The future looks ominous, but for emergency managers, it always has.

Since emergency management emerged as a specialized discipline in the mid-twentieth century, practitioners have always seen a future filled with disasters. Recall that today’s emergency management agencies are descended from Cold War civil defense organizations which were created in response to the terrifying threat of nuclear holocaust.

Thankfully, Nuclear Armageddon seems less likely today, but a look at our future might be only slightly less harrowing. Sea levels are rising, weather patterns are changing, storms are becoming more destructive, our infrastructure is deteriorating, our vulnerability to cyber attacks is increasing, federal funding for emergency management is almost certain to decline, our population is aging, more people are choosing to live in disaster-prone areas, and economic inequality and political tribalism are driving a wedge through the hearts of our communities.

Our problems are getting worse and our ability to address them is declining.

But we are not powerless in the face of these threats. We can, in fact, take action today to improve our community’s ability to respond to future disasters of all types – including destructive weather, technological accidents, terror attacks, pandemics, income inequality, job losses, and other long or short-term hazards. As emergency mangers we can take the lead in building community resilience.

Building resilience is not a new idea, but for most communities it will require a shift in perspective, a focused educational campaign, and an unwavering commitment from community leaders. And emergency managers are perfectly positioned to lead the way.

What is Resilience?

Resilient communities recover from disaster faster, more completely, and more efficiently than less resilient communities. When recovering from disaster, they don’t just replace what was lost, they build a stronger community that is better prepared for future disasters. Before disaster strikes, they focus on the future and they anticipate future risks. They understand their strengths and weaknesses, they learn from their mistakes, and they correct them. They are well-governed, well-connected, and they are backed by a diverse and solid local economy. Most importantly, they create a culture of collaboration, they strengthen community ties, and they act with a sense of purpose and urgency.

Resilience encompasses every aspect of a community’s life. Infrastructure, social capital, community cohesion, geography, demographics, mitigation, preparedness, planning, and the strength of the local economy all determine how effectively a community can adapt to chronic and acute stresses.  Some people equate resilience with preparedness, but resilience is much broader. While disaster preparedness is certainly part of resilience, it is only one part of many.  Resilient communities are prepared, but prepared communities are not necessarily resilient.

Resilient communities aren’t problem-free.  But when problems arise, community members identify the root causes, come together to develop community-wide solutions, and cooperate to address those causes. Residents of resilient communities are confident in their ability to come together to solve problems and create a strong, vibrant community that works for all of its members.

A large-scale disaster will be a huge problem for any community. But resilient communities that have experienced success in handling lesser problems will have the confidence and skills to recover quickly and completely from natural and man-made disasters.  Resilient communities are less vulnerable, suffer less damage from disasters, recover faster, require less outside assistance, and are better places to live. For emergency managers, resilience is a force-multiplier.

FEMA and the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) both recognize the value of resilience. FEMA has a Resilience Directorate that combines mitigation administration, continuity programs, grant programs, federal insurance administration, and national preparedness. FEMA also offers an eight-hour course on building resilience (AWR-228: Community Resilience). NEMA and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are collaborating on a project to improve community resilience through enhanced risk assessments, information sharing, planning, mitigation, recovery efforts, and investments. Other organizations that provide guidance for communities seeking to build resilience include the Global Resilience Institute (GRI) at Northeastern University, 100 Resilient Cities, and Resilient Communities For America.

The Role of Emergency Managers

But if the keys to resilience are good governance, a strong economy, community connections, committed leadership, a culture of collaboration, and a healthy and prosperous population, how much impact can emergency managers have?  These issues are far beyond the responsibilities or resources of emergency management agencies.

A large impact, actually.  Emergency managers are remarkably well-positioned to lead community-wide efforts at building resilience. Emergency managers are recognized experts in mitigation, preparedness, response, and disaster recovery planning – the foundation of resilience. In addition, emergency managers are experienced at working with people from multiple agencies and multiple disciplines; have a regional perspective; understand the concept of the whole-community; and are experienced at conducting large-scale public education campaigns.

By virtue of their professional knowledge, their position in the community, and their experience, emergency managers are perfectly suited to start, sustain, and shape a community-wide conversation about resilience.

Building Resilience

Like preparedness, there is no resilience end state, no point where an emergency manager can say, “Today we achieved resilience.” Instead, there is a spectrum of resilience, and every community sits somewhere on the line between ‘less resilient’ and ‘more resilient.’ Your community’s task, then, is not to achieve resilience, but to become more resilient. Since there is no resilience end state, there is no end to the process of building resilience. Creating a more resilient community requires a never-ending commitment to consider the impact on resilience of virtually every community investment decision. Each proposal for a new housing development or commercial building; for upgrades to water, sewer, or transportation systems; for updated building or zoning codes; or for new social programs is an opportunity to increase community resilience.

Failing to take advantage of these opportunities will not only slow progress towards greater resilience, it may actually push a community towards the ‘less resilient’ end of the spectrum.

Building resilience takes the whole community and it must be consciously pursued all the time. While specific initiatives like infrastructure hardening or disaster-resistant building codes can increase community resilience, the total effort must be holistic, synthesizing political, economic, and social improvements to create a stronger community.

A community that wants to increase resilience must have four key attributes: committed leadership, a shared vision, a culture of collaboration, and a sense of urgency.

Here are seven things emergency managers can do to help their communities become more resilient:

1. Understand the problem: Learn all you can about resilience and how it can help your community. Review current research and review the websites of organizations that promote resilience.
2. Complete a community risk assessment. Your community may already have a regional risk assessment, like a Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA). If not, you will need to produce one. A risk assessment and gap analysis will provide accurate baseline information to inform later resilience planning. Your assessment should identify your community’s threats, vulnerabilities, capabilities, and any capability gaps.
3. Educate your own organization. Start your resilience-building project by convincing the leaders of your own organization of the benefits of community resilience. If your own organization does not fully embrace the project, it will be very difficult to convince others.
4. Introduce the concept to the community. Educate key community leaders and residents about the importance of resilience, how it will benefit your community, and how your community can become more resilient. Schedule one-on-one meetings, speak to groups and include resilience planning in your public outreach messaging. Your goal should be to build consensus, create allies, and, if possible, identify a key leader who can champion the effort.
5. Bring stakeholders together. Organize a workshop, seminar, or other event to bring community stakeholders together to begin the process of building resilience. Representatives from all sectors, including government, non-governmental organizations, regional agencies, educational institutions, community groups, faith-based organizations, critical infrastructure operators, and business leaders should be invited.
6. Create a formal resilience planning organization. This group should be responsible for developing the community’s shared vision and managing the resilience planning project. This organization may require a full-time chairperson.
7. Create and maintain a sense of urgency. This is a long-term project that will not produce fast results. Maintain community interest and energy by continually supporting resilience-building efforts.

Final Thoughts

Building resilience requires a never-ending, concerted effort by all elements of the community, but the results will benefit every resident and organization. As an emergency manager, you can play a key role in starting, shaping, and sustaining your community’s effort to build resilience.

July 22, 2019

This article was originally published in the August 2019 edition of the International Association of Emergency Manager’s online Bulletin: https://www.iaem.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=3LXHvwqlMYk%3d&portalid=25

Title image:

Satellite imagery of the US Atlantic Coast with Hurricane Dorian in the morning of 2 September 2019

(Photo credit: NOAA)

Earlier this week, an article about the coronavirus in a national newspaper described “panic buying” at a big box store in Hawaii.

Except there was no panic.  According to the article, hundreds of customers waited patiently in long lines for hours. Even when the life-saving items – paper towels and toilet paper – ran out, no one seemed to lose their minds. No pushing, no screaming, no one running wildly through the store yelling, ’we’re all going to die!’ Nothing at all. Apparently, the panic-stricken mob just got in their cars and drove away.

But that didn’t stop the paper from using the term ‘panic buying.’ Because of course, everyone knows that Americans panic at the slightest hint of danger.

Except they don’t. Seventy years of disaster research has shown repeatedly that people faced with real emergencies – much more serious than a temporary shortage of toilet paper – do not panic. In fact, following an exhaustive review of more than 700 individual studies of disaster behavior, researchers at the University of Delaware Disaster Research Center said the likelihood of mass panic during an emergency is “vanishingly small.” Standing in line to purchase cleaning supplies, bottled water or non-perishable food items when supplies are likely to run out is hardly panic.

The idea of people panicking when in danger is ingrained in popular culture. We’ve seen it in dozens of disaster movies. But evidence of panic during real emergencies is virtually nonexistent. At the same time, examples of survivors behaving in rational and sometimes inspiring ways are plentiful.

At the Beverly Hills Supper Club fire in 1977 which killed 165 persons, hundreds of survivors evacuated burning rooms in an orderly fashion, even as the rooms filled with hot, choking smoke.

In 1979, nearly 150,000 people evacuated the vicinity of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant following an accident that caused a partial meltdown of a reactor core. Public safety officials, who had issued contradictory reports throughout the accident period, provided little direction or guidance, beyond advising people to evacuate. Yet the actual evacuation proceeded smoothly with no evidence of panic or other irrational behavior.

At an air crash at Sioux City, Iowa in 1989, which killed 112 passengers and crew, survivors exited the plane as they were instructed to do. Many assisted other passengers and, according to the fire chief, “were instrumental in saving additional lives.”

On 9/11, thousands of people calmly evacuated the World Trade Center towers after the buildings had been struck by aircraft and were burning uncontrollably. There are multiple reports of people assisting other people down the stairways throughout the evacuation process.

Not only do people not panic in emergencies, frequently they do the opposite. In the minutes, hours, or sometimes days before professional help arrives, survivors become first responders, rescuing trapped victims; providing first aid; and sharing food, water, and shelter.

Unfortunately, it is not just the occasional newspaper reporter or Hollywood producer who misunderstands human behavior in emergency situations. Too many people who should know better – elected officials, public safety officials, emergency managers, business leaders, and many other persons in positions of authority – also believe that Americans will react irrationally at the first sign of real danger. Worse, these officials and leaders act on their mistaken beliefs, often making bad situations worse.

An unfounded fear of stoking panic can cause persons in authority to withhold critical information, to devote resources to unnecessary security functions rather than to other critical tasks, and to fail to make effective use of available and willing citizens in providing assistance to members of their community.

Withholding information from the public causes multiple problems. It can stop people from taking effective action, reduce trust in leadership, and lead people to look to inaccurate sources for guidance.  As Crisis Communications expert Bruce Hennes notes, “the truth always comes out.”

The lesson for government officials and leaders of private sector organizations is clear. In emergencies, true panic is rare. People will respond to emergencies in rational and often altruistic ways. If they know what to do, they will do it.  Your best course of action at all times is to be honest and transparent and provide people with the information they need to protect themselves and their communities.

March 4, 2020

A version of this post was published in the April 2020 edition of the International Association of Emergency Manager’s online Bulletin: https://www.iaem.org/Portals/25/documents/202004bulletinonline.pdf

This week’s tornadoes in Dayton and Celina should remind everyone in Greater Cleveland that urban areas are not immune from tornadoes.

While it is true that large cities are rarely stuck by tornadoes, that is not because developed areas are somehow resistant to the storms. The less-comforting reality is that cities are struck infrequently because they occupy a relatively small percentage of the land in tornado-prone areas. Unfortunately, as our urban areas continue to expand, the likelihood of developed areas being struck increases.

In many ways, urban areas are the worst places to be during severe tornadoes. With the exception of modern high-rise buildings, few city buildings are constructed to withstand tornado-force winds, and many commercial structures lack basements. More people outdoors when a storm hits will inevitably mean more injuries and deaths. Congested roadways make escape impossible and can prevent people in vehicles – who are extraordinarily vulnerable – from reaching shelter. Built-up areas will have much more debris than undeveloped areas, and most injuries and deaths from tornadoes are caused by flying debris. In densely-built urban areas nearby buildings may create wind-tunnel effects that actually increase the velocity of storm winds.

So, city and suburban residents should take a few moments to think about ways to protect themselves and their families from tornadoes.

The first thing to keep in mind is that during a severe tornado, except for the very centers of modern high-rise buildings, there is no place above ground that is safe. Tornado winds can reach 300 mph, and no residential structure in the United States can withstand those winds unless the structure has been specifically and expensively designed to do so. Such a building would probably be made of steel-reinforced concrete, with walls two-feet thick, with no windows, and with doors made of three-inch thick armor. And even then, it may not survive. The vast majority of existing buildings are designed to resist winds up to 120 mph or less, significantly lower than winds generated by EF-4 or EF-5 tornadoes.

Basements offer significant protection, but storm cellars are better. Best of all are basements equipped with specially-designed and well-constructed ‘safe rooms.’ The Federal Emergency Management Agency provides detailed instructions for designing and constructing ‘safe rooms’ for homes and small businesses. But specially-constructed ‘safe rooms’ can be expensive and very few homes or businesses have them today.

Without immediate access to a ‘safe room,’ here are some things you can do to increase your chances of surviving a tornado.

Do not risk your life attempting to film the storm on your smartphone. Searchers probably won’t find your phone anyway.

Get inside. The air will be filled with debris hurtling toward you at 100 mph or more. Most tornado fatalities are caused by flying debris.

Go to a basement or storm cellar. If there is no basement available, go to a small, interior room on the lowest level.

Stay away from windows, doors, and outside walls. Cover your head and neck with your arms. Cover yourself with blankets or coats. Put on a helmet if you have one.

If there is no basement and no small, Interior room, get under the heaviest desk, table, or other piece of furniture that you can find. This isn’t good, but it might be the best you can do.

If you are outside and cannot make it to a sturdy building, lie down in the lowest place you can find and cover your head with your arms. Cover your body with a coat or blanket if you can.

If you are in a vehicle and see a tornado, get out of your car immediately. Do not try to outrun it. Tornadoes can be fast, they change direction erratically, and they can throw large pieces of debris long distances. Seek shelter in a sturdy building or in a ditch or other depression. Do not park under an overpass or bridge.

The most important thing you can do is think about your actions now, before the tornado emergency is issued. Have an idea where you will go and how you will protect yourself. Your local fire department and your county’s emergency management agency can provide more information on tornado safety.

Originally published in the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

– https://www.cleveland.com/opinion/2019/05/cities-are-not-tornado-free-zones-as-dayton-just-showed-map-your-safety-plan-in-advance-walter-topp-opinion.html

May 29, 2019

As a brand-new county EMA director I was eager to work with the fifty-nine political subdivisions in my county to create a create an outstanding county-wide emergency management organization.  I knew that fire chiefs, police chiefs, and service directors would all play key roles and my agency already had identified liaison officers within each community.

But I also expected that elected officials would have a baseline understanding of emergency management. Before engaging with any of these officials, I asked the state EMA what emergency management training or information they provided to newly-elected mayors and legislators. Since our state’s revised code required each political subdivision to fulfill certain emergency management requirements, I expected that someone, somewhere had provided that information – as well as some additional background information – to these officials. I was wrong.

While some mayors were familiar with emergency management, and a few were even conversant in it, most had no idea how our agency operated, what their responsibilities were, and how their community would be supported if disaster struck.

 We immediately put together an educational program for elected officials consisting of office visits, e-mail updates, a newsletter, and a handbook titled Emergency Management for Elected Officials.

But it wasn’t only suburban mayors that had little awareness of what we were trying to do. I found that in general most people – including many senior leaders in my own county government – had little or no understanding of how emergency management would work in the county in the event of a major disaster.

As a director I found that general lack of understanding to be a significant obstacle over and over again, and I realized that public outreach was a lot more involved than the make-a-plan, build-a-kit mantra that we were accustomed to providing. Emergency managers can’t count on other people taking the time to learn about emergency management. They need to do everything they can to inform the community, create a sense of urgency, and encourage collaboration.

May 17, 2019

Nobody does disaster recovery like the Chinese.

Of course, they’ve had plenty of practice. Earthquakes, floods, typhoons, famines, revolutions, civil war: Chinese history is a heartbreaking chronicle of death and destruction on a cosmic scale. The three deadliest disasters in history occurred in China: the 1931 floods that killed more than three million people; the 1887 Yellow River flooding that killed more than one million; and the 1556 Shaanxi earthquake that killed more than 800,000.

More recently, the 1976 Tangshan earthquake killed more than 240,000.

This was no half-mythical story from a distant age before modern medicine, building codes, and emergency managers existed.  By 1976 Richard Nixon had already been to China, Neil Armstrong and eleven other astronauts had walked on the moon, and the first Apple I computers were being sold.

Tangshan, China was a modern industrial city that was home to more than one million people. A regional transportation hub, Tangshan was the most important city in a large agricultural region. Coal mines and heavy industries had fueled decades of rapid growth. But at 3:42 am on July 28, 1976, the city was torn apart by a 7.8 magnitude earthquake. More than 240,000 persons were killed and most of the city was flattened. Utility lines, bridges, railroads, and roadways were broken while more than 90 percent of the city’s residential buildings and more than 75 percent of the city’s industrial buildings were destroyed.  If ever a 20^th century city seemed broken beyond repair, it was Tangshan.

Yet today Tangshan is a bustling, modern city of 1.5 million persons.  It’s man-made port, constructed after the earthquake, is one of the ten busiest ports in China, and the rebuilt city attracts many thousands of tourists each year. In recognition of its recovery from unfathomable disaster, the Chinese have nicknamed Tangshan “The Brave City of China.”

China is not the United States, and it is wildly unlikely that an American earthquake could kill even one tenth the number of people who died at Tangshan. The 1964 Alaska earthquake and tsunami – at 9.2 magnitude, the strongest earthquake ever recorded in North America – killed 131, while the 6.7 magnitude Northridge, California earthquake in 1994 killed 57.

But there are still important lessons to be learned from the Tangshan disaster, even if most Americans have never heard of it.

The enormous death toll at Tangshan was a result of several factors, including inaccurate risk assessment, lack of preparation, ineffective leadership, bad planning, poor urban design, and bad luck.

Chinese scientists and government officials had not believed that Tangshan was at risk for a serious earthquake. Building codes did not require earthquake-resistant construction. As a result, nearly every building, road, pipeline, and transmission line in the city was destroyed or damaged.  In the middle of the night almost everyone was home asleep, and the vast majority of those killed were crushed by the collapse of their homes.

Half of the houses in the city were single-story unreinforced brick or adobe structures. Close to the center of the quake, virtually all of these homes collapsed. Farther from the center, up to 40 percent collapsed. 63 percent of brick apartment buildings in Tangshan – mostly 2-4 stories tall – collapsed. Of the 22 steel-reinforced concrete apartment buildings in the city, ten collapsed, eight were seriously damaged, and four were moderately damaged. Overall, 650,000 of the 680,000 residential buildings in the city were destroyed or were seriously damaged.

Commercial buildings and critical infrastructure didn’t fare much better. 78 percent of industrial structures were heavily damaged or destroyed. The railroad system was crippled and eleven percent of roads were damaged. Most bridges were heavily damaged and 80 percent of reservoirs near the city were damaged. All critical systems: electricity, water, sewage, and telecommunications were damaged.

Because the city was not considered at risk, no attempt had been made to prepare or plan for an earthquake.  Chinese officials later wrote that relief efforts were hindered by a lack of planning, training, and leadership which resulted in great confusion and the loss of time, money, and human lives. Many local responders were killed or injured and emergency medical facilities were mostly destroyed. No organized help came from elsewhere for days, partly because roads were blocked but also because no plans for assistance had ever been made. Rescuers rushing to the scene in uncoordinated droves caused massive traffic jams that delayed response and took days to clear. The first outside responders to arrive were soldiers from nearby bases, but they were untrained and unequipped to deal with the disaster.

With no significant help arriving for days, survivors dug through the rubble by hand to free trapped family members and neighbors. Survivors organized themselves into working parties, set up medical areas where they provided whatever first aid they could, searched for food and set up temporary shelters. Without professional help, with no specialized equipment, with no official leadership or training, survivors and soldiers saved 80 percent of the people who were trapped under rubble.  They would have saved more, but a 7.1 magnitude aftershock on the afternoon after the quake killed many of those still trapped,

The urban design of Tangshan contributed to the disaster. In both residential and commercial districts, roads were narrow and buildings were close together. There were no escape routes that were free from falling debris. In addition, debris rendered virtually every road impassable, massively hindering rescue efforts. The city lacked parks or other open spaces where survivors could gather to set up medical stations or shelters.

Though no plans had ever been prepared, and the initial response was chaotic and ineffective, within days China’s central government was able to marshal a massive rescue and recovery effort. Four days after the earthquake 100,000 soldiers, 20,000 medical workers, and 30,000 technical staff were on scene and donations of food, clothing, and money were pouring in from communities throughout the nation. The central government established a national headquarters to coordinate relief and rebuilding while the provincial government established their own disaster relief headquarters.

Recovery efforts were centrally managed by the national government, which devoted enormous resources to the task. The scale of damage was such that some consideration was given to not rebuilding on the same site. Debris removal would be a major problem and the rebuilt city would be located on the same earthquake fault line that had destroyed the old.  But much of the city’s industry was reliant on proximity to the nearby coal mines, so the government decided to rebuild in place. 

To start the process, the government organized a reconstruction planning meeting to which it invited more than 3,000 experts in construction, urban planning, economics, public health and other areas.  They quickly determined that the new Tangshan would be more resilient, sustainable, and efficient than the old city.

Key improvements:

• The chemical plant would be moved away from the city
• The city would be divided into four primary functional zones: industrial, warehouse, residential, and cultural and administrative
• Industrial facilities would reduce harmful emissions
• Buildings located atop coals mines would relocate
• Streets were laid out in a grid pattern
• Evacuation routes were created
• Control centers for critical infrastructure (lifeline systems) were decentralized
• All buildings were designed to withstand earthquakes
• Buildings and neighborhoods were designed to resist fire and flooding
• Green areas were created

Debris removal was an enormous problem.  The destruction of many thousands of brick structures had created more than 200 million cubic meters of debris and trash.  While local clean-up efforts began within months of the disaster, a full-scale clean-up campaign was not initiated until September, 1981 – more than five years after the earthquake.

Clean-up was hindered by the lack of space to dump debris, as all available clear space within the city was covered by temporary living quarters and makeshift schools and businesses.  Those structures had to be cleared so that new permanent residential districts could be built.

Accordingly, a new residential district, complete with schools and shops, was constructed on the outskirts of the old city.  Construction began in 1979 and involved 53 construction companies and more than 100,000 construction workers. When the new district was ready, 11,000 households of one of the old districts were moved there and their former district was cleared and rebuilt.  In that manner, district after district was redeveloped. By 1985, nine years after the earthquake, 94.5 percent of Tangshan residents had moved into new homes and by early 1986 all temporary earthquake structures were demolished.

Debris was eventually dumped in landfills outside the city or used as foundation material for new construction.

By 1988, Chinese officials could write, “Today a new Tangshan stands proudly on the old site. The Central Government had invested over 24 million yuan in its reconstruction, all of which had been repaid by the Tangshan people in the form of tax and corporate profits. The population of the city now exceeds 1.3 million and the gross national product of the region reaches 85 billion yuan.” 

Compared to the decentralized, locally-managed American response to Hurricane Katrina, reconstruction of Tangshan started slowly, as large-scale plans were developed. But enormous national resources were devoted to the project and a new city was constructed within ten years.  New Orleans, which suffered far less damage than Tangshan, has not been completely rebuilt more than 13 years after the hurricane and in 2018 had an estimated population of 417,000, 14 percent fewer residents than it had in 2005, before the storm, when the city’s population was more than 484,000.

With Tangshan rebuilt, the Chinese government identified the most significant lessons learned:

(1.) The importance of accurate risk assessment (earthquake zoning).

(2.) The importance of planning, preparedness, and effective leadership.

(3.) The importance of urban planning (earthquake resistant construction standards, evacuation and escape corridors, parks and open space).

(4.) The importance of underground structures (in many instances the underground portions of buildings survived virtually undamaged while the upper portions were completely destroyed).

(5.) The importance of proper placement of critical infrastructure systems and control nodes.

As a result of the Tangshan disaster, stricter regulations were enacted nationwide requiring earthquake-resistant building practices in earthquake-prone areas. In addition, many cities implemented programs to strengthen older buildings. 58 Chinese cities, including Beijing and Tangshan were selected to become ‘earthquake-resistant cities.’  Existing buildings were reinforced and emergency plans were created. In addition, new buildings throughout the country must be designed to withstand earthquakes.

Today Tangshan is a thriving modern city. Careful planning during reconstruction has resulted in a more resilient city that has fully resumed its place in the life of its nation.

Photo: Tangshan after the earthquake ( image from travel.smart-guide.net)

For a comprehensive account of the Tangshan earthquake recovery see: The Great Tangshan Earthquake of 1976: An Anatomy of Disaster (Edited by Chen Yong, Kam-ling Tsoi, Chen Feibi, Gao Zhenhuan, Zou Qijia, and Chen Zhangli of the State Seismological Bureau of the People’s Republic of China: Pergamon Press; New York; 1988): https://www.amazon.com/Great-Tangshan-Earthquake-1976/dp/0080348750

May 3, 2019