Today’s Prompt: Today is a free writing day. Write at least four-hundred words, and once you start typing, don’t stop.
Today’s Twist: No self-editing, no trash-talking, and no second guessing: just go. Bonus points if you tackle an idea you’ve been playing with but think is too silly to post about.
Okay, right. So I hope you all know about the earthquake that wrecked Nepal, a few days ago. Well, the aftershocks and tremors were felt here in Lucknow, Delhi and even Kolkata. I was in my school when the first aftershock waves hit, studying chemistry. Sitting on the second floor made the effect even worse. We were instantly evacuated from the building and sent home, with our bags still inside. The next day, same thing happened, although at that point I was in a complex. We made a run for open ground, yet again. This made the State government declare a two-day official holiday.
Amidst all panic and fear, our normal classes resumed from yesterday. So the topic of discussion in my Wolf-Pack was naturally, the earthquake. Right, so let me give you a bit of background information. With the exception of the 1934 earthquake, there have been no major earthquakes (7.5 or above) for the past 700 years or so. Owing to this, a large amount of pressure has built up inside the earth, as it has had no vent to release the mounting energy. Thus there is a very high possibility of a super earthquake of magnitude 9.0 in the Himalayan region. To give an idea of how miserably destructive it is going to be, consider this, the intensity of an earthquake increases ten times for every whole number jump. And the force released increases by somewhat 30.5 times. It’s seriously too much.
Now there are two possibilities, either 30-60 earthquakes, similar to the one that took place in Nepal a few days back, will happen to release all the built-up pressure or a super earthquake of magnitude 9.0 (or higher). Which leads us to the discussion I had with my friends, if you were to choose a way to release all the built up pressure (because, let’s be practical, either of the two are going to happen), which one would you pray for, or in simpler words, which one of the two scenario’s is going to be the least destructive. The arguments in the favour of the 30-60 earthquakes of small magnitude said that such small earthquakes would occur in different regions of the Himalayas, and at different time-periods, thus making it not so devastating. But I’d say take into account the damage caused by this one earthquake to Nepal. The death poll may even rise to 10,000, which is a lot. Now multiply it by 60!
The ones who were in the favour of the 9.0 superquake, said that if such an event took place then the Northern Ganga Plains would be able to absorb most of the pressure. But they did not take into account that if an earthquake of that magnitude took place, it will stretch right from Kashmir to Arunachal Pradesh, crossing Nepal, Tibet and Bangladesh. And is something that huge happened, it will almost completely shatter the Himalayas. No region would be able to survive such great power. And from what I fell, you can’t quake-proof a house to that kind of energy. And it will also deeply affect the Northern Plains, destroying many structures…
Well, I have no idea if such an event is going to take place, but if it does, it will within the next two years. Which one do you feel is less destructive, the innumerable smaller quakes or one large super quake?