Which is worse: Volcanoes or Earthquakes?
Which causes more damage? Which takes away more lives? Are there any advantages to them? What are the disadvantages to them?
Scroll Over the picture
Side Score: 16
Side Score: 18
For me, volcanoes present people with a more immediate danger. For example, if we were to look at the Haiti Earthquake in 2010, I would suspect the original quake caused just a fraction of the 300000 (approx) deaths that came from the disaster. The main cause of death would be the aftermath of the quake, because of starvation and lack of shelter and medical aid.
However, the danger caused by a volcano straight after the event is massive: towns and cities at the base of a volcano would almost certainly be obliterated by the torrent of boiling lava rolling down the hillside. Then, red hot ash and huge volcanic chunks of rock will rain down on the people who are still alive. Finally, the poisons in the air will suffocate them and they'll be asphyxiated.
Of course, volcanoes can be predicted and most townspeople will have evacuated. But some people will be stubborn, remaining in their homes and dying a horrible and probably painful death.
For me it'd be volcanoes. They may not have as bigger destruction radius, but if a volcano goes off near you, there is no chance your getting away from what ever is coming after you, if its pyroclastic flow, lava, chucks of flying rock, its going to hurt.
Also, financially the volcano would do more damage, due to the fact that anything in its path is destroyed, and then covered in either ash, or rock.
To add another point, we aren't ready for volcanoes, i mean you see earthquake proof buildings, tsunami proof buildings, but not volcano proof buildings.
One final point, as seen in the not so distant past, the volcano in Iceland (which is impossible to spell) was able to completely stop air travel in a entire continent, we have yet to see a earthquake do that, if it even is possible.
But please take to account, my argument depends on what type of volcano we're on about, and i also understand that earthquakes happen more frequently, but in my opinion, volcanoes are worse.
I vote volcano...
Mt. Tambora, Indonesia
April 10 - 15, 1816
Death Toll: 92,000
The eruption of Tambora killed an estimated 92,000 people, including 10,000 from explosion and ash fall, and 82,000 from other causes.
The shockwave from the explosion was felt as far as a thousand miles away. Mt. Tambora, which was more than 13,000 feet tall before the explosion was reduced to 9,000 feet after ejecting more than 93 cubic miles of debris into the atmosphere.
This eruption had worldwide effects: 1816 became known as the “year without a summer” because of the volcanic ash in the atmosphere that lowered worldwide temperatures. It snowed in New England that June, and crop failures were common throughout Northern Europe and North America. As many as 100,000 additional deaths from starvation in these areas are thought to be traced to the eruption.
Find Out More About Tambora (en.wikipedia.org)
It is difficult to say which is more dangerous. It totally depends on the intensity or how big is the earthquake or volcanic eruption. It can said that if their intensity is high then there will be havoc in the human society, deaths and loss. Good luck! Build your own war machine from collected parts and unleash its power against other players in uncontrollable physics-based battles! Follow us for more info and guides!
Assuming you observe that you are involving the medical aid supplies for regular requirements, be certain that you set them back straightaway. It is generally a superior plan to keep to packs at your home, one for guaranteed use https://survivalhacks.co/
In my opinion, Earthquakes are more dangerous towards people, especially when citys and towns are affected. The primary results being that they can kill/injure many people in collapsing buildings and do great damage to the country economy's with the amount of money they have to put in for repairing buildings and funding emergency aid for people (This obviously differs with MEDCs/LEDCs) Earthquakes can also have secondary effects such as disease and starvation (LEDCs particularly) leading to more deaths and more funds being put into aid for them affected.
The main reason I argue that earthquakes are more dangerous compared with volcanoes is that earthquakes are unpredictable,we only know they will happen along a plate margin but not where or when specifically.
Volcano eruptions can now be predicted if monitered, we know where volcanoes are and know the consequences of living next to one (I hope). One thing i can say that makes a volcano dangerous apart from the super-hot molten magma is the ash/gases given off by them when they erupt as this can cause ash clouds that can halt air-traffic. (The Icelandic volcano is a prime example)leading to problems such as angry Easy-jet passangers and depletion of imports/exports in and out of the country what could essentially lead to starvation in countrys (That is if the ash cloud stays with us for multiple months, what is unlikely)
I have probably missed out some points. Feel free to dispute and vote down.
i think that earthquakes are worse because they can happen anywhere in the world.volcano's are only found some places .earthquakes kill thousands of people while volcano's kill yes but then it cools and hardens.earthquakes happen all over the world no matter were it is plus it also has aftershocks that also be very dangerous
Most earthquake-related deaths are caused by the collapse of structures and the construction practices play a tremendous role in the death toll of an earthquake. In southern Italy in 1909 more than 100,000 people perished in an earthquake that struck the region. Almost half of the people living in the region of Messina were killed due to the easily collapsible structures that dominated the villages of the region. A larger earthquake that struck San Francisco three years earlier had killed fewer people (about 700) because building construction practices were different type (predominantly wood). Survival rates in the San Francisco earthquake was about 98%, that in the Messina earthquake was between 33% and 45%) (Zebrowski, 1997). Building practices can make all the difference in earthquakes, even a moderate rupture beneath a city with structures unprepared for shaking can produce tens of thousands of casualties.
Although probably the most important, direct shaking effects are not the only hazard associated with earthquakes, other effects such as landslides, liquefaction, and tsunamis have also played important part in destruction produced by earthquakes.
Geologic Effects on Shaking
When we discussed earthquake intensity we discussed some of the basic factors that affect the amplitude and duration of shaking produced by an earthquake (earthquake size, distance from fault, site and regional geology, etc.) and as you are aware, the shaking caused by seismic waves can cause damage buildings or cause buildings to collapse. The level of damage done to a structure depends on the amplitude and the duration of shaking. The amplitudes are largest close to large earthquakes and the duration generally increases with the size of the earthquake (larger quakes shake longer because they rupture larger areas). Regional geology can affect the level and duration of shaking but more important are local site conditions. Although the process can be complicated for strong shaking, generally shaking in soft sediments is larger and longer than when compared with the shaking experienced at a "hard rock" site.