[lit-ideas] Re: Tsunami
- From: JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 15:58:29 EST
Re. the lack of warning, seems there'll be a bit of a ruckus over this:
_http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2004/12/28/headlines/index.php?news=headlines
_15908069.html_
(http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2004/12/28/headlines/index.php?news=headlines_15908069.html)
<< Warning rejected to protect tourism
Published on December 28, 2004
Minutes after the earthquake hit northern Sumatra at 7.58am on Sunday,
officials of the Meteo-rological Department, who were at a seminar in Cha-am,
convened an emergency meeting chaired by Supharerk Tansrirat-tanawong,
director-general.
They had just learned that the Bangkok office had reported a quake measuring
at 8.1 on the Richter scale, which was much lower than the
level officially recorded later.
â??We didnâ??t think there would be subsequent seismic waves, because a similar
quake of 7.6 on the Richter scale, which hit Sumatra on November 2, 2002, did
not affect Thailand,â?? said a member of the department who asked not to be
named.
Moreover, the quake this time hit west of Sumatra and officials thought the
island might offer a natural shelter, preventing any waves from breaking
towards Phuket and its vicinity, he said.
With slightly less than one hour before the waves came ashore, Supharerk
said, the department officials did not expect a tsunami. There are just four
people on the departmentâ??s 900-person staff who are earthquake experts, he
said.
Also, a tsunami had not hit Thailand in more than 300 years.
But sources said they did discuss the likelihood that a tsunami could hit
Thailandâ??s Andaman Sea coastal towns. This was also played down.
â??The very important factor in making the decision was that itâ??s high
[tourist] season and hotel rooms were nearly 100-per-cent full. If we issued a
warning, which would have led to evacuation, [and if nothing happened], what
would happen then? Business would be instantaneously affected. It would be
beyond
the Meteorological Departmentâ??s ability to handle. We could go under, if
[the tsunami] didnâ??t come,â?? said a source who attended the meeting.
â??We hesitated for a while whether we should issue a warning or not. It was
discussed but we didnâ??t have a chance to do it.â??
Supharerk denied that tourism factored into the discussion at the 11th hour.
â??I think we have done our best,â?? he said.
Precisely at 9am that Sunday, waves as high as 3 to 10 metres hit the main
southern coastal provinces of Phuket, Phang Nga, Krabi and Ranong.
Pravit Rojanaphruk
The Nation >>
========Original Message======== Subj: [lit-ideas] Tsunami Date:
12/27/04 1:52:37 P.M. Central Standard Time From: _andreas@xxxxxxxxxxxx
(mailto:andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx) To: _lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) Sent on:
Several items about the tsunami in Southeast Asia.
1) I was working at my computer on Christmas afternoon, preparing for a
certification exam,
and I saw on SE Asian websites the news item about the earthquake. I also
noticed that for
at least six hours, none of the American media mentioned it.
2) When the earthquake happened, I immediately thought this would cause a
tsunami. I live on
the coast of California, where earthquakes are a daily occurance (see for
example the daily
report at
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/recenteqsUS/Maps/US10/32.42.-125.-115.html , which
shows some 260 local earthquakes for the last week, plus the 1.4 from this
morning). But
there were no reports or warnings about a tsunami in Southeast Asia.
3) The tsunami came ashore about 8-9 in the morning local time (about 2.5
hrs after the
earthquake.) Many tourists were on the beach.
4) No warning had been given. The public health authorities, the government,
etc., did not
warn people about the tsunami. There was at least 2.5 hrs of time, but
nobody was warned.
5) Therefore, this is two disasters: 1) the tsunami and 2) the catastrophic
failure to warn
people. More than 22,000 died. With 2.5 hrs of warning, many of those could
have survived.
6) Because there were lots of tourists on the beaches cavorting around,
there are plenty of
videos of the tsunami. See for example
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml , which has
publicly accessible
video (no fees, no pay).
7) I had always thought that a tsunami would be a large wave. Perhaps
because of Hokusai's
painting The Great Wave (see for example www.andreas.com/hokusai.html ).
Hollywood disaster
movies also include giant waves crashing ashore. However, watching the
videos, you see that
the English name, tidal wave, is more descriptive: the sea literally begins
to rise, as if
the tide is coming in. There's no wave, not even a wavelet. The best name
would be "tidal
surge", but nobody would name a painting or a disaster movie after that. The
sea rises
extremely fast (people are suddenly in water that is 15-20 feet deep) and
then recedes very
fast, sweeping many people far out to sea.
8) So what happened on Diego Garcia? This is a semi-secret US military base,
smack in the
middle of the Indian Ocean. It is only a few feet above sea level. Diego
Garcia is extremely
critical to US military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the tsunami
was 15-20 feet
high and it swept the entire Indian Ocean, then Diego Garcia must have been
affected. Yet
there is precisely zero in all media about anything on Diego Garcia. The
official website
http://www.dg.navy.mil/ says nothing. Which leads one to suspect that
something happened.
Otherwise, they would have reported that they had a minor wave, minor
flooding, etc. So
perhaps pay attention to this.
yrs,
andreas
www.andreas.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
