ONSIDERING THE INTIAL ASSESSMENT , RELATIVE STABILITY IN THREE DISASTER SITUATIONS

Consider the following three situations:

Situation1: Pisco, Peru: Residents in Peru walk pass a collapsed building at Pisco, 125 miles (200km) south of the capital Lima, after a second powerful earthquake hit the country. Friday, 17 August 2007 .this can be found at: 2011)

Situation 2: NEW YORK : A five-story vacant apartment building partially collapsed in upper Manhattan, 4 March 2008. Caused by subway vibrations. This can be found at: /cgi/article-page.html?article75130009 (retrieved 24/01/2011)
REQUIRED:
a) Initial Assessment:
In each case, using observation from a distance, consider the following;

a? The chances of further movement of the structure,
a? the advisability of approaching,
a? the methods of approach and their relative safety for;
o trapped persons
o rescuers
Take each situation separately and briefly suggest reasons for your answers based on simple estimates of the likelihood of attempts to approach causing more harm than waiting for specialist teams to make safe the structure.
(b)Relative Stability:

Consider each of the situations again, but try to imagine that the ground conditions are not stable. List any assumptions you make such as flood water being present, landslip having occurred, after-shock or other seismic instability, or other damage. Consider that the first image is of a Peruvian earthquake in 2007 that measured 8.0 on the Richter scale and 5.9 for the aftershock. Subway trains will keep running if possible. Hurricanes do have after-effects, but they should be more predictable. How trustworthy is the apparently stable ground in the immediate aftermath? In addition to ground conditions, make observations about the hazards created by the disruption to any services in the vicinity.
Record the reasoning, including any estimation methods you have used, for each situation and suggest tactics, either offensive or defensive, for each of the situations in isolation. Make use of appropriate references to enhance and support your responses, Wikipedia will not be considered an informative source!
Reduce your outcomes to approximately 250 words for each example or the equivalent.