Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126
Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127
In the San Francisco earthquake, both earthquake and fire contributed to the destruction of the city and their surroundings. However, the chapter centered on what was covered by the investors and business owners in San Francisco. There were seismic deniers who wanted everyone to believe that the city was safe, and that it was the architectural fault that the city came into ruins rather than the location being dangerous. Businesses and people wanted to downplay the effects and how bad an earthquake could get because they wanted to deny the fact that the location where they put effort in was deemed dangerous. Businesses believed that if “earthquakes were fictional a fictional threat in California, insurance to protect against such phenomena was a hard sell. (Steinberg 113)” These denials presented fake advertisements because earthquakes themselves are impossible to prevent. Having the fire being the main factor for destruction presents a more human relation to the disaster because fires can be prevented.
In a sense everyone who lives anywhere are prone to some sort of natural disaster whether it be hurricanes, earthquakes, blizzards, and/or more. So in a sense, we may all be denying earthquakes living in California as @ ngojoseph claims (Earthquakes in California: Yet People Still Choose to Live Here). But who isn’t “denying” the threats in their living spaces. Take for the example people who live on the coast, there may be a chance for hurricanes, but the location is still extremely pricey even at the risk of being caught up in a natural disaster. We all decide where we live on depending on our finances and abilities, but we just need to figure out if the location we decide to settle is really worth your life.