Article Study: American's Are Convinced That Natural Disasters Are Happening More Frequently

My thoughts while reading the article were most of Americans only know what they are told on the news stations - which don't seem to be reporting much (I get more information via this site than the news).

It seems, then, that the results of the Harris poll reflect what’s really been happening. It’s interesting to note that people’s concerns change by region, which isn’t unexpected. 77 percent of Easterners worry about snow storms, while 89 percent of Midwesterners worry about tornadoes. Two-thirds of Southerners also worry about tornadoes, while half are worried about hurricanes or droughts. Earthquakes are of concern to two-thirds in the West, while only seven to 16 percent of respondents in other regions thought they’d be impacted by a big shake.

Quite frankly, I am surprised this many were prepared according to their poll. Most people I know have their heads in the sand.

The real question is, if a majority of Americans think we’re having more and more disasters, are people prepared? Respondents were asked if they could handle a disaster or long-term power outage, which was qualified as having food, water and supplies for three days. While 76 percent said disasters are on the rise, only 56 percent said they were prepared, and a whopping 41 percent said they definitively weren’t. The number of prepared individuals increased as respondents got older.

The next quote from the article states that most are well informed by the media Could you imagine if they were reporting the news on all the media stations like they should be? And do you really think Americans are really well informed and prepared for a natural disaster?

With a majority of Americans thinking that rates of natural disasters are increasing, a view generally supported by statistics and science, it seems that most of the country is well-informed regarding disasters, intuitive, or, hell, just plain scared by the media. In any case, those justifiable worries don’t seem to be translating to increased preparedness. In 2010, 82 percent of the U.S. population lived in urban areas, which are harder to evacuate and harder to saturate with aid. With that in mind, efforts to support disaster education and preparedness need to increase.

View full article here: motherboard.tv...

Edit: fixed link

There was a thread recently showing data which proved that natural disasters are actually occurring more and more often. I'll try and find it.

Originally posted by TechUnique
There was a thread recently showing data which proved that natural disasters are actually occurring more and more often. I'll try and find it.

Thank YOU!!

Wow, most people feel well informed by the main stream media? I'm with you on that one, that blows my mind. That's why I'm here, I didn't think I was getting nearly enough information.

I went on a little rant about the MSM and earthquakes a little while back also.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Glad I'm not alone.

The people are so under told on disasters or anything of that sort. It is very true that natural disasters are on the increase ten fold. I sometimes think that even the media doesn't know all of it.

Originally posted by summer5
My thoughts while reading the article were most of Americans only know what they are told on the news stations - which don't seem to be reporting much (I get more information via this site than the news).

It seems, then, that the results of the Harris poll reflect what’s really been happening. It’s interesting to note that people’s concerns change by region, which isn’t unexpected. 77 percent of Easterners worry about snow storms, while 89 percent of Midwesterners worry about tornadoes. Two-thirds of Southerners also worry about tornadoes, while half are worried about hurricanes or droughts. Earthquakes are of concern to two-thirds in the West, while only seven to 16 percent of respondents in other regions thought they’d be impacted by a big shake.

Quite frankly, I am surprised this many were prepared according to their poll. Most people I know have their heads in the sand.

The real question is, if a majority of Americans think we’re having more and more disasters, are people prepared? Respondents were asked if they could handle a disaster or long-term power outage, which was qualified as having food, water and supplies for three days. While 76 percent said disasters are on the rise, only 56 percent said they were prepared, and a whopping 41 percent said they definitively weren’t. The number of prepared individuals increased as respondents got older.

The next quote from the article states that most are well informed by the media

Could you imagine if they were reporting the news on all the media stations like they should be? And do you really think Americans are really well informed and prepared for a natural disaster?

With a majority of Americans thinking that rates of natural disasters are increasing, a view generally supported by statistics and science, it seems that most of the country is well-informed regarding disasters, intuitive, or, hell, just plain scared by the media. In any case, those justifiable worries don’t seem to be translating to increased preparedness. In 2010, 82 percent of the U.S. population lived in urban areas, which are harder to evacuate and harder to saturate with aid. With that in mind, efforts to support disaster education and preparedness need to increase.

View full article here: motherboard.tv...

Edit: fixed link

edit on 7-7-2011 by summer5 because: (no reason given)

I mentioned this in another thread but it's pretty concerning when you have to visit conspiracy websites and other obsure news outlets just to get the real news that happening in the world everyday, particularly regarding the uptick of natural disasters.

Because if you visit CNN and the other MSM all you here about is crap like Casey Anothey, Congressmen texting pictures of the weiners, and a bunch of other crap that is meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

I'm not sure whether disasters are increasing or whether it's more to do with how the media presents these disasters and the time in between them. of course it would seem like there are more if every 2 days there is a new one.

Originally posted by TechUnique
There was a thread recently showing data which proved that natural disasters are actually occurring more and more often. I'll try and find it.

Please do, as I have yet to see any real conclusive data that shows natural disasters are more frequent. The article makes this claim, yet does not actually show any science or statistical analysis which proves this. The article says:

With a majority of Americans thinking that rates of natural disasters are increasing, a view generally supported by statistics and science, it seems that most of the country is well-informed regarding disasters, intuitive, or, hell, just plain scared by the media.

I definitely agree that people think that disasters are increasing, but haven't seen the part that's backed up by science. Most of these opinions are based on what they see and percieve in the media, including sites like this, and not factual analysis.

The article shows a graphic showing an increase in disaster reports, which is not the same as more disasters. The link to the graphic explains some valid points, and asks some questions.

Trends in natural disasters. With growing population and infrastructures the world’s exposure to natural hazards is inevitably increasing. This is particularly true as the strongest population growth is located in coastal areas (with greater exposure to floods, cyclones and tidal waves). To make matters worse any land remaining available for urban growth is generally risk-prone, for instance flood plains or steep slopes subject to landslides. The statistics in this graphic reveal an exponential increase in disasters. This raises several questions. Is the increase due to a significant improvement in access to information? What part does population growth and infrastructure development play? Finally, is climate change behind the increasing frequency of natural hazards?

source
So they point out why we can expect to see an increase in exposure to natural hazards for disasters such as floods, cyclones and tidal waves (tsunamis?). This is evident, as there is an increase in reports of this nature, as we would expect. However, they only ask questions in regards to an actual increase in disasters, without any evidence to show. So any further information would be much appreciated.

Originally posted by chrismicha77
The people are so under told on disasters or anything of that sort. It is very true that natural disasters are on the increase ten fold. I sometimes think that even the media doesn't know all of it.

I agree that a lot of what most people call "MSM" is full of crap and seriously lacking some important reporting. But mainstream media is vastly different to what it was 20 years ago. Thanks to the internet and sattelite TV, people have access to much more information than was previously available. Thus, mainstream media has grown to include web sites, blogs and forums just like this one, so people have much more opportunity to keep informed.

However, this increase in information has led some to believe things are happening more frequently, simply because they hear about them more. This leads to people making bold claims, without any evidence to back their claims up. For example, can you show any facts or analysis to show that "natural disasters are on the increase ten fold."? I suspect that this could only be shown as an opinion, not a fact.

reply to post by Curious and Concerned

The article shows a graphic showing an increase in disaster reports, which is not the same as more disasters. The link to the graphic explains some valid points, and asks some questions.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying the graph isn't accurate because there might be disasters that are unreported? If so, do you really think there are disasters that are kept secret? I don't understand.

reply to post by Curious and Concerned

However, this increase in information has led some to believe things are happening more frequently, simply because they hear about them more. This leads to people making bold claims, without any evidence to back their claims up.

Within the article in the OP's link, there is a link to another source that shows comparisons of disasters in past years.

Beyond that, this original article, in my opinion, is silly. Why would someone bother writing an article about how Americans believe disasters are on the rise? I mean, who really cares whether or not Americans think this? What's more important is whether or not it is a fact that disasters are on the rise.

Originally posted by NightGypsy
reply to post by Curious and Concerned

 

The article shows a graphic showing an increase in disaster reports, which is not the same as more disasters. The link to the graphic explains some valid points, and asks some questions.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying the graph isn't accurate because there might be disasters that are unreported? If so, do you really think there are disasters that are kept secret? I don't understand.

No, I'm not saying disasters are being kept secret. I'm saying that reports of disasters are increasing, which does'nt necessarily mean there are more disasters. For a disaster to be reported, it will generally need to have an impact on a human population. People are increasingly habiting areas that are prone to disasters, such as coastal areas. As population increases in disaster prone areas, there will be an increase in disaster reports, even if the amount of events remain consistent. The graphic in the article explains this.

Also, with increased technology comes better detection. A good example is tornadoes. 50 years ago, a tornado would have to have to be visually witnessed to be reported. If a tornado strikes in poor visiblility and doesn't hit a populated area, it would not have been reported. But with increasing radar stations and technology, along with increased population and storm trackers, we can now detect more tornadoes than ever before. This means more smaller tornadoes are being reported, but the reports of strong tornadoes has stayed relatively consistent with no increasing trends. This is also true with earthquakes, with more smaller quakes being detected than in the past.

Hence, more reports does not eqaul more disaster events, as not all events are reported, especially so in the past.

Originally posted by Curious and Concerned

Originally posted by NightGypsy
reply to post by Curious and Concerned

 

The article shows a graphic showing an increase in disaster reports, which is not the same as more disasters. The link to the graphic explains some valid points, and asks some questions.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. Are you saying the graph isn't accurate because there might be disasters that are unreported? If so, do you really think there are disasters that are kept secret? I don't understand.

No, I'm not saying disasters are being kept secret. I'm saying that reports of disasters are increasing, which does'nt necessarily mean there are more disasters. For a disaster to be reported, it will generally need to have an impact on a human population. People are increasingly habiting areas that are prone to disasters, such as coastal areas. As population increases in disaster prone areas, there will be an increase in disaster reports, even if the amount of events remain consistent. The graphic in the article explains this.

Also, with increased technology comes better detection. A good example is tornadoes. 50 years ago, a tornado would have to have to be visually witnessed to be reported. If a tornado strikes in poor visiblility and doesn't hit a populated area, it would not have been reported. But with increasing radar stations and technology, along with increased population and storm trackers, we can now detect more tornadoes than ever before. This means more smaller tornadoes are being reported, but the reports of strong tornadoes has stayed relatively consistent with no increasing trends. This is also true with earthquakes, with more smaller quakes being detected than in the past.

Hence, more reports does not eqaul more disaster events, as not all events are reported, especially so in the past.

I have 2 questions. The USGS uses the same method of thinking. Tornadoes was used for example. If there were no people or equipment there to record them, then how do they know if there was or wasnt a tornado? And if there wasnt, wouldnt that actually be an increase over the past few years? So to me, that idea has always been a wash, because if there was noone or nothing there, there is no way to know. Second, more of these disasters lately, tornadoes included, are hitting more and more highly populated areas that have been settled for hundreds of years and would of been recorded. Have they, in past history, disasters hit such populated, downtown areas with such regularity as the past few years, compared to the past few decades?

Hilarious. The real question -- according to the media -- is, "Are they prepared?" Do they even teach logic in schools anymore? I would think the REAL question would be -- "Is the perception (that natural disasters are increasing in frequency) even accurate?"

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
Hilarious. The real question -- according to the media -- is, "Are they prepared?" Do they even teach logic in schools anymore? I would think the REAL question would be -- "Is the perception (that natural disasters are increasing in frequency) even accurate?"

The media lives and most of America lives in the world of reality television. The have most of America's caught in the rope a dope. I had put on my FB when the Minot flooding was just starting and almost everyone replied, "why is this the first I have heard of this?". But they knew all about the Kardashians, Orange County Housewives, etc etc. I like to call it "unreality" tv. Because they want you in your own little world of unreality so most people dont see whats going on in true reality. And the media is a big part of that.

And dont let the name fool you, I dont go around debunking everything. I just chose the name as irony, for when if I start a thread and have a debunker debunking a guy named debunker. I am pretty open minded, so not trying to start no business

reply to post by sdebunker


I thought it was fairly clever, personally.

Point stands however, whether its intentional misinformation or lack of logical thinking: The media isn't about the news (for the most part), rather -- they are about entertainment.

Originally posted by 0zzymand0s
reply to post by sdebunker

 

I thought it was fairly clever, personally.

Point stands however, whether its intentional misinformation or lack of logical thinking: The media isn't about the news (for the most part), rather -- they are about entertainment.

Wont get a disagreement out of me

Originally posted by sdebunker
I have 2 questions. The USGS uses the same method of thinking. Tornadoes was used for example. If there were no people or equipment there to record them, then how do they know if there was or wasnt a tornado? And if there wasnt, wouldnt that actually be an increase over the past few years? So to me, that idea has always been a wash, because if there was noone or nothing there, there is no way to know.

Yes that is correct. If there were no tornadoes, and they only just started occuring once we had the method and technology to record them, there would be an increase. But this is a highly unlikely scenario, as it is far more likely that these events have always been happening. For example, we know that there have been massive tornadoes or tornado outbreaks in the past. Some, like the Tri-State Tornado of 1925, caused extensive damage.

Strong tornadoes are far more likely to get reported, compared to small ones, as they are easily distinguished by the damage they make, and are more likely to be seen. Therefore it is hard to accurately measure trends in small tornadoes (same applies for earthquakes), but better for large ones. Yet there has been no increasing trend for large tornadoes.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/27cf7d28f042.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by sdebunker
Second, more of these disasters lately, tornadoes included, are hitting more and more highly populated areas that have been settled for hundreds of years and would of been recorded. Have they, in past history, disasters hit such populated, downtown areas with such regularity as the past few years, compared to the past few decades?

It is hard to say for sure, but there is no solid evidence that they are actually hitting populated areas more. The aforementiontioned Tri-State tornado, is the deadliest ever tornado with 695 confirmed deaths, breaking the previous record set in 1840. Large tornado outbreaks are not a new phenomena. Neither are things such as massive floods and tsunamis.

Check out these lists of natural disaters. Whilst some on the list are quite recent, note that there have been many large scale disasters throughout history. The fact of the matter is that this planet we live on will have natural disasters. Whether they are increasing is up for debate, but I'm yet to see conclusive evidence that this is the case.

reply to post by Curious and Concerned


You think maybe houses are built a little better today than in 1925 and 1840, which could of been the result of more deaths in those outbreaks? So, by that fact, we had so many deaths this year would show that the tornadoes this year were stronger considering the scale was changed from the F scale back then to the EF scale used today?

I am open for debate whether they are increasing or not, but I can attest to that I feel they are increasing in severity.