Hurricane Sandy neither has been a dream, nor a
forecast exaggeration of one of the most cautious country in the world, reaching
extremes that for us, seem totally ridicule. For instance, this summer I was in
Palm Beach and hurricane Isaac was expected to pound the entire east coast of
Florida. Panic overcame us, absolutely all TV Channels “tracked” hurricane
Isaac 24/7. We were terrified, winds of 100mph were forecasted, but in the end
it didn’t even reach the category “Tropical Storm”; only some heavy rain and fairly
strong winds. Believe me, they exaggerated so much! However this time, the one
who predicted Sandy would be a historical natural disaster wasn’t wrong. Sandy
has ravaged the East Coast of United States and has exposed the obsolescence of
one of the most important city’s infrastructures: leaving the public transport waterlogged,
6 million people without power and about 40 dead. All of this despite the extreme
precautions taken!
After seeing how devastating Sandy was, imagine what would had happened if the one million people hadn't been evacuated!
Let me pose you this question: Do you agree that in these cases over-exaggeration
can save lives? Do you think it is
better to be cautious or impetuous? Where do you stand on?
Natural disasters can appear anywhere at anytime in the world. Luckily nowadays we have methods to predict and know before it happens. Hurricane Sandy, as you said has already killed a lot of people, and from my point of view, the US government was right to evacuate all that people because, the damage could have been worse.
ReplyDeleteThis is a case of cautions, which as we can see, besides that, a lot of people have suffered bad consequences, so I think that it is better to be cautions than to be impetuous. Because that way it´s more likely that you don´t get hurt. I also agree your point that overexageration can save lives if needed and it is better to overexagerate than to suffer consequences afterwards.
Thank-you Ana! I totally agree with what you've said.
ReplyDeleteHowever, let me ask you another question: In other situations, much more ordinary and mundane, do you still think it is better to be cautious or do you believe it is good to be impulsive once in a while?
Hurricane Sandy, has been a very strong and potential disaster, and basically, I think that the cautions about it are very important, because as the title of the post says, better be save than sorry, so that if there is to much protection, it is normally to scare people, so that they are more aware of the situation, as in most of the cases it is not as stronger as they say, but depending on the intensity, people may not get prepared, because the are not worried, and I positively agree that it can save lives, because of the increase of preparations. Maybe, in some occasions they are exaggerated, as you said in your trip, and if it is done many times people will not relieve in their predictions anymore, and take no care about it.
ReplyDeleteHurricane Sandy, with reasons has been one big disaster in that has exposed the East coast of the United States, so this type of information that has been given in this one is the necessary, but also, we have to remark the UUEE is one of the most cautious countries, and the images have had a lot of impact and a lot to say about them.
Hurricane Sandy during these lasts weeks has been the principal point of matter in the news. As we’ve been able to see, thanks to videos and photographs taken by those who were affected, the cyclone battered a huge amount of towns located in the east coast of the United States. Consequences were devastating, as houses have been completely destroyed, electricity has been cut and public services are out of order.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand we must highlight US government impeccable behaviour towards the issue. The preparation for Sandy was extremely organized and scheduled since the news kept the population fully informed about the evolution of the hurricane. What’s more, several instructions such as evacuating the most threatened zones of the country were given and this advice helped a remarkable amount of citizens to save their lives. However some people qualified this actions as exaggerated but… Isn’t it better to prevent than to cure afterwards?
I personally agree with the opposite side of this idea. In other words, I think that the emergency protocol was extremely useful because the government has probably prevented more deaths and disastrous consequences. The United States are known internationally for being a precautionary country when it comes to handle natural disasters. Therefore we shouldn’t criticize this position but value it in a positive way considering that ruinous consequences have been considerably reduced.
SP.
ReplyDeleteHurricane Sandy was a hurricane that devastated portions of the Caribbean and the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern United States in late October 2012.
Sandy is estimated in early calculations to have caused damage of at least $20 billion. At least 209 people were killed along the path of the storm in seven countries.
Hurricanes and other natural disasters are unpredictable. Fortunately, actually society has created some methods to detect this situation previously, but they advise leaving a small space of time between the detection and the disaster happening. So the problem is that these methods are not perfect, and sometimes the predictions they give are wrong, so people are evacuated from their houses and in the end nothing happens. I think that over exaggeration is mostly positive, because it can definitely save lots of lives and in that way it’s more likely not to be hurt by a hurricane. But there is also a problem: if over exaggeration is done repeatedly, in the end nobody will trust meteorologists and a tragedy could take place.