reading the articles answer two questions and respond in a meaningful way to other people posting (the posting is they are answer the articles question). the response don’t need be too much 2 to 3 sentence is fine
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/07/20/the-really-big-one
Address the following Questions:

1) What is the FEMA projection for deaths, injuries, and displacements in this location when ‘the big one’ hits? Do you think this level of preparedness is appropriate? Will it suffice in the event of the article’s predictions?

2) What is a re-occurrence number? Why are these arguable? Considering that these numbers can be argued – why do researchers, disaster management, and others take these projections so seriously? Are they strong enough evidence to justify FEMA spending and allowances in case of an emergency or is this all foolish?

other people posting :
1)Ruolin Chen
1. In the article, it mentioned that “FEMA projects that nearly thirteen thousand people will die in the Cascadia earthquake and tsunami. Another twenty-seven thousand will be injured, and the agency expects that it will need to provide shelter for a million displaced people, and food and water for another two and a half million.” (Schulz, 2015). I think the projections described in the article are possible, but if and when the projections do occur, these preparations alone are not enough.
2.The number of repetitions represents the magnitude and severity of the earthquake. These numbers had to be studied because, as the article states: The 2011 disaster in Japan was the result of a discrepancy between the best scientific predictions and what the region was prepared to endure. The same is true in the Pacific Northwest — but the difference here is huge. With the advancement of technology, the reason why these numbers are worth paying attention to is that they can warn people to a certain extent about the impending disaster and the severity of the disaster. I personally think that with the advancement of detection technology, it is possible to give strong evidence of certain conditions to FEMA, and to give certain support in emergency conditions.

2) Yiwei Zhu
1.The FEMA estimates for mortality, injury, and relocation in this area are 27,000, 13,000, and 1,000,000, respectively. This level of preparation is insufficient for this place. This is because no amount of planning will ever be enough until the chances of death, injury, or relocation are zero. This forecast still implies that lives will be lost and injuries will occur, implying that the site must continue to prepare in order to reduce those figures to zero. This amount of foresight is completely unsuitable.
2.”It is possible to quarrel with that number,” according to the report. Averages may be tricky: 10 is the average of nine and eleven, but also of eighteen and two.” As a result, they are debatable, and the reason for this is due to the scientists’ work and the region’s preparedness to survive an earthquake.

3) Yueyang Fan
1.When ‘the big one’ hits, FEMA’s death toll projection is that the Cascadia earthquake and tsunami will kill 13,000 people, displace 1 million people and injure 27,000 in the region. I don’t think this level of preparation is appropriate because if so many deaths and displacements are predicted in advance, then it actually happens, I don’t think it’s acceptable. Because it could have done better in reducing the death toll, and the residents could have been evacuated earlier, maybe not as many people would have died.
2.The re-occurrence number is the average amount of time that elapses between earthquakes. These are controversial because the data is an average based on past earthquakes, it is not very accurate and there is a chance that another earthquake will occur. It’s taken seriously because it’s also possible to be right, because researchers want to be prepared when disaster strikes. I don’t think this is stupid, because it can reduce the number of deaths and economic losses caused by disasters, and it can also prepare for the consequences of disasters in advance.