Do you have any insights or suggestions for readers in developing countries where the probability of collapse is high (any thing they should keep in mind that is different from the general recommendations for Americans)?

Warm regards and please do stay in touch,
Shideh

You are a very intelligent and thoughtful individual. Lots of people are driven like cows into doing what may not be in their interest. Always think..and think for your self and don’t let other people do your thinking for you.

What you saw at your gradparents home is the same that I saw, in Northridge and almost 1 million other buildings in a 100 major disasters around the world.

I can assure you that my life as an unpaid volunteer has not been pleasant trying to save lives and ‘buck the system’. Daeth threats and all the hatred that you can imagine from school boards who don’t want to pay higher insurance premiums and insurance companies who don’t want to lose profit.

In their words, to us, it is cheaper and less trouble if children are killed by ‘duck and cover’ rather than live with physical or emotional trauma needing medical expenses and compensation.

Myself, I consider children’s lives more important than insurance company profits. I act as my conscience demands.

Again, good for you..you will undoubtedly be a leader, in life.

Regarding drop and cover vs. triangle of life – did you also read the links in my post above? I thought there were some strong arguments in the links I read regarding injury from building collapse vs. injury from flying/falling objects in addition to arguments on the nature of collapse in typical US residential buildings. At the same time you pointed out that in your grandparent’s house there were large voids beside furniture that would have provided a shelter from say a collapse ceiling or floor beams.

I guess ideally, if I was in an EQ in a California home, I would like to be covered by something like a table to protect from flying objects AND also be up against a large and strong piece of furniture in order to benefit from the type of voids you mentioned…
But if I had to choose one or the other…?

Even my Grandparents when there second story house collapsed during the Northridge Earthquake, if you had been on the floor downstairs next to the couch or in the kitchen crouched next to the cabnets, you would have have survived the major quake due to the large voids that the large pieces and the furniture left.

With all due respect,
Paula

It shows that we must not only rely on other countries’ research achievements and easily accept it as applicable methods or approaches for our problems, in that they may only be applicable for their own countries, and there are very detailed factors which can remain hidden from a superficial point of view. This easily demonstrates the necessity and significance of local research activities which is only possible by local researchers supported by related research institutions or organizations.

Indeed, in order to see how applicable these methods are for different cities, specifically Tehran, more detailed information in addition to direct research studies is needed …

Hooman, thanks for the great comment. In essence, I think the best method of injury prevention depends on the prevalent type of building construction and the nature of earthquake damage expected. So this varies between cities, regions, countries, and cultures. I think that it is possible that neither method adequately addresses the types of hazards one would expect in Tehran.

The “triangle-of-life” vs. “drop, cover, and hold” methods of preventing injury during earthquakes were a big topic of discussion around 2004, when I believe the original “triangle-of-life” email was sent out. I even remember the SEAONC (Structural Engineers’ Association of Northern California) and EERI (Earthquake Engineering Research Institute) meetings where this was discussed. The findings where that in the US, the “triangle-of-life” method is actually quit dangerous and exposes people to injury/death from falling objects, because in that method you curl up in the fetal position beside a large object such as a couch – but you are not covered by anything. The “drop, cover, and hold” method protects (to some extent) people from falling and flying objects such as glass, books, etc – which account for the majority of injuries when the structure does not collapse. In the US and certainly in California, such is typically the case: structures don’t collapse, but flying/falling objects can do considerable damage, therefore the EERI and SEAONC recommend “drop, cover, and hold” for the US.

However – and I welcome/urge debate on this – things are different for places like Tehran, where building collapse will be much more widespread. So in this case, would “triangle of life” be better? I think it really depends on what type of structure you are in and how strong of an object you may be able to get under or near. For example, in houses built with brick roofs (i.e. in Tehran – often the brick are arched between parallel steel beams), I would think being under an object would be wise in order to prevent injury from falling bricks. On the other hand it can be argued that the triangle of life method would be more helpful if one of the roof beams came crashing down and bricks or other heavy objects were not an issue… this could occur when you are willing to sustain some injury in order to live.

Another thing to keep in mind is the type of furniture and household objects common in most Iranian homes. Most housing for mid-income and above in Tehran have tables, couches, chairs, etc… but lower-income households (especially in southern Tehran) probably have more traditional furniture… probably no couches, tables, or other objects to get under… so perhaps someone should create some guidelines for what they should do in an earthquake… (unless something already exists).

Here are some links on “triangle of life” vs. “drop, cover, and hold” as they pertain to the US… I would be interested to hear your thoughts on how applicable either of these methods is for different types of housing in Tehran and the rest of Iran:

http://www.seaonc.org/public/media/press_06.html
http://www.eeri.org/cds_publications/newsletter/2004_pdf/Nov04.pdf (see article on Page 9)
http://www2.bpaonline.org/Emergencyprep/arc-on-doug-copp.html

I have noticed that some ideas provided in this document are in conflict with what I read several months ago through an email I received. That was an article provided by Doug Copp, Dean of American Rescue Team. In fact, he rejects “Duck and Cover” method and recommends his so called “Triangle of Life” method. In order to avoid any misunderstanding, I would like to ask you and others to discuss about this matter (advantages and disadvantages of each method) and clarify which method is better.

Thank you,
Hooman.