The Shrine

Had to post this video.

I've seen this one before. My concern.. Why didn't the reporters stop and help her get the dog, this little old lady had to ask for help. But, they just HAD to have that moment of her pulling the dog out of the rubble for the camera....

Shellie wrote:I've seen this one before. My concern.. Why didn't the reporters stop and help her get the dog, this little old lady had to ask for help. But, they just HAD to have that moment of her pulling the dog out of the rubble for the camera....

If you didn't know the answer you wouldn't have bothered askin.

I am going to admit I am confused. If certain areas are in danger of being hit by tornadoes (which seems to be a fairly regular occurance in some areas), why haven't these areas adopted a construction standard that would greatly minimize the damage? I'm not even talking standards that would include resistant materials (like concrete and steel) and hugely increase costs, but simple solutions (like increased allowed density below ground level and a seperate concrete perimeter).

Now don't get me wrong, I understand the budget contraints, especially for older government buildings (like schools)...I mean, Vancouver is due for a good sized earthquake and we still have a lot of 60's and 70's buildings that have not undergone seismic upgrades...but we are talking a 'once-every-hundred-years' sort of event...seems like tornandoes are a fairly common thing, comparatively.

I imagine news mostly just show devastated old communities and neighborhoods. The ones that have been built with newer technology aren't news. Also people are lazy and don't build houses with disaster in mind until it happens. And I'm guessing it doesn't matter how well you build when a tornado's that ridiculously big.

Not everyone can afford something safer than a mobile home. And not much can withstand a freaking EF-4 (that had spots that hit EF-5). Pretty much everything gets obliterated at that point.