, or is it 30%, or maybe 50%, or even 90%?. It would be
> good to
> know what we are talking about so that, as suggested by "decision
> makers," we
> can communicate better. 
> (h)  "Loma Prieta Earthquake" publication, p.9, Lesson 16: "There were
> numerous structures ... that were seriously damaged ... because of
> design or
> construction errors that should have been found during the building
> inspection
> process. Local building departments rarely have the necessary
> resources to
> accomplish this fundamental step in the construction process, and
> design
> professionals often shy away from providing the needed oversight."
> Comment: I
> fully agree that design professionals, as reported by governmental
> snoopers,
> are habitually visiting local topless bars while on the field trip to
> inspect
> the job instead of taking a good look at what is happening at their
> site.  
> Now my question is: WHO IS BLAMING WHO ?????
> Sincerely ....
> P.S. The above example-statements were extracted from only ONE
> scientific
> group report which was contextually formulated and approved by state
> and
> federal government representatives participating in the Loma Prieta
> earthquake
> symposium. Upon request I can post the textual content of other
> statements
> made by a variety of state, federal, or institutional organizations
> deliberately falsifying the degree and the nature of seismic safety
> problems
> in California and blaming "the professionals" for the misfortunes of
> their
> incompetency. (I worked for the state government for over 12 years --
> I know
> firsthand how government and other non-private bureaucracies function
> -- or
> shall I say, dysfunction.)