Oklahoma City hit by tornado

[bush_cheney2004]

Why Aren't There Tornado Safety Building Codes ?

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/1373-tornado-safety-building-codes.html

Tornadoes are a common occurrence where I live in the U.S. Upper Midwest. Most of the investment in public safety is for early warning systems (sirens, broadcasts, cable TV alerts, phone alerts, S.A.M.E weather radio alerts, etc.). Most tornadoes that we get each year are EF1 or EF2 of short duration, but the occasional monster tornado is just going to obliterate the landscape no matter what (see Joplin, MO). Sometimes we get debris and confetti rain dozens of miles from the tornado location (once we got shredded checks from a bank that was destroyed). Damage from straight line winds from severe thunder storms are also a routine risk.

Sooooo.....schools and businesses hold tornado drills each season. Residents at home seek shelter in an interior room or basement (basements are more common here than in the U.S. South or West). When they happen, people just grab their chain saws and volunteer to help clean up. Tornadoes are fascinating and scary at the same time, but they are just a normal part of the deal.

Edited May 22, 2013 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest Kenneth]

What makes you think that it's possible to have "building standards" that can withstand the force of a EF5 tornado? - nevermind standards that would be feasible?

Furthermore, bush_cheney has a point; "Between 1992 and 2007, a staggering 1903 American commercial fishing vessels sank, according to a comprehensive Coast Guard report. As a direct result, 507 people died...." http://www.popularmechanics.com/outdoors/survival/stories/why-commercial-fishing-is-the-deadliest-job-in-america

1) http://www.tornadoproofhouses.com/walls.php#trh_with_icw

2) The point being? As far as I can tell your example of commercial fishing vessels supports my argument rather than refutes it.

[Guest American Woman]

1) http://www.tornadoproofhouses.com/walls.php#trh_with_icw

I brought up "feasibility" for a reason:

"It is possible to make your home tornado-proof," said Larry Tanner, a structural engineer at Texas Tech University’s Wind Engineering Research Center. "But it is not very practical ... Number one, it is extremely expensive..."

"Is it possible? Yes," said Randy Shackelford, a structural engineer with Simpson Strong-Tie, a company that makes high-strength metal connectors, and an executive member of the National Storm Shelter Association. "But it is not a home that anyone would want to live in." [...] To reach that level of protection, one's home would have to be made "with solid concrete, no windows and a steel door," he said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/21/tornado-proof-homes-oklahoma_n_3313537.html

2) The point being? As far as I can tell your example of commercial fishing vessels supports my argument rather than refutes it.

The point being - commercial fishing boats sink. People die. More people have died because boats have sunk than have died in Oklahoma. Edited May 22, 2013 by American Woman

[Argus]

What most certainly IS possible is having a storm shelter. Evidently, most people in that neck of the woods don't even have basements because of the soil. A few have storm shelters, but not many. A real storm shelters costs around $10,000. It's made of reinforced concrete, buried beside the house. But there's nothing stopping you from just digging a damn hole and putting storm doors on. Might not be as good but a lot better than your bathtub. I know if I lived there I would definitely have a storm shelter. I pay for earthquake insurance even though Ottawa hasn't had a significant earthquake in my lifetime. Don't even know when it EVER had one, but I don't like taking chances I don't have to and we are on a fault line here.

[Guest Kenneth]

I brought up "feasibility" for a reason:

"It is possible to make your home tornado-proof," said Larry Tanner, a structural engineer at Texas Tech University’s Wind Engineering Research Center. "But it is not very practical ... Number one, it is extremely expensive..."

"Is it possible? Yes," said Randy Shackelford, a structural engineer with Simpson Strong-Tie, a company that makes high-strength metal connectors, and an executive member of the National Storm Shelter Association. "But it is not a home that anyone would want to live in." [...] To reach that level of protection, one's home would have to be made "with solid concrete, no windows and a steel door," he said.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/21/tornado-proof-homes-oklahoma_n_3313537.html

The point being - commercial fishing boats sink. People die. More people have died because boats have sunk than have died in Oklahoma.

Read the bottom of HP article where the high cost is refuted. The possibly higher cost also applies to custom designed houses for rich people - if people are content living in tiny trailer sized houses then concrete homes of this size should not cost all that much, esp. if large numbers are being produced. Again, initial cost is mitigated by future savings.

Commercial fishing boats are notoriously archaic in design and this means that crews work in needlessly risky conditions. The unwillingness of owners and operators to make their ships safer is not all that different to the mindset that sees people building cheap frame houses in "tornado alley". There used to be a time when tens of thousands of people died off the coasts of the USA, that's declined to just hundreds - because in large part people were willing to accept improvements to ships and boats that make them safer. No one had to die on May 20 at all - none, especially those kids, who had to attend an old school with absolutely no upgrades to provide for safety even after the 1999 tornado.

[Guest American Woman]

Read the bottom of HP article where the high cost is refuted.

Sure it is; by someone who is in the business of building such houses - and no figures are given regarding the cost. A simple claim made by someone in the business with nothing to substantiate it is hardly proof of anything.

The possibly higher cost also applies to custom designed houses for rich people - if people are content living in tiny trailer sized houses then concrete homes of this size should not cost all that much, esp. if large numbers are being produced. Again, initial cost is mitigated by future savings.

Again, I point out that I specifically referred to "feasible." How many people are going to be content "living in tiny trailer sized houses?" Furthermore, looking at the house in the pic, there are hardly any windows. I would feel as if I were living in a dungeon.

Commercial fishing boats are notoriously archaic in design and this means that crews work in needlessly risky conditions. The unwillingness of owners and operators to make their ships safer is not all that different to the mindset that sees people building cheap frame houses in "tornado alley". There used to be a time when tens of thousands of people died off the coasts of the USA, that's declined to just hundreds - because in large part people were willing to accept improvements to ships and boats that make them safer. No one had to die on May 20 at all - none, especially those kids, who had to attend an old school with absolutely no upgrades to provide for safety even after the 1999 tornado.

The reality that the death toll is as low as it is after a tornado of such force is a testament to the success of the safeguards/emergency programs that were in place.

Furthermore, I've seen first hand concrete buildings that were completely destroyed by the force of Hurricane Emily in Cozumel. To say that these houses would withstand the force of an EF5 tornado, and that no one would have died, is nothing but pure speculation. *I agree that the schools should have had a safe room or storm shelter, but as I pointed out, the federal government does reimburse people who build such shelters since the 1999 hurricane. To suggest that nothing has been done since then is false, and to suggest that everyone should live in trailer-sized concrete bunkers is ludicrous - for reasons already addressed and clearly stated.

Again, many, many people take risks in life living where they choose to live - yet we don't see people calling for concrete bunkers in wildfire territory, for example, or criticizing the government for not forcing everyone to drive an SUV rather than small economical cars because a huge SUV would be safer - even as way, way many more deaths occur on snowy, icy roads than from tornadoes in Oklahoma.

*Edited to add:

The mayor of tornado-ravaged Moore, Oklahoma, will push for a law requiring storm shelters or safe rooms in new homes, he told CNN Wednesday. http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/22/us/oklahoma-tornado/index.html

Edited May 22, 2013 by American Woman

[bush_cheney2004]

....The reality that the death toll is as low as it is after a tornado of such force is a testament to the success of the safeguards/emergency programs that were in place.

Yes, it is truly remarkable that even with such complete and widespread devastation there are so few deaths. Warning systems are much better than in the past.

[eyeball]

I fail to see why stylish, comfortable and reasonably priced dome shaped dwellings couldn't be fabricated out of concrete or even fibre-glass and embedded as opposed to buried in the surrounding earth. If it was planted right over with sod and shaped in such a way that wind can't catch anything you'd be a lot better off than living in a box. Bolt some storm shields over the windows if needs be when the sirens sound and ride it out.

A dome is just way stronger than a box that's all there is too it. The shape is probably more important than the strength of the material.

Granted the above is on beach front in Florida and probably fairly pricey as a result but it demonstrates the point.