t24.com.tr
High Earthquake Risk in Bursa, Gemlik, and Mudanya
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mustafa Şenkaya warns of a 50% chance of a 7.0 magnitude earthquake in the Marmara region, highlighting the vulnerability of Bursa, Gemlik, and Mudanya due to soil conditions and building stock, while noting a significant decrease in post-earthquake building safety assessments due to economic constraints.
- Why has the demand for core sampling tests in Bursa significantly decreased after the initial surge following the Kahramanmaraş earthquakes?
- The lack of core sample testing is largely due to financial constraints, hindering necessary building safety assessments. Assoc. Prof. Şenkaya advocates for in-situ strengthening of buildings as a quicker, more cost-effective alternative to urban transformation, citing the survival of two out of three reinforced structures during the Kahramanmaraş earthquakes.
- What is the probability of a major earthquake in the Marmara region, and what specific locations in Bursa are most vulnerable based on their geological characteristics and existing building stock?
- A 7.0 magnitude earthquake in the Marmara region has a 50% probability, according to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mustafa Şenkaya. Bursa, Gemlik, and Mudanya are at higher risk due to their soil composition and building stock. Following the Kahramanmaraş earthquakes, initial high demand for core sampling tests dropped significantly after four months, with zero requests in the past two years.
- Considering the challenges and limitations of large-scale urban renewal, what alternative strategies should be prioritized to mitigate seismic risks in Bursa, Gemlik, and Mudanya, and what are the potential long-term implications of inaction?
- Bursa, Gemlik, and Mudanya face significant risks in a major earthquake due to soil conditions and building stock, mirroring Hatay's vulnerability. Proactive measures, such as in-situ strengthening, are crucial given the cost and time constraints of large-scale urban renewal. The urgent need for action highlights the gap between awareness and implementation of seismic safety measures.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the issue around the lack of follow-up on building inspections, highlighting the economic constraints faced by residents. The headline (not provided, but implied) likely emphasizes the urgent need for action in Bursa given the high probability of a major earthquake. This framing creates a sense of urgency and potential danger, though it also highlights the economic challenges and lack of action. The use of expert statements to support these concerns strengthens the framing.
Language Bias
The language used is generally neutral but includes some terms that could be perceived as emotionally charged, such as "üzülecektir" (will suffer) when discussing the potential impact of an earthquake on Bursa, Gemlik, and Mudanya. While accurate in conveying the severity of the situation, such phrasing could be replaced with more neutral terms such as "will be significantly affected".
Bias by Omission
The article focuses on the lack of follow-through on building inspections after initial high demand, but omits discussion of the reasons for the initial high demand beyond stating that people were concerned about their buildings' safety after the Kahramanmaraş earthquake. It also doesn't discuss other methods of building safety assessment besides core sampling (karot testi). Further, while the expert mentions the similarities between Hatay and Bursa, it lacks specific data or examples to support this assertion.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by emphasizing either urban transformation or on-site reinforcement as solutions, without discussing other potential strategies or a combined approach. The suggestion that urban transformation is too expensive or slow, implicitly frames on-site reinforcement as the only practical option.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the vulnerability of Bursa, Gemlik, and Mudanya to earthquakes due to their geological characteristics and building stock. The lack of sufficient post-earthquake building inspections and economic constraints hindering necessary reinforcement measures directly impede progress towards creating resilient and safe cities. The comparison with Hatay emphasizes the potential for significant damage and loss of life if preventative measures are not taken.