Suggest reasons why the strongest earthquakes are not always the most costly

Another reason may be that there are very few settlements in the area and therefore the costs will be lower because there are fewer people and buildings. For example, the earthquake that happened in Alaska in 1964. This is the second largest earthquake ever recorded with a magnitude of 9.2, the first being Chile with a magnitude of 9.5. You would expect the costs and the death toll to be quite high however this isn’t the case. Because it happened in a remote part of Alaska, Prince William Sound, there were only 131 deaths in total which is surprisingly low. Also, the property damage cost was about $311 million (in the 1960’s) which is very low when compared to earthquakes of that size.

One final example could be to do with how well educated people are about earthquakes. An example of a country that educates people about earthquakes is the USA. This is understandable as some parts of the USA are very earthquake prone e.g. Alaska, California and Hawaii. Proof of how this can be useful, can be seen when looking at the earthquake that happened in California in 2010, which had a magnitude of 7.2 and occurred at 15:40. We know that earthquake education is part of the school curriculum.  Children learn the signs of earthquakes, how to behave and practise regular drills. In addition schools ensure they are earthquake proof by avoiding wall mounted cupboards and televisions, only installing low bookcases and carrying out regular risk assessments. Because of these measures only 3 people were killed and 100 were injured.

I think that these examples help to show that the strongest earthquakes are not always the most costly.

Cem Temel