Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 116726	2011-03-17 20:00:00	More quake info	Cicero (40)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1186983	2011-03-17 20:00:00	Sorry if you have seen this, I hadn't so............ goo.gl	Cicero (40)
1186984	2011-03-17 20:16:00	Interesting video - Almost "I told you so". At the approximate time line of 6.19, he hit the nail on the head - its a cost factor. So just how much are peoples lives worth ? This time it looks like the government is taking some action - the Building owner where SWMBO works has just told it needs to be strengthened, as well as several others around the area. Her Boss, who is the building owner, got things started right away. :thumbs:	wainuitech (129)
1186985	2011-03-17 20:20:00	While I haven't seen the entire documentary, some of the observations are pretty obvious and doesn't take a genius to work out. We all knew that Chch was sitting on fairly crappy land and in the event of an earthquake it would get a fairly good shaking up and there would be large amounts of liquefaction. Old shoddily built buildings would fall down etc etc... Hindsight is a powerful tool :)	Bozo (8540)
1186986	2011-03-17 20:28:00	Havent they been in the process of quake safeing buildings for years all over the country? You could hardly say they havent been doing anything. Nobody knew when the quake would happen.	Gobe1 (6290)
1186987	2011-03-17 20:30:00	Thanks Cicero. That was enlightening. Thank goodness the ChCh Women's Hospital was demolished before the earthquake. I notice that now the scientists are talking about the trampolining effect in ChCh - this wasn't mentioned in the doco, but resonance was. It appears from Stuff this am that the recent quakes have given a great deal of new, well recorded evidence about trampolining. I suppose many of the people interviewed in the film are retired now. Given that some in the film were in senior positions in Council, should we assume that their warnings to the elected Council representatives either did not get beyond their boss to the elected members, or the elected members rejected the warnings? Or were warnings issued, but building owners ignored them? The enquiry will be interesting.	John H (8)
1186988	2011-03-17 20:33:00	Havent they been in the process of quake safeing buildings for years all over the country? You could hardly say they havent been doing anything. Nobody knew when the quake would happen. Yes, but the quake safeing has only been to minimal levels (as required by legislation) for existing buildings. Owners could go the whole hog, but I imagine many simply worked to the regulations for economic reasons. It is the same with making buildings accessible to people with disabilities. New buildings have to meet high standards, but existing buildings have a much lower minimum standard to meet, and many owners simply don't give a toss, or can't afford to do the job properly.	John H (8)
1186989	2011-03-17 20:35:00	Havent they been in the process of quake safeing buildings for years all over the country? You could hardly say they havent been doing anything. Nobody knew when the quake would happen.While thats true, in the past though it seems its almost a "well get around to it" when we can afford it attitude. Some places are quicker than others to react.	wainuitech (129)
1186990	2011-03-17 22:36:00	The idea of the entire CBD 'jumping off the ground' momentarily certainly illustrates the immense forces involved. Building codes are always going to be a balance between 'acceptable' risk and practicality. We could build only single story concrete bunkers with 8 ft thick walls, which would handle most (but still not all) earthquakes, however who would want that? As an analogy, the road toll is approx. 3 ChCh earthquakes a year. This could be eliminated completely by simply banning driving, however this ongoing loss of life is deemed acceptable for the economic and lifestyle benefits of being able to get around easily.	fred_fish (15241)
1186991	2011-03-17 23:06:00	And one can safely assume that the ACC Act effectively excludes victims suing building owners and local authorities for deficiencies in Christchurch buildings and utilities that lead to loss of life and injuries.	KenESmith (6287)
1186992	2011-03-17 23:08:00	And one can safely assume that the ACC Act effectively excludes victims suing building owners and local authorities for deficiencies in Christchurch buildings and utilities that lead to loss of life and injuries. I thought companies that made guns only had that ability	Gobe1 (6290)
1