Comparison: Hurricane Mitch Vs. Andrew

453 Words2 Pages
“Hurricane Mitch was more destructive than Andrew because of a variety of factors.” Mitch is considered to be the most deadly hurricane in the last 200 years in the Atlantic, stronger and more intense than Hurricane Andrew, having caused the most serious material damage in history. In Mitch, 4 countries were affected (Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador and Guaternala) whereas in Andrew only a fraction of South America was seriously affected. In Mitch 10ml people were left homeless without shelter and aid, with mothers washed out to see and thousands trapped, as well as the possibility of more floods. In Andrew hundreds and thousands of people were without food but food and water were provided sooner than they were to the poor countries that Mitch affected. A…show more content…
Cholera and dengue fever was also spreading extremely fast, whereas in Miami they suffered no life threatening disease. The difference between Mitch and Andrew is that news reporters were extremely clear about what to do and gave plenty of warning whereas in Mitch nobody knew how big the impact and outcome was going to be. These two hurricanes both had economic set backs, but Hurricane Andrew had a setback of roughly 3 years whereas Hurricane Mitch had a devastating setback of 30-50 years, having to rebuild their country altogether. By Sophie Mayhew 9M By Sophie Mayhew 9M In conlcusi0n, this statement is correct as the facts and figures show how the 4 affected countries in Mitch suffered huge difficulties economically and population wise, as they suffered famine and earth slides, with a 3 day, desolate storm. At that time it was the worst storm since 1780, which was definitely worse than Andrew as Andrew was nothing compared to the major wipe out hurricane of
Open Document