Posted by: Morgan Hubbard | October 4, 2010

But then what?

Mir, I’ll play devil’s advocate.

I buy that lay terminology for hazards and disasters confuses those two words. And it seems like you’re right to point out that there’s a distinction, because there are policy implications: we can require hazard mitigation planning in the event that natural hazards become disasters.

But so what? If everyone gets this distinction, what will change? Is this one of those cases where language influences policy?



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: