What i am seeing is that people are using manual digging and buckets and manually cutting through steel!If they use cranes, it would be alot faster to get to those buried. I dont belive it is unsafe, if they are meticulous.
It's a good thought, but, in addition to the points others have mentioned, there could be 500+ collapsed buildings in even a small city. How many construction cranes with sufficient lifting capacity do you think a small town would have? How many qualified operators would there be (keeping in mind that some of them may themselves be buried in the rubble? Amateurs operating heavy equipment in the situation - well meaning though they may be - is almost sure to cause additional casualties among the rescuers. In any case, my personal opinion (cynical, for sure) is that the news media would rather have footage of the rescuers desperately digging by hand than a crane lifting huge slabs off of victims. There is much more pathos and drama in a hand dug rescue than a mechanical one, even if the mechanical one is actually more difficult to arrange.
Firstly, it can be damnable hard to move cranes through rubble filled streets, even assuming if such things happen to be readily available. Secondly, as the mess beneath the rubble is bound to be unstable, moving stuff off from the top can cause collapses further down. That danger can be lessened by working more slowly and carefully. I dont belive it is unsafe, if they are meticulous. Your belief is all well and good, but is it based on actual experience?
It's not just a matter of being meticulous. You would have to know the structure of the pile of debris to be safe.
