Earthquake Could be Worse than Hurricane

Experts know that a disaster is coming but they do not know when it will happen. They do know that it
could cause a lot of damage. They think it will be worse than a hurricane. The disaster they are worried
about is an earthquake.

There is a break in the earth's crust. It is called the San Andreas Fault. The San Andreas Fault is in
California. Many earthquakes happen along the San Andreas Fault. In 1989 there was a big earthquake
on the fault. The earthquake was called the "Loma Prieta Earthquake." Many people were hurt or died.
Many buildings were ruined. Lots of people lost their homes. Roads and bridges were also damaged.

A large earthquake could happen in Southern California. Many small earthquakes have happened in the
last year. Earthquake experts think that a large earthquake will happen there soon. They think a big
earthquake will happen in the next few years.

The San Andreas Fault has many power lines stretched across it. There are water channels close to the
earthquake fault. A large earthquake in Southern California would destroy energy and water supplies.
Lots of people would be without power or water for weeks. Buildings that have not been built strong
enough would be destroyed. Not all hospitals would be able to help people who were injured. Many people
would die or be homeless.

People need to be prepared. They need to know what to do if an earthquake happens. Everyone in
California should have a survival kit at home. The emergency kit would include food and water. There
should be medication and first aid supplies in the kit. A good survival kit will also have a portable radio,
flashlights and spare batteries. All of the supplies in the kit should last at least 3 days.
Earthquake Could be Worse than Hurricane

It's a disaster experts know is coming, and it could dwarf the effects of Hurricane Katrina.

A magnitude 8.0 quake would hit Southern California with a force up to 32 times greater than the 1989
Loma Prieta tremblor in the Bay Area. Vital energy, gas and water conduits stretched across the San
Andreas fault would be destroyed, leaving millions without critical, life-sustaining supplies for weeks.
Many hospitals that haven't been retrofitted to survive a mega-scale quake, would be severely damaged
and unable to handle mass casualties. Thousands would die and tens of thousands would be left homeless
as the infrastructure of Los Angeles buckled.

State seismic experts say the dire predictions that a large-scale earthquake will rock California are very
real and in need of immediate attention.

"We're talking about a 1906 event on the San Andreas fault on the order of a 7.9, 8.0 magnitude
earthquake," California senior geologist Bill Bryant said.

Studies show the entire state faces a cataclysmic earthquake danger in the coming decades. Researchers
at the Southern California Earthquake Center said there is an 80 to 90 percent chance that a 7.0 or
greater magnitude quake will strike Southern California before 2024. Meanwhile, projections show a 62
percent probability that at least one earthquake of magnitude 6.7 or higher will strike the Bay Area before
2032.

An ominous Federal Emergency Management Agency training session held in August 2001 underscores
the renewed interest in California's earthquake preparedness. At the meeting, officials said the three most
likely disaster scenarios to occur in the United States were a terrorist attack in New York City, a massive
hurricane hitting New Orleans and a violent earthquake crippling California. Within four years, two of the
three predictions had come true.

California Office of Emergency Services spokesperson Sheryl Tankersley said only 30 percent of
Californians have assembled an emergency survival kit, a vital step toward preparing for an earthquake
disaster.

"It's extremely important for every individual, every man, woman, and child in the state of California, to
have at least a three day supply of whatever they may need to survive," Tankersley said.

The OES recommends that survival kit items include food, one gallon of water per person per day,
medication and first aid kits, as well as portable radios, flashlights and spare batteries.
University Students Not Allowed to Drink Alcohol

Some college students drink too much alcohol at school. Many of them live on the campus. Heavy
drinking has caused many problems. It can cause students to make bad choices and do dangerous
things. 

One college has decided to ban alcohol. It has gotten a reputation as a party school. Five students at the
college have died from drinking too much alcohol. Recently, one student drank too much vodka. He
slipped into a coma. The college hopes the new rule will prevent any more tragedies.

The new rule prohibits students from drinking alcohol in the dorms. The first time a student breaks the
rule they will receive a warning. If they break the rule again, they will be evicted from the dorm.
However, they will still have to pay for the dorm. Some students do not live on the campus. They live in
houses near the campus. Those students are also banned from drinking alcohol, even if they are of legal
age. 

Freshmen at the college are now required to take a special course. The course is called AlcoholEdu, and
lasts for two and a half hours. The students learn about the dangers of alcohol. They also take a survey to
find out how much they know about alcohol. All first-year students must pass the course. 

The college hopes that more information will help students make better choices.
University Students Not Allowed to Drink Alcohol

CSU Chico is now officially "dry," with no drinking allowed on or off-campus. University officials hope the
new regulations will prevent any more alcohol-related tragedies involving students.

The rules prohibit alcohol consumption in dorms. The first offense means a warning. A second offense
results in the eviction of the offending student, who is still responsible for room fees.

Fraternity and sorority houses off-campus are banned from having alcohol, even if members are of legal
age.

Freshmen are now required to take a two-and-half hour alcohol awareness course online. The program,
called AlcoholEdu for College, surveys students and presents material about the use and abuse of alcohol.
First-year students must pass the short course by October 14.

Chico administrators have been trying to shed the university's longtime reputation as a party shcool,
which was driven in part by an article in Playboy magazine naming the school as one of the country's
foremost party campuses. 

With five alcohol-related student deaths in as many years, officials felt that had no alternative to adopting
the no-alcohol stance. "I told them last year, no more chances," said CSU Chico President Paul Zingg. "So
I think you can read into that."

The university's most recent student-drinking incident occurred last January. Nineteen-year-old Richard
Amador, a fraternity pledge, slipped into a coma while drinking vodka provided by a Sigma Chi member.
Smoking Kills

Smoking kills more Americans than AIDS, drug abuse, car accidents and crime.

Did you know that 390,000 Americans die each year from cigarette smoking? Smoking tobacco causes 1
out of 6 deaths. Smoking can also cause some very serious diseases. Some people become addicted to
smoking. 

Lung cancer has caused more deaths in women than breast cancer. If a pregnant woman smokes, she
has a greater chance of medical problems with her baby. 

Cigarette smoking is the number one cause of cancer death in men. Male smokers over the age of 35 are
more likely to die from smoking-related diseases like lung cancer.

Many children start smoking before they reach high school. They run the risk of smoking most of their
lives. They could die of smoking-related diseases.
Smoking May be Banned in Cars

Studies show that smoking is bad for a person’s health. Even being around a person that is smoking can
be unhealthy. It is called "second-hand smoke". Smoking is very bad for children. It may become illegal
in California for a person to smoke in a vehicle when children are present.

The California Senate is considering a bill that would make it a crime to smoke in the car when children
are inside. This law would be called SB 7. The author of the bill is a democratic senator from Long Beach.
She says that she thinks this bill could protect kids’ health.

The senator from Long Beach thinks adults should be fined $100 for each violation. She believes that this
would make them think twice about smoking when kids are on the car. 

Some people do not like this bill. They say that it gives government too much control over what people
choose to do. These critics of SB 7 are calling it a “nanny government” measure.

A republican senator from Grass Valley does not support the bill. He does not think that the government
needs to tell people what they can or cannot do in their homes or cars. He also believes that this bill
infringes on parents' rights.

This senator said that he knows that smoking can be dangerous. He does not allow smoking in his car
when his grandchildren are inside. Still, he does not think that the government should make that
decision. He believes that it should be left up to the parents.

The governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger has not said whether he would sign the bill or not to
make it a law. When he was asked what he thought about adults smoking in cars when children were
inside, he said that he thought it was terrible.
Smoking May be Banned in Cars

Smoking in vehicles when children are inside may become illegal in California. The Senate is considering a
bill this week that would make it a crime to smoke inside a car when children under the age of 18 are
inside.

"This is another way we can protect kids' health," said the bill's author, Sen. Jenny Oropeza, D-Long
Beach.

Oropeza said young lungs are particularly vulnerable to secondhand smoke, especially in confined spaces
like cars. She said fining adults $100 for each violation would make them think twice about lighting up
near minors.

"This bill will be a real disincentive for adults to smoke in cars with kids," Oropeza said.

But critics label the bill, SB 7, a "nanny government" measure, one that gives government too much
control over private activity.

"At some point we have to say government needs to stay out of somebody's home and they need to stay
out of somebody's car," said bill opponent, Sen. Sam Aanestad, R-Grass Valley. "This is another one of
those nanny government rules that I think infringes on parents rights."

As an oral surgeon, Aanestad knows the health dangers smoking can cause. He said he does not allow
smoking in his car when his grandchildren are inside. Still, Aanestad says this is an area "where
government should butt out."

"It's really up to the parents to determine what's best for their kids in this regard," Aanestad said.

Gov. Schwarzenegger has not indicated whether he would sign the bill, but when he was asked what he
thought about adults smoking in cars when children are inside, he said, "That's terrible."
Californians Want to Fight Global Warming

Many people who live in California are very concerned about the earth. They are worried that the earth is
warming too much. They believe that living things on the earth will be affected by the warming. Most
Californian's think that the state should investigate the problem.

A survey was taken in California. The questions that were asked were about global warming. The results
of the survey were very interesting. They showed that most people in California are very concerned about
global warming.

The survey showed that over half of the people who live in California want the state to work on the global
warming. Last year not as many people felt that way. People think the problem is getting worse.

Another poll showed that many people are not happy with the federal government. They do not like the
way global warming is being handled. Only a few people asked think that the federal government is doing
a good job with this issue. 

One man said that Californians are feeling worse, not better. They are more concerned today than they
ever have been about global warming. Many of them want the state of California to deal with the problem
instead of waiting for the federal government to do something. 

The people do not want to wait. They want the state to start working on the problem immediately.
Californians Want to Fight Global Warming

A majority of Californians have become so concerned over the effects of global warming that they want
the state to act on its own to investigate the problem, according to the results of a new survey.

The poll conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California released Wednesday showed 65 percent
support for California to take unilateral action against global warning, up from 54 percent last year. 

The drive for state action corresponds with a drop in confidence over how federal agencies are handling
global warming. Of the 2,501 California adults polled, 54 percent felt the federal approach to global
warming was misdirected, while only 29 percent believed in how the federal government was tackling the
issue.

"Californians now rank global warming as more important than at any time since we first started asking
about it in June of 2000," PPIC survey director Mark Baldassare said. "They are so concerned that two-
thirds actually want the state to address this issue completely independent of the federal government."

Baldassare said support for California action against global warming cut across party line, with majority
support among Democrats (73 percent), independents (70 percent) and Republicans (62 percent). 

The poll results showed Californians aren't interested in waiting to take up the topic. 63 percent believed
global warming is already in effect, up from 57 percent in 2005. 79 percent of respondents also registered
a desire to take immediate steps to counter global warming.

"The immediacy of the issue, the feeling that it's happening as we speak, has become more powerful,"
Baldassare said. "This sense of urgency is reflected in the public's attitudes and in some of their policy
preferences." 

The private, non-profit organization conducted the survey between July 5 and July 18, days before the
latest California heat wave that spike temperatures across the state. PPIC said the poll had a margin of
error of plus or minus 2 percent.