What hazard effects have the biggest toll:Primary or Secondary?
(This debate is particularly concentrated on tectonic hazards such earthquakes and volcanoes)
I have noticed that in other arguements, people have stated that in hazards, people are lost in both the primary effects (such as pyroclastic flow) and secondary effects (such as drought) of a hazard.
This debate is to find out which you think is the effect what causes the biggest toll in: death, money,resources,etc.
P.S I hope I have made this debate the way your surposed to.
Primary effects
Side Score: 1
|
 |
Secondary effects
Side Score: 3
|
|
|
|
|
I think it depends on which disaster we're talking about. For example, for volcanoes it's definitely primary effects. Lava and magma rolling down a hillside at a rather warm temperature would just kill you. With earthquakes it's harder to tell. You've got the primary effects such as buildings falling down etc. but you've also got secondary effects like overcrowded hospitals and after-quakes. I'm going to say primary effects then because on the Volcanoes v Earthquakes debate I said Volcanoes are worse, and seeing as I think the primary effects of a volcano are worse, then I'll say Primary Effects. But really I'm undecided. Side: Secondary effects
|
1
point
Many seismologists have said that "earthquakes don't kill people, buildings do". This is because most deaths from earthquakes are caused by buildings or other human construction falling down during an earthquake. You have five days to break free. Beyond that period, no one knows what will happen next, but you can only expect the worst. Side: Secondary effects
|
