t24.com.tr
İzmir's Earthquake Risk Higher Than Istanbul's Due to Soil Conditions and Building Practices
Sinancan Öziçer, head of İzmir's Geophysical Engineers Chamber, warns that İzmir faces a higher earthquake risk than Istanbul due to widespread, deep alluvial soil that amplifies seismic waves, impacting numerous older buildings in densely populated areas, especially in Çiğli, Karşıyaka, Bayraklı, Konak, Balçova, Narlıdere, and Güzelbahçe.
- What specific geographic areas within İzmir are identified as having the highest risk of earthquake damage, and why?
- The head of İzmir's Geophysical Engineers Chamber highlights that the city's risk is amplified by widespread, deep alluvial soil deposits under densely populated zones. These deposits increase the intensity of seismic waves by two to three times, making older structures particularly vulnerable.
- What makes İzmir's earthquake risk higher than Istanbul's, despite the anticipated magnitude of a potential quake in Istanbul being higher?
- İzmir's risk of earthquake damage is higher than Istanbul's, due to its extensive areas of soft alluvial soil, which amplifies seismic waves. Buildings in these areas, many old and lacking engineering oversight, face a greater risk of collapse during a significant earthquake.
- What are the main shortcomings in building regulations or enforcement that contribute to İzmir's earthquake vulnerability, and what measures could improve the situation?
- İzmir's vulnerability stems from a combination of its geology and building practices. The presence of deep alluvial soils exacerbates seismic effects, while many existing buildings are substandard, increasing the potential for significant casualties in a future earthquake of magnitude 6.9 or greater. The lack of sufficient geophysical engineering oversight during construction further complicates this.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames İzmir as significantly riskier than Istanbul. The headline, while not explicitly provided, would likely emphasize this comparison. The repeated emphasis on İzmir's high-risk areas and the alarming statistics regarding potential casualties reinforce a narrative of imminent danger in İzmir. The expert's repeated warnings about the city's vulnerabilities strongly contribute to this framing. While accurate, this approach potentially overshadows other important earthquake risks in Turkey.
Language Bias
The language used is largely factual and neutral but contains some emotionally charged phrases such as "çok ciddi yara alacak" ("will suffer very serious damage") and "hayatını kaybetme riskine karşı karşıya kalabiliriz" ("we could face the risk of losing more than 117 lives"). While these phrases accurately reflect the gravity of the situation, they could be toned down for more neutral reporting. For example, "will suffer significant damage" and "risk of significant casualties" would be more neutral alternatives.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on İzmir's risks but omits a comparative analysis of Istanbul's vulnerabilities beyond mentioning that Istanbul is expected to suffer significant damage in a large earthquake. While it mentions the existence of substandard buildings in İzmir, it does not offer comparative data on the prevalence of such structures in Istanbul. A balanced perspective would include similar details about building codes and enforcement in Istanbul for context. The article also neglects to mention other major cities at risk in Turkey, limiting the scope of the issue.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by primarily contrasting İzmir's risk with Istanbul's, oversimplifying the complex issue of earthquake preparedness and risk across Turkey. While it highlights İzmir's specific vulnerabilities, it doesn't adequately acknowledge that other Turkish cities face significant seismic threats. This creates an impression that the risk is primarily a binary choice between these two cities.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the significant risk of earthquake damage in Izmir due to its geographical location and building conditions. Many buildings are situated on unstable alluvial soil, increasing vulnerability to seismic events. The aging infrastructure and prevalence of substandard constructions further exacerbate the risk, potentially leading to substantial loss of life and property damage during an earthquake. This directly relates to SDG 11, which aims to make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.