A perk to regulation?

In 1923 near the town of Kanto, Japan suffered its second biggest earthquake. It measured 8.3 and killed more than 145,000 people (the equivalent of the entire population of the MS Gulf Coast). In 1996, a 7.2 hit Kobe and killed 6,500 people, mostly due to the collapse of buildings that pre-dated earthquake building codes (buildings built more than 35 years prior to the event).

With this quake now estimated at 8.9, the number of collapsed buildings is surprisingly small, and while the death toll isn't figured yet... I'm sure most of it will come from the flood waters, and as tragic as any single death due to this event is, imagine how much worse it could have been.

After writing what I did about my disdain for extraneous government regulations, I do think it appropriate to mention that the Federal government here in the US DOES have a responsibility to have in place both the plans and the means to maintain or replace infrastructure in the event of a catastrophic natural disaster... just as they would if a catastrophic man-made disaster were to occur. In Japan, we see the fruits of billions of yen in spending on things like a tsunami early warning systems, seismic study programs that can warn of possible areas of aftershock, adequate routes of evacuation for the millions that live near coastal flooding areas (like what was needed in New Orleans in 2005, but didn't happen). Requirements from the government that new construction meet a standard that increases the likelihood of structural survivability in a big quake is another... increased cost at construction years ago is MORE than off-set by the savings in life, treasure and infrastructure now, and I think anyone living in Tokyo or anywhere north of it would agree 100%.