Would anyone die in earthquakes if no structures were built?

Post Reply New Topic

Unless it's so strong the earth itself separates would it be logical to think most deaths are due to man-made structures falling?

What about things like rockslides, mudslides, trees and the like, if you were in the middle of an open field or on a plain or something unless there were something compromising below you'd probably just have a good clattering around, could always fall and break a limb. Fires and rubble are the main culprits so reduce the possibility of them spawning from the conniving jostling of tectonic voodoo and things look a lot merrier.

Could cause a tsunami. Would be in trouble if you were caught in one of those.

Death rate from earthquakes would be nearly non-existent - but most people would die from common cold before even experiencing their first earthquake.

In the early stone age when everyone lived in caves, grass huts, or Teepees, I doubt there was much carnage due to earthquakes. Even much less per capita (there were probably fewer deaths from tremors relative to the tinier population of the time than now).

Big cities with collapsing masonry structures, and later cities which also had gas lines that get ruptured and burst into flames, created the problem.

It would be logical even if it were not true. But I'm certain that it is true.

Surely this depends on specific details of the earthquake. The records suggest that Graywulf and DancingCorpse are correct.

While it seems generally true that collapsing structures cause death in most cases, there are other ways that earthquakes kill, so it seems unwise to be dogmatic about this.

In the case of the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, people who were not in structures did not fare well when the tsunami came. Many people who were out in natural environments when the waves hit were battered and drowned.

There are also people who have been caught in landslides or flooding caused by sudden river diversion that are lethal regardless of the victims location inside or outside when the event hits.

While collapsing structures cause the majority of deaths in earthquakes, it's a matter of record that people are killed by other factors so the correct answer to the OP has to be yes, people would sometimes dies in Earthquakes if no structures were built.

If you think of death rates for earthquakes from any cause including structure collapse against the total population that number is going to be terribly small compared with things like cancer, heart disease and vehicular accidents.

Irrelevent. Nobody said that.

My point was that in the stone age (before they had buildings) the population was less than now. So the absolute numbers of people dying from ANY cause would have been far less than now. because there were fewer people to die. So the question should be "did fewer folks die of cause X back then relative to the smaller population they had then than we do now?". Not "did fewer folks die in absolute numbers from cause X back then?"

More people died in the Tokyo Earthquake in the nineteen twenties then died in the carpet bombing of Tokyo by the US army air corps in WWII, and it was comparable to the death toll of Hiroshima. Thats a lot of people.

But in the Paleolithic stone age the population of Japan (or of any place) was about one one thousandth of what it is now (if that much). So in proportion to the stone age population an earthquake that killed a 100 people would be equivalent to the 1920s quake that killed a 100 thousand people. But I doubt that an earthquake in what is now Tokyo during the stone age (when folks lived in grass huts) would kill even anywhere near one hundred people (even with a tsunami). So even in proportion to the smaller population- the death toll would be smaller.

Got it?

I'm pretty sure a cave isn't exactly a safe place to be during an earthquake. It can collapse much like a building, squishing you like a bug.

"in most cases" is inherently undogmatic.

Actually natural caves dont do that. They dont "collapse" like a building, or like a crushed beer can. But they do get rock falls.

Sounds like you're confusing natural caves with man made abandoned mine tunnels. The later get dangerous collapses,and thats why spelunkers avoid them for natural caves. Natural caves last thousands of years (even in earthquake prone zones) and dont actually "collapse". And if you are in the usual stone age living space near the mouth of the cave you can exit more rapidly than you can from the 90th floor of the World Trade Center anyway.

But on the other hand natural caves DO get rocks breaking off the ceiling.

Archaeologist who dug the famous Shanidar cave in Iran (in the earthquake prone Zagros mountains) found the remains of both hapless Neanderthal individuals, and of later anatomical modern unfortunates, who got buried under rocks falling from the ceiling (maybe from earthquakes). But those victims numbered a handful over a period of 150 thousand years. Maybe one victim every 30K years ( the whole length of recorded human history from the start of the Bronze Age to now is 5000 years). So one person getting crushed by rock every six-times-the-entire-length-of-human-history is not very often. So I still think your odds are better in a cave than in a man made structure.

There might be casualties from avalanches and landslides set off by the quakes. Sometimes the earth cracks open (that does not happen often) and it is possible to fall in. Only in motion pictures do you always get cracks in the earth.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think there is evidence either way. I would think that a paleolithic fishing community could easily be wiped out by tsunami. I'm unaware of archaeological evidence that would support a firm opinion either way on this.

I think you can say that engineered structures and high population densities greatly magnify the impact of earthquakes, but not that nobody would die.

In 1906 two men were killed by falling redwood trees.

https://books.google.com/books?id=Q_71J ... ke&f=false