Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad News For You
899 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 28 29 30 31 32 … 36 Newer→ Last
-
Hebe, in reply to
Joel Cayford’s revelatory posting from last July.
I'm lost for every word except the short pithy ones. Cayford appears to say neither Ecan nor CCC did a proper hazard management plan, except to shovel responsibility on to the other council. A monumental scandal if true.
-
merc,
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
A monumental scandal if true.
As in post-Katrina monumental? All the more so if the ECan sacking was a contributing factor.
-
Islander, in reply to
In a word,
yes.
Grubby little paws were quite frantically trying to block off aisles of blame it seems-
with post-event legislation, yet-
-
Hebe, in reply to
The reports quoted pre-date the removal of Ecan . Islander is right in that the post-earthquake butt-covering is world-class when it comes to the various councils.
-
The Press’s Paul Gorman reports on Rachel Ford and Ed Radley’s appearance at the Royal Commish:
"New Zealand scientists well knew of Canterbury’s vulnerability and told Government long ago. For years, critical modelling tasks the region required for proper preparation fell through the cracks of multiple agencies with ill-defined responsibilities." -
You have to wonder how many people would have made an informed decision to avoid the central city after September if told of the actual risk.
-
If the true facts were shared with emergency management authorities as we are told, what action did they take?
-
merc,
Wu wei.
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
You have to wonder how many people would have made an informed decision to avoid the central city after September if told of the actual risk.
Without an accurate time frame I guess it's a bit academic.
For me the most significant thing about the largely ignored report commissioned by ECAN is that the map it provided of potential quake damage in Christchurch is very close to the current CERA zone map which reflects what really happened. While we can't know when things will occur with any precision, we now have a proven example that vulnerable locations can be predicted. I don't think it's at all alarmist to say that the 181 who perished in the CTV building would probably be with us today if the OPUS report had been heeded. -
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
I don’t think it’s at all alarmist to say that the 181 who perished in the CTV building would probably be with us today if the OPUS report had been heeded.
For the future,it is also worth remembering from the Herald article further up that Rolleston is up for the rebuild.
The worse possible case was directly under the city. Other possibilities were out in the southwest around Wigram, or Lincoln, and areas at Rolleston, and way out at Hororata.
-
fell through the cracks of multiple agencies with ill-defined responsibilities.
It’s not so much as falling through the cracks as a situation of no-one in any agency being brave enough to say N and O together without fearing the wrath of developers taking them to court for denying developers the right to make money without any kind of constraint (such as earthquake strengthening). Or fearing the wrath of their bosses (NZ middle managers – that peculiar species).
I may be slightly hyperbolic here and I stand to be corrected, but my general observation remains.
-
merc,
Well perhaps the Commission will shed some light on events.
-
Sacha, in reply to
I may be slightly hyperbolic here
I fear not.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Already working - and who knows what the Rena one might reveal..
-
Am I right in thinking that one 1990s politician who was centrally involved in the 'deregulation' of both building and maritime standards (and sat on his hands in telecommunications) was Pakuranga's finest, Maurice Williamson? He must be dead proud of his handiwork.
How could the opposition not make hay from that?
-
Hebe, in reply to
We did. But post Boxing Day the worsened cracks on many city buildings (I particularly noted the Press building) were passed as safe by council engineers.
I also tracked the pattern of aftershocks on quake.crowe from October on and became convinced, with my sketchy knowledge of geology and faultlines, that there were more faults under the city that had been activated by the September 4 Greendale fault unzipping.
This, combined with a knowledge of the workings of the councils, politicians and local media, impelled my husband and I to walk around the whole of the central city one day in the first week of January, looking up. What we saw horrified us: major cracks appearing in previously unblemished buildings, teetering parapets and stone geegaws , safety fences that just were not far enough out to contain any major shake debris etc, etc .
We made a plan: our children to avoid the city, areas and buildings to specifically avoid, and we planned escape routes from our usual haunts and my partner's office and the blocks around it.
That plan saved his life on Feb 22.
Am I angry about the fact that an untrained serial house renovator like myself could put some basic data together and come up with those conclusions? Yes I am. Why were Christchurch residents kept in ignorance? What has changed since?
-
merc, in reply to
Under scrutiny yesterday, Berryman admitted GNS Science was aware of the possibility of a more devastating tremor striking near central Christchurch after the magnitude-7.1 shake on September 4, 2010.
However, in the first few weeks after the September quake the possibility of more devastating aftershock was intentionally not discussed. It was considered that it would be unhelpful for a "traumatised" public.
"It's rather alarmist to say there could have been a bigger event."
This morning, Berryman again defended not publicising the possibility of a more damaging quake and labelled coverage of his comments in the New Zealand Herald newspaper "disappointing".
GNS had not withheld the information but did not publicise it simply because the possibility were so slim and so frightening.
"There is also the possibility of a meteorite strike," he said
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5821479/Canterbury-fault-research-funding-bid-failed -
Sacha, in reply to
GNS had not withheld the information but did not publicise it
Uh huh.
-
Sacha, in reply to
labelled coverage of his comments in the New Zealand Herald newspaper "disappointing"
Did they say anything inaccurate? Or merely inconvenient.
-
merc,
I was reminded of a certain person answering questions at the Erebus Commission of Inquiry (I sat in on two very poignant sessions), the same use of language later to be famously described as an...orchestrated litany of...
-
Hebe, in reply to
You're getting there too.. I noticed that Kevin Furlong, a visiting US earthquakes academic who happened to be stationed at Canty Uni for the big shakes, was often loose-lipped compared to the 'official' versions from GNS etc. When the media thought to ask he, unconstrained by funding threats and Peter Gluckman, told it like he saw it, usually rapidly followed up by a 'paper over the cracks' bulletin from GNS
-
merc,
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch-earthquake-2011/5638243/City-Mall-to-open-without-bars
The rush to recreate the CBD seems a little premature, wonder if GNS is holding any information regarding any further probable tremors? I wonder. Ah,
At the inquiry on Tuesday, Ford had asked GNS Science natural hazards director Terry Webb if he thought the agency had provided ECan with sufficiently detailed information after September 4 to assess the risk of future quakes.Webb said GNS Science's Kelvin Berryman, the natural hazards research platform manager, had spent a lot of time post-September regularly briefing authorities on the likelihood and possible size of aftershocks.
Berryman told The Press yesterday the aftershock advice given to authorities after the September quake was not in the same format seen in the last few months.
"We were in discussions on a daily basis with the emergency operations centre, and they certainly had that information. Not in that breakdown into different magnitudes, but at that stage we were expecting it was going to be a very simple aftershock sequence," he said.
At the hearing yesterday GNS also faced questions from Marcus Elliot, the lawyer representing the families of quake victims, who suggested they should have done more to warn the public of the risk of further devastating quakes after September 4. Berryman replied that although a quake the size, location and proximity of the February 22 one was always a remote possibility, it would have been "alarmist" to raise it publicly after the September shake. It was considered "unhelpful" to speak about a more devastating shake.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch-earthquake-2011/5817670/First-quake-warranted-fault-search -
Three ring CERC...
CERC was set up by the government in the early days after 4 September and its functions include coordinating the Government and local body recovery effort. It is also supposed to be the chief means of communication between the three councils and the Government.
It consists of three Government appointees, an ECan Commissioner and the Mayors of Christchurch, Selwyn and Waimakariri.
They are retiring Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry director-general Murray Sherwin, Canterbury regional council commissioner Dame Margaret Bazely, earthquake engineer David Hopkins, social expert Arihia Bennett, Mayor Kelvin Coe, Mayor Bob Parker and David Ayers (mayor of Waimakariri).I think Berryman also said that he informally briefed the Mayor and councillors about the very real danger of a large aftershock close to the city - they chose not to do much about that...
So both Government (through their appointees) and local council have a lot to answer for - they have to realise that sometimes people need to be told bad things - we are adults and can't function well when useful information is withheld - being in control doesn't just mean they only get to say the nice things - makes a mockery of Parker's award for Communicator of the Year!
-
Late to this, and wonder whether rather too much is being expected of earthquake prediction here - after the event of course the probability it will occur is 1, but predicting the future is so much harder.
Say it’s a 50/50 that the largest aftershock will be as big as 1 magnitude unit below the primary earthquake as the general rule, and the trend of aftershocks over the first 2-3 months is indicating probably smaller than that, but maybe not. And the biggest aftershock might occur where the most aftershocks are occurring, or where they’re not occurring, off the other end of the fault zone 60 km away, or somewhere else again - should Christchurch be warned to expect an aftershock significantly bigger than that global experience suggests, but right under them and with higher intensity shaking than ever recorded for an earthquake of anything like that magnitude, some time in the next few months?
I’d hazard a suggestion that wouldn’t be all that far off the Ken Ring model of earthquake risk communication.
Downplaying earthquake risks is the obvious way to retain or enhance research funding?
Back at the Ford/Radley submission and the dangerous blind fault under Sydenham/ Woolston apparently known earlier to the geologist grapevine – how could an unseen scarcely imaged fault be known to be “dangerous” without any measure of the past movement frequency and character? Geological faults are everywhere in NZ so everywhere is equally at risk? No – some faults are more dangerous than others, but working that out quantitatively in full detail – not so easy.
I trust there will be very strong recommendations for increased resourcing for a major upgrade in earthquake risk and hazard assessments throughout NZ, and they will be well received and accepted by Government at all levels, and acted upon over many years. But in the meantime, and regardless, it will be attention to building/planning matters that yield greater improvements in safety.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.