"In very graphic ways, disasters signal the failure of a society to adapt successfully to certain features of its natural and socially constructed environment in a sustainable fashion" (303).
Somehow, given recent events — the 7.0 magnitude earthquake that rocked Haiti last year, the 6.3 Christchurch earthquake in New Zealand last February and now, the March 11 9.0 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami — I beg to disagree.
While it is indeed possible to reduce the gravity and impact that a so-called "natural disaster" will have on the so-called "victims" of the incident, it would be impossible, I think, to completely avoid being affected at all. It is a known fact that the Japanese have been preparing for a large earthquake for years — after all, the country is situated right in the middle of the Pacific Ring of Fire, which is infamous for its annual number of earthquakes and volcanoes, and the country has been subject to more than a couple tremors and a few big quakes (Kanto in 1923, Kobe-Osaka in 1995) in its long history.
Even given the earthquakes that have happened over the past few years in various regions around the world, no one could have anticipated or accurately predicted just how strong the March 11 quake would be. Perhaps they may have been able to say that a tsunami would sweep the nation's northeast coast if the impending quake was strong enough and centred in just the right place, but that would have been it. It always has been, and still remains, nearly impossible to give more than a few minutes' warning — enough to stop the rapid trains and minimise the death toll.
Would it be fair to say that Japan has not managed to adapt to its natural environment? I say no, because the tsunami barriers were built to withstand earthquakes up to a certain magnitude and waves up to a certain height. Sure, the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923 previously held the record of Japan's biggest quake — it clocked in with a stunning magnitude of 8.3 — but the Japanese did their best to retrofit their buildings for the quake that they were sure would hit.
This retrofitting is what minimised the effects the quake had on the nation's capital of Tokyo — buildings swayed like leaves in the wind, but nothing major collapsed and the metropolis was back up on its feet within a day.
This retrofitting is what kept the nuclear reactors at Fukushima from completely falling apart — they were built to withstand a magnitude 7.9 quake which, before March 11, would have been considered quite big. It's funny (in an awkward sort of way) how magnitude 5.0 quakes are considered small, and 6.0 is considered worrisome, when that was all it took to devastate Christchurch a few months ago.
Yes, perhaps now the Japanese will reexamine their blueprints, modify the earthquake section of their building codes, but it's not as if they failed as a society on March 11 when entire towns were swept out to sea — it's quite the opposite. The nation's ability to prepare for earthquakes was showcased on that fateful day — a quake that big anywhere else and the critically affected radius would have been much, much, much larger.