world

Japan, U.S. have highest bills to pay from natural disasters

13 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2011 AFP

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

13 Comments
Login to comment

weekend worries.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They should do one for man made disasters too.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I can understand the USA.

They are still paying for Katrina and the area is still suffering badly according to friends that lived there, add to that Hurricane Lane, etc. The US Red Cross after 3/11 had to divert quiet a number of donations for help within the USA that were destined to come to japan. Many charities also reported a drop in regular donations over the last few years.

But a good article and spot-on, IMHO.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This article misses the flip side of the coin. Developed nations tend to have far more ECONOMIC exposure to natural disasters, but far less HUMAN exposure. The huge amounts of death caused by natural disasters generally occur in poor nations.

For example, Katrina caused $135 billion, but only 1500 victims, while an Earthquake in Pakistan and India claimed more than 73K lives.

So the more developed nations (and the world) become, the more costly (in terms of dollars) the natural disasters, but the less lives they take. I say that's a fair trade off.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

How on earth is Canada rated with those others for high-risk? Aside from extreme colds, ice-storms, and a few tornadoes the place seems to be quite stable. True, there's high risk for the West coast if the San Andreas fault line has a major quake, but beyond that... ?

Anyway, Japan gets it all -- typhoons, tsunami, earthquakes, volcanoes... Scary when you think about it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I hope these disasters stop occurring and destroying everything we have!!

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

How on earth is Canada rated with those others for high-risk? Aside from extreme colds, ice-storms, and a few tornadoes the place seems to be quite stable. True, there's high risk for the West coast if the San Andreas fault line has a major quake, but beyond that... ?

Anyway, Japan gets it all -- typhoons, tsunami, earthquakes, volcanoes... Scary when you think about it.

At least Japan doesn't have tornadoes too

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"How on earth is Canada rated with those others for high-risk"

The Cascadian subduction zone lies right off Vancouver Island, and a massive earthquake there is overdue. When it happens, say goodbye to much of Metro Vancouver, Victoria and communities across Vancouver island.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Four nations—the United States, ranked first, followed by Japan, China and Taiwan—were deemed at “extreme risk” in absolute terms, which means the overall cost in dollar terms from a natural disaster.

What Gaijinfo said. The more you have, the more you have to lose. Nothing to see here; move along.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If it was just natural disasters, America would have a Super Economy, but with all the wars and debt bail-outs we buy, I think we're heading to the poor house instead ! We need to get America back on it's priorities .......to me, helping Japan right now is more of a priority then fighting terrorists....they're gonna kill themselves anyway !

0 ( +0 / -0 )

smithinjapan

How on earth is Canada rated with those others for high-risk?

Maybe it is the inadequate response to disaster that has been factored in. As the entire world saw during the shameless, barbaric rioting in Vancouver, over a hockey game outcome of all things, police and first responders are not up to the task, even with all the taxes Canadians pay to fund them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I concur with the readers' previous comments, is it cost effective to invest in securing a nation against most all natural disasters? If it saves lifes, most definitely! Just remember what happened to Haiti, so many lives lost and destroyed. The problem is that, some goverments are corrupt and do nothing about these disasters, before or after; mind you, to them we are not even collateral damage.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So the more developed nations (and the world) become, the more costly (in terms of dollars) the natural disasters, but the less lives they take. I say that's a fair trade off.

Fair trade off for whom? You mentioned the 73K in Pakistan and India, I wouldn't think that those folks would agree with you observation.

I would agree however that it costs more for developed nations to bring affected areas back to their pre-disaster conditions than countries that do not have the same or similar infrastructures. People in the states or Japan would not be satisfied with a straw hut, running water from a well, and a new horse or cow for plowing their fields.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites