You shoul merge the landslide which is a major disaster. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.54.108.69 ( talk • contribs • WHOIS) .
Severe weather should probably be merged here, then perhaps divide this article into sections like "Severe weather", "Geologic hazards", etc. — jiy ( talk) 20:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Whatever is done with respect to the contents of these articles, there should continue to be two separate articles. The concepts are completely different - it is not even the case that all severe weather causes natural disasters. Peak 22:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
I can agree that merging Severe weather into Natural disaster is inappropriate and am removing the merge notices. However, some issues need to be addressed: (1) As per Roodog2k's comments, Natural disaster should probably be renamed to Natural hazard (currently a redirect). This article only describes the hazards themselves, which may or may not result in a natural disaster. (2) Another article called Extreme weather exists, which lists historical natural disasters. This is the kind of information that would ideally belong in Natural disaster, so it should be moved here. (3) Severe weather is simply a list of links and is largely redundant with this article. I suggest converting it into a category instead. — jiy ( talk) 23:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article assessment has just started, and the topic under assessment is natural disasters. Please take a look. violet/riga (t) 17:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Natural disasters that are affecting most parts of the world not require to be economic disasters but rather should engage policy frameworks. Hurricane Harvey, Irma and Maria have affected most of the communities with a negative impact to the people. Various storm related disruptions will have a profound effect and the rebuilding process may face a lot of hurdles in return. Storms that are taking place are bound not to alter the material course of the region and give the national economy a new picture/face. The medium term that is n existence cannot be affected by the storms that are taking place in the regions.
What is going to be witnessed in the course of time is a robotic boost in the rebuilding process due to effect of storms. Economic growth that is going to rise is due to destruction but not a planned growth with a stronger base. Employment culture will be strengthened not faster but with a slower pace. Inflation will be raised due to higher prices of gasoline that will be experienced but this will be on a temporary basis. Rise in percentage after the aftermath of the storm is critical due to changes in the inflation rates that are being experienced, it good to be objective on the economic changes that will take place in the region but rather temporal.
Long terms effects of economic changes will affect the tourism in Florida and also give a positive indication on growth that is being seen. Economic changes that are being seen are more fundamental for the rebuilding process but will not have a stronger weight. Rebuilding process is different from building process thus the economic boom that is been seen should not be praised
as a new picture. Storms are disasters that destroy and make economic process that were meant to build to be derailed and collapsed. ..(17) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malha10 ( talk • contribs) 15:15, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I failed this article because it does not cite its sources. To be honest, this looks more like a portal than an article as such, but if we are going to treat it as an article, it doesn't meet the GA criteria. Fieari 17:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
I have demoted the assesment of this article from Class = A (date June 22, 2006) to Class = B (status September 5, 2006). Some topics have been added, but are not (shortly) explained. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 22:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Waitak asked for my opinion on this article, and if it was up to A again. My conclusion would be .. not yet, but getting there (though I realise that it is in a similar state as when it acquired A-status the previous time; I have also asked Martin Walker to have a look at it as well).
when going throug morons, that it could as well be called natural hazard, which is not the same. I am working in a chemical lab, and there the chance on a 'disaster' is defined as the product of 'the hazard of a project' and 'the chance of it happening' (the chance I cut myself on a piece of glass is big, but the hazard can be considered low (as long as cuts are not in arteries), the chance of me blowing up a reaction with sodium azide is small (I hardly use it, try to avoid it, and using my knowledge I apply extra safety measures, take more care and avoid dangerous situations), but the hazard is huge (explosions cause a lot of damage, even on laboratory scale)) .. to me that is not yet clear from the article. The intro sentence would not be correct, technically, both the hazard as the chance can be influenced by people, so there may be a third factor there, and a disaster taking place in a place where no people live is still a disaster for wildlife (but it may be that the definition is different). As an example: another ice-age would be a big hazard (I would give it a 8 or 9 on a scale of 1-10), but the chance of happening tomorrow is quite small (between 0-1) .. Hence, not really something to worry about. Also things to consider in the article may be the predictability of hazards &c. I think it would be good if the article would elaborate on this a bit more (though I already see it is going to be controversial). (copied from user talk:Waitak and slightly adapted) I hope this helps improving the article, but feel free to ignore me. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 11:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC) i hate you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.108.138.73 ( talk) 15:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Sinebot was here
The points that Dirk Beetstra made in Oct 2006 are very valid. I've recently completed my dissertation on natural hazard assessment, and done work with a leading researcher in the field (Dr D Dominey-Howes), and have thus become very pedantic about defining hazard/risk/vulnerability/disaster...etc correctly.
I'm presuming the lack of recent activity on this page means that I will not offend anyone if I split this into two articles? Let me know if not!
I'll start by creating a new Natural Hazards page by simply ripping the Natural Hazards section of this page, and then I'll work on the definitions - I've got some good stuff in my dissertation introduction, that is important knowledge that I'm more than willing to impart for free!
All suggestions welcome :-) -- Ragdoll1984 21:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, we do want you to be bold... how dramatic are the changes that you have in mind? Personally, I'd say go for it (within all of the normal guidelines), but be prepared for others to hack away at what you write! I'd love to see improvements to the article. Anybody else have an opinion? Waitak 20:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
shouldn't thunderstorms be included. Personally, the only way I've been affected is that my lights go out. However, I have heard of an incedent where a family reunion was hit by lightning and over 30 were killed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishvara7 ( talk • contribs) 02:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
m , —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.241.48 ( talk) 17:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Why are famines and epidemics listed as "natural disasters"? They are caused by socioeconomic structures. Is the 2008 Sichuan earthquake a "natural disaster" if it was, as many scientists believe, human-made?-- 87.162.34.48 ( talk) 00:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Why is SARS even mentioned in the epidemic/pandemic section, with only 774 confirmed human deaths worldwide during the outbreak? Is it because of the media-induced paranoia around it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexo ( talk • contribs) 18:29, 26 November 2010 (UTC) As far as i know i think a Natural Disaster is a Disaster that occurs Naturally —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vortex320 ( talk • contribs) 13:35, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
how can we prevent a natural disaster? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.157.10.71 ( talk) 06:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Thats what all the Scientists and the planet is thinking!! Otherwise we would never have any disasterz! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vortex320 ( talk • contribs) 13:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
causes of natural disaster on land
Drought is really the worst disaster and farmers see it first. It is so because loss of stock,loss of stock feed(grass etc),fires,no water,unemployment and much more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.218.64 ( talk) 08:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
When I click on each of the references, I do not end up at the intended reference site Songofexperience ( talk) 01:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I recommend adding this to External Links: Live updating list of latest global natural disasters - Reliefweb -- Snarkosis ( talk) 23:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Nowhere is it mentioned that global warming increases the amount of natural disasters. 91.182.144.170 ( talk) 13:59, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I've just taken a look at the article's class, and even though it was already downgraded from A-class, I'm going to downgrade it even more. Checking it against the B-class criteria:
1. The article is suitable referenced, with inline citations where necessary.
2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies.
3. The article has a defined structure.
4. The article is reasonably well-written.
5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate.
6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way.
Given that I've assessed the article as failing 2 and almost failing another, I am lowering the class of this article from B-class to C-class. -- Slon02 ( talk) 20:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
The disasters that plagued the globe this year will send 2011 into the record books as the most costly year for catastrophes on record. Japan's powerful tsunami, earthquakes in New Zealand, floods in Thailand and a series of severe tornadoes in the U.S. all contributed to $350 billion in disaster losses, according to a new estimate from reinsurance company Swiss Re AG. The long list of calamities crippled factories and cut supply chains, rippling through the world's economies. In Christchurch, New Zealand, entire city blocks remain uninhabitable; in Alabama and Missouri, neighborhoods have been wiped off the map. Insurance and ...
See Economics of global warming for example. 99.19.45.160 ( talk) 01:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC) 99.19.45.160 ( talk) 01:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Are "health disasters" such as epidemics really natural disasters? Google "epidemics natural disasters" and you'll see most sources draw a distinction, even if recommended reactions to either one may be similar. I can understand the argument for epidemics as "natural" disasters since they're caused by naturally occurring bacteria and viruses, but by that logic, why are human actions (e.g., wars, massacres) not also "natural"? And for what it's worth, the Library of Congress Subject Headings don't classify epidemics as a type of natural disaster. I don't think this section belongs in the article, except perhaps for topics such as epidemics after natural disasters (the first hit from the aforementioned Google search). Natural disasters can enable more rapid spread of epidemics or hamper responses to them, but I think it's inaccurate to classify epidemics as a type of natural disaster. -- BDD ( talk) 16:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Definition from Dictionary.com: any event or force of nature that has catastrophic consequences, such as avalanche, earthquake, flood, forest fire, hurricane, lightning, tornado, tsunami, and volcanic eruption Click Here to see page. ♥♥♥♥♥This page helped me a little bit. But I liked the Earthquakes page better. This page had so less information.♥♥♥♥♥