尼泊爾地震傷亡遠(yuǎn)低于預(yù)測(cè)

Why Is the Rising Death Toll in the Nepal Earthquake Still Lower Than Predictions?

尼泊爾地震傷亡遠(yuǎn)低于預(yù)測(cè)

Amid the horror and devastation around Nepal’s Katmandu Valley after Saturday’s 7.8-magnitude earthquake, seismologists and earthquake-focused engineers are remarking on how low the death counts are — particularly in the capital — compared to many predictions for the densely populated, deeply impoverished and ill-prepared region.

在尼泊爾加德滿都谷地周六遭遇7.8級(jí)地震的恐慌與浩劫中，地震學(xué)家和地震方向的工程師們卻一直在感嘆死亡人數(shù)之少，尤其是首都的死亡人數(shù)。相對(duì)于諸多預(yù)估數(shù)據(jù)，這片人口密集、身陷赤貧又毫無(wú)準(zhǔn)備的土地上，實(shí)際的遇難者要少得多。

And this assessment presumes that fatalities will climb much higher than the 4000 counted so far. But to reach even the low end of past estimates, the death toll would have to rise enormously.

這種說(shuō)法所預(yù)計(jì)的死亡人數(shù)要比現(xiàn)在的4000多人高出很多。但即使是按照以往預(yù)估的最低值來(lái)算，現(xiàn)在的死亡人數(shù)也低得多。

In 2012, for example, this was the warning for the Katmandu Valley from the United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction:

例如，2012年聯(lián)合國(guó)減災(zāi)辦公室(United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction)就曾向加德滿都谷地發(fā)出如下提醒：

Conservative estimates are that the next big earthquake could result in 100,000 dead, 200,000 injured and one to two million people displaced

保守估計(jì)，下一場(chǎng)大地震將造成10萬(wàn)人遇難，20萬(wàn)人受傷，100萬(wàn)至200萬(wàn)人無(wú)家可歸。

Why the difference? For one thing, it appears that, at least for the capital, this earthquake was not nearly a worst case.

實(shí)際狀況為何與此相去甚遠(yuǎn)?一方面，至少以首都的情況來(lái)看，這并非最嚴(yán)重的一次地震。

If the great 1934 Bihar-Nepal earthquake occurred with today’s population and structures, vastly higher losses would occur, as GeoHazards International and Nepal’s National Society for Earthquake Technology found in a 1999 analysis.

國(guó)際地質(zhì)災(zāi)害組織(GeoHazards International)與尼泊爾國(guó)家地震技術(shù)科學(xué)會(huì)(Nepal's National Society for Earthquake Technology)1999年發(fā)布分析報(bào)告稱，如果1934年的比哈爾-尼泊爾地震(Bihar-Nepal earthquake)重演，以如今的人口規(guī)模和結(jié)構(gòu)來(lái)看，死亡人數(shù)將大幅上升。

Susan E. Hough, a United States Geological Survey seismologist, sent these thoughts on Sunday:

美國(guó)地質(zhì)調(diào)查局的地震學(xué)家蘇珊·E·哈夫(Susan E. Hough)周日時(shí)發(fā)表了如下觀點(diǎn)：

As tragic as the losses are, it seems clear the city was not flattened. I’ve been struck by damage photos — not only the damage they show, but the damage they don’t show to apparently intact buildings in the background. This seems to go hand-in-hand with the ShakeMap, which is poorly constrained but shows intensities 7-8 in the near-field, not 9-10.

盡管傷亡人數(shù)令人悲嘆，但很明顯這座城市并沒(méi)有被夷為平地?？吹绞転?zāi)地照片我很震驚——不僅是被它們所呈現(xiàn)的受災(zāi)狀況震驚，更被它們所無(wú)意呈現(xiàn)的，背景里完好無(wú)損的建筑所震驚。這一切似乎和缺乏約束的地震動(dòng)預(yù)測(cè)圖(ShakeMap)相吻合，顯示為7-8級(jí)烈度的近場(chǎng)地震，而非9-10級(jí)。

I’m thinking it will be an interesting part of the earthquake story, understanding the ground motions in the near field. There should be at least some strong motion data from Katmandu, and maybe elsewhere. It kills me there isn’t more: I tried to put together a proposal a few years ago to install more dense low-cost accelerometers in the valley, working with NSET [Nepal’s National Society for Earthquake Technology] and Tribuvan University. I was involved with a proposal that went in a year or so ago…. I do think preparedness efforts made a difference. Amod Dixit and his team at NSET have worked tirelessly on outreach, education, and training.

我想這會(huì)成為地震史上對(duì)近場(chǎng)地動(dòng)認(rèn)知的有趣一幕。加德滿都應(yīng)該至少有一些強(qiáng)烈地動(dòng)的數(shù)據(jù)，也許其他地方也有。但只有這些，這讓我很煩惱：我試圖整合幾年前和尼泊爾國(guó)家地震技術(shù)科學(xué)會(huì)(NSET)和特里萬(wàn)布大學(xué)(Tribuvan University)合作的一個(gè)在谷地更密集地安裝低成本測(cè)震儀的提案。我還參與了一年多前的一個(gè)提案……我認(rèn)為事先準(zhǔn)備是有效可靠的。阿莫德·迪克斯特(Amod Dixit)和他在尼泊爾國(guó)家地震技術(shù)科學(xué)會(huì)的團(tuán)隊(duì)一直孜孜不倦地在范圍、教育和訓(xùn)練方面探索研究。

The population was not ignorant. Fatalism arises when problems are so far outside people’s control that they can’t do anything about it — or rather, they think they can’t do anything about it.

人們并非完全一無(wú)所知。但當(dāng)問(wèn)題超出可控范圍，人們無(wú)力回天的時(shí)候，宿命論就會(huì)占上風(fēng)——或者說(shuō)，人們自以為無(wú)力回天的時(shí)候。

And yes that paragraph is contradictory. The thing is, the overall problem was far outside anyone’s control but it is still possible to make some difference.

好吧，上一段的確很矛盾。關(guān)鍵在于，當(dāng)整體問(wèn)題完全失控的時(shí)候，我們依然是可以做出些改變的。

Port-au-Prince is mostly the same story: big problems, big earthquakes, few resources. By my calculation, ground motions in Port-au-Prince were not intensity 9-10, but maybe 6-8. The story again was vulnerability.

太子港的情況也差不多：?jiǎn)栴}棘手，地震嚴(yán)重，資源稀缺。據(jù)我個(gè)人計(jì)算，太子港地動(dòng)烈度并非9-10級(jí)，可能是6-8級(jí)。那一次的問(wèn)題，也是抗震能力。

I also asked her if there’s any concern about this being misperceived as the worst that could happen.

我還問(wèn)了她此次地震誤解為最嚴(yán)重的一次是否有什么影響。

Could something bigger happen in Nepal? Sure.

尼泊爾會(huì)發(fā)生更嚴(yán)重的地震嗎?當(dāng)然有可能。

There’s the megathrust segment immediately west of this earthquake, which we believe last broke in 1505. It’s the usual story, though: we don’t know when. The odds of subsequent big earthquakes always go up after a major earthquake. Ironically, the most dangerous time, statistically, is always just after a major earthquake has happened. But still it’s a low probability. We quote a 1-in-20 chance that something bigger will happen within 3 days, but the odds drop quickly with each passing hour. By this time [Sunday], the odds are more like 1-in-100. And the odds of an earthquake much larger than 7.8 are much lower still. It is possible, maybe even inevitable, that both Port-au-Prince and Nepal will be hit with stronger ground motions than what they’ve seen in recent years.

在地震發(fā)生地以西不遠(yuǎn)處就有一個(gè)大地震破裂段，據(jù)信，其上次破裂是在1505年。但通常情況是這樣的：我們不知道它何時(shí)會(huì)破裂。隨后發(fā)生大地震的幾率總是在一次嚴(yán)重地震發(fā)生后攀升。諷刺的是，數(shù)據(jù)表明，最危險(xiǎn)的時(shí)候，總是在一次嚴(yán)重地震剛剛發(fā)生之后。但是概率還是很低的。一場(chǎng)更大的地震將在3日內(nèi)發(fā)生的可能，我們?cè)诖艘?比20這樣一個(gè)幾率，但是這種幾率是逐小時(shí)迅速下降的。到現(xiàn)在(周日)，這個(gè)幾率大概是1比100。且發(fā)生一次遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)強(qiáng)于7.8級(jí)的地震的幾率比這還要低得多。太子港和尼泊爾都遭遇比近年來(lái)兩地所經(jīng)受過(guò)的更為強(qiáng)烈的地震，是可能的，甚至是不可避免的。

So the city of Katmandu, while still reeling, has clearly been spared what could have been a far higher death count given rapid urbanization in recent years (driven in part as people fled political turmoil in the hinterlands), poor quality of construction, lack of emergency services and other glaring issues.

所以加德滿都這座城市——盡管其還在經(jīng)受重重余震——鑒于其近年來(lái)迅猛的城市化進(jìn)程(部分是人們逃離內(nèi)陸政治動(dòng)蕩的結(jié)果)、差勁的建筑質(zhì)量、應(yīng)急服務(wù)的缺失及其他顯而易見(jiàn)的問(wèn)題，顯然幸運(yùn)地避免了更慘重的傷亡。

The focus at the moment should be supporting rescue and relief efforts. But it’s also vital for Nepal and international aid agencies and organizations to redouble efforts to rebuild with the worse in mind.

此刻的重點(diǎn)應(yīng)該是支持救援救災(zāi)工作。但對(duì)尼泊爾和國(guó)際援助機(jī)構(gòu)和組織來(lái)說(shuō)，帶著最糟糕的預(yù)設(shè)去加倍為重建努力至關(guān)重要。

The geological forces creating the earthquake hazard in Nepal and throughout the region are not abating, as Kenneth Chang wrote.

正如肯尼斯·張(Kenneth Chang，音譯)所寫(xiě)道的，在尼泊爾及整個(gè)周邊地區(qū)造成地震災(zāi)害的地質(zhì)營(yíng)力(指引起地質(zhì)作用的自然力——編注)并未減弱。