So as most of you know Mexicali Mexico had a huge ass 7.2 earthquake last weekend (sunday at 3:30 am) and only 2 were reported dead. The quake was
stronger than the Haiti one was but yet the loss of life was considerabily different.
Instead of sad, humbling videos and news reports, we get dumbass reports such as this one below:
so why the disparity in loss of infrastructure and life?? are building standards THAT much better in Mexicali MX thean in Haiti? I doubt it.
Mexico had a lot less damage than Haiti IMO mainly because the epicenter was located in an area with very little population? A lot of the videos we
see on youtube of the quake were in cali quite a ways from the quake itself? That's my understanding of it.
Also Haiti's infrastructure is horrible, and places that are prone to earthquakes like California, some places in Mexico, Tokyo have buildings
designed to not get destroyed from earthquakes.
I have yet to see any rebar in the photos from Haiti. Unless you strengthen concrete in some way, it will crumble like dried mud and crash down on
top of you.
Port-au-Prince (25 km from epicenter): population was 704,776 as of the 2003 census.
Guadalupe Victoria (17 km from epicenter): population was 14,861 in 2005.
Port-au-Prince has (had) a large, dense population living in really "safe" conditions.
The area of Mexico where the earthquake occurred...not so much.
You need to look up what type of earthquakes you are referring to. There are different types, just to let you know. They each have different effects
on the regions they hit. Also, you have to consider population density, structural standards, and how close such populated areas are to the epicenter
(then you have to research which kind of earthquake it was).