To discuss this statement, there is first a need to understand what is meant by the key words in it such as poverty and disaster. First of all, poverty is where people’s basic needs for food, clothing and shelter aren’t being met. There are usually two types of poverty. One of those is absolute poverty which is when people cannot obtain adequate resources to support a minimum level of physical health. This tends to be seen earning less than 2dollars a day by the World Health Organisation (WHO). There is also relative poverty and this occurs when people don't enjoy a certain minimum level of living standards and this is determined by the government (which is enjoyed by the majority of the population). This can vary between countries. Also, a disaster is something which causes very distressing or ruinous effects which disrupt functions of an organisation, society or system. What constitutes a disaster is the societies inability to cope rather than the event itself. There are a number of things besides poverty that can accentuate the effects of an earthquake such as the structure of the buildings, the population density, the education of the people but also more physical factors such as magnitude and the time of day when the earthquake hits.

Poverty by itself can completely change the effects that the earthquake can have. If the money isn’t available to pay for preparation, monitoring, education about such problems and recovery, then does a country really have a chance against a natural event such as an earthquake? An example of the difference between the amount of money that countries have, is Bam which is located in Iran on the Arabian, Eurasian and Indo-Australian plates and California on two plates that run parallel to the San Andreas Fault. These two earthquakes were very similar for example the Sam Simeon earthquake which hit California occurred on 22nd December 2003 and the earthquake which hit Bam, Iran occurred on the 26th December 2003 and it was a magnitude of 6.6 whereas the Sam Simeon earthquake hit it was a magnitude of 6.5. Despite these similarities there were many differences between the effects of the earthquakes. One example of this was the death toll in the two countries. In Iran 28,000 people died due to the quake and its effects but in California 3 people died. Although these deaths are very unfortunate they are not nearly on the same scale as those in Bam. The difference between these two earthquakes can be seen in a number of different ways such as the education of those in the country. However, if the level of poverty is high the level of education tends to be lower due to less money being available to spend on education. Due to the fact that Bam has a higher level of poverty than California this means that the effects of both of the quakes have been increased as there isn't sufficient supplies to ensure everyones safety. This can explain the 28,000 deaths as opposed to 3 deaths.

On the other hand, there is not one simple reason to explain differences between countries and the effects that an earthquake has. But one of these reasons can be due to the level of education within the countries that are affected by the earthquake. If the level of education is low then it is likely that the people within the country won't know what is happening, if they do they may not understand what to do to keep themselves safe. Whereas if the level of education within a country is high then the people living in the country will know what to do when an earthquake hits. An example of this difference is between Nepal and Japan. Every year Japan has an earthquake practise which is on the 1st September every year. This means that when an earthquake does hit, for example the magnitude 7.0 earthquake which shook Japan on Friday 15th April 2016, they know exactly what to do, for example they put special hats on and take cover under tables. The Japanese know how to deal with earthquakes due to this practise and the education now given in schools. Whereas in Nepal, when the earthquake hit Kathmandu in April 2015. The magnitude 7.3 earthquake killed over 8,000 people and injured another 21,000 people. The Nepalese weren’t educated about earthquakes and how to deal with earthquakes. The education in Nepal wasn't given to the Nepalese. However, this could be due to the fact that Nepal is the poorest country in Asia, many live in poverty and they cannot afford the education.

Furthermore, another issue that changes the effects that an earthquake has on a country is the structure of the buildings of the area. The strongest buildings which are classed as ‘life safe’ are usually reinforced with steel to make a triangular shape. This is stronger than a typical square shape of a building. If a building is reinforced it tends to be able to withstand the secondary waves as well as the primary waves of the earthquake whereas if the buildings aren't done in this way it can result in them collapsing during an earthquake. An example of this is in Haiti. Haiti is one of the poorest countries in the world and an earthquake hit the capital Port-au-Prince in January 2010 but it killed 160,000 people and displaced 1.5 million people. 15,000 primary schools and 1,500 secondary schools were severely damaged. The damage to buildings here will have not only killed many adults and children, but also due to the lack of money, rebuilding these schools will cost a lot of money and take a lot of time. This will then reduce the amount of education children are receiving. Whereas in Mexico City the Torre Mayor was built and this 3rd tallest building in Mexico is designed to withstand an earthquake which would measure 8.3 on the Richter Scale. The difference between the building structures in these two countries can show the difference in destruction that an earthquake can cause. If Haiti had buildings designed in the way that the Torre Mayor is, there would be much less destruction when an earthquake did hit. But, Haiti doesn't have the money to do this. After the earthquake in Haiti it was found that many construction companies had cut corners when it came to the structure of the buildings. This could be a reason for the widespread destruction in 2010.

Earthquakes don’t kill people, buildings do.

Moreover, the population density of the area which is affected by an earthquake can change the effects in which the earthquake has. If the population density is high then the quake will affect more lives and the death tolls will possibly be higher even from the initial quake. However, if the population density is high there is more chance that disease will spread and it will spread fast. However, if the population density is smaller there is less chance disease spreading fast but there will also be less people affected by the initial quake. An example of this is is in Kashmir where the population density was high and this could be why 100,000 people were killed by this 7.6 magnitude earthquake. There was a lot of people in buildings which collapsed and also falling parts of buildings. The sheer amount of people made it very difficult to move and transport aid around the area. Whereas in Kunlun, no-one was killed from a magnitude 7.8 earthquake. This may be due to the fact that Kulun has a very low population density and therefore people aren't being affected by buildings falling down or any of the shaking that occurred.

In contrast, a physical aspect which affects the effects of an earthquake is the actual magnitude of the earthquake. An earthquake with a smaller magnitude should have less of an impact on a country than an earthquake with a higher magnitude due to the fact the earths plates and the waves sent through the crust are smaller in a smaller magnitude earthquake. For example in Japan there were no deaths confirmed when there was a 7.4 magnitude earthquake in December 2010, yet with the earthquake in March 2011 when there was a magnitude 9.0 earthquake which claimed 15,894 deaths. However, these deaths weren't down to the earthquake which hit Japan. It was the tsunami which was triggered by the earthquake which claimed these lives. The water was displaced and then 20 minutes later the first wave hit. These types of secondary impacts from an earthquake can be the more deadly impacts especially for MEDC countries who have the money and education to teach residents about earthquakes and what to do. If water is displaced and this causes a tsunami it can then be the tsunami which claims the lives. Furthermore, another secondary impact is a landslide which can be very deadly. For example when the earthquake struck Nepal, there was a consequent landslide which wiped the village of Langtang off the map. Due to the mountainous region, there were avalanches and landslides in most of the region which affected most of the other villages in the area. These impacts cannot be prevented by the amount of money a country has and therefore it may not be classed as ‘the real killer’. However, if a country has a smaller amount of poverty and more money to use, this increases the education of the country, the building structure and the overall ability to deal with these disasters.

If there is no money to deal with the disaster how can the country plan and mitigate the effects of these natural disasters?

Overall, there are many different factors to look at when evaluating what the ‘real killer’ is, for example building structure, the actual magnitude, population density, secondary impacts and education. But poverty can directly and indirectly affect all of these, if there is not enough money, building construction can’t be funded, neither can education or preparation and mitigation of the magnitude and secondary impacts. If there was more money throughout entire countries there would be no need for urbanisation which would decrease the issues of population density. In conclusion, I believe that if poverty was decreased the ability to deal with these disasters and make countries prone to earthquakes ‘life safe’.