Asia Quake

[Biggles]

does no one else think the media is being irresponsible?

sure 10'000s a lot but i bet theres tens of millions on the effected coasts but nobody points out how little the fraction of dead is, causing a lot more worry than is neccasery

Hmmm I suspect the many thousands affected by this disaster might beg to differ. By dint of this reasoning one would never report any disaster.

[Rat Faced]

10,000's is a LOT of dead.. its a big story.

Yes, there are millions affected, and it will cost Billions.... however, how much is ONE human life worth? Your talking a lot of human lives ended..

[dudevenezuela]

"The catastrophic death toll in Asia caused by a massive tsunami might have been reduced had India and Sri Lanka been part of an international warning system designed to warn coastal communities about potentially deadly waves, scientists say."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...rning_system_3

I Didn't know that

[Jon L. Obscene]

Just would like to say my heart goes out to all effected by this massive disaster, it sadens me to see stuff like this as I'm sure it does anyone with a heart.

It's a prime example of how the ocean will do as it pleases and there's nothing on this earth to stop or prevent it. Is this sort of thing connected to the way we treat this planet?
I've been thinking about this lately and when something happens that wipes out thousands people and destroys so so much in such a short space of time and so unexpected, it should make people stop and think, th sad thing is.....Not many will.

As I said, my thoughts and heart is with those poor people.

Jon

[hobbes]

Is this sort of thing connected to the way we treat this planet?


Jon

I would say "no".

If they had the appropriate warning systems in place, no people would have died. That is right, not a single person. Everyone would have been evacuated. These poor people died before they realized that there was a problem.


In America, we have hurricaines every year, and everyone who dies, decided to ride the storm out. This particular tsunami should only have killed those people very close to the site of the earthquake.

Almost every life lost was preventable.

[Jon L. Obscene]

That's a possibility, but this was'nt a huricane, it was a sudden earthquake, big difference. But yes I believe it's a possibility more lives could have been saved, I'm not sure of the area's capability to predict or warn people.

And you don't think the increase of natural disasters is anything to do with "Global warming"?

Jonno

[hobbes]

That's a possibility, but this was'nt a huricane, it was a sudden earthquake, big difference. But yes I believe it's a possibility more lives could have been saved, I'm not sure of the area's capability to predict or warn people.

And you don't think the increase of natural disasters is anything to do with "Global warming"?

Jonno

No.

Earthquakes have nothing to do with global warming. Remember that tectonic plates are deep within the Earth, which has a molten core ( so hot that rocks are in liquid form). A minute change in temperature at the Earth's surface is irrelevant.

Remember that this earthquake was started at the bottom of the ocean, which has a rather constant temperature.

Tsunami or hurricaine, no one, should have died unless it was right off the coast of a particular location.

This is a case of "shit happens" and no one had a clue. No one had a clue because the available precautions were not in place.

And actually, the incidence of "natural disasters" is stable, but the death toll is exponetially lower now than ever in the history of man.

Remember the bubonic plague, 2/3 of every human alive was killed. Today, not a single life would be lost. Not a single one.

[Jon L. Obscene]

Fair enough, I did'nt know that about the core thing, I know a bit about oceanology and at some point had crossed my theory

As for the warning system, there are many places worldwide which have the same problem, the main problem being that money wont be spent on such, the goverments are basically backing down from the ocean and giving up in a lot of cases, it would seem money is deemed better spent elsewhere. Right or wrong this is how it is.

And actually, the incidence of "natural disasters" is stable,

How do you mean? I don't quite follow that.

but the death toll is exponetially lower now than ever in the history of man.

It's not just about the death toll, what about those made homeless etc?

Jonno

[hobbes]

You are right Jonno.

Those people who died were a "financial decision" by the countries involved.

I think the death toll is relevant because homes can be rebuilt.

Some people accept a certain risk in building homes at a location prone to natural disasters.


Hurricaines, tsumani's, volcanic eruptions are stable. Due to advanced warning, death from such events are exponentially reduced.

[Snee]

Remember the bubonic plague, 2/3 of every human alive was killed. Today, not a single life would be lost. Not a single one.

Don't be so certain. There'll always be places with vermin that can spread that kind of thing. And old people and small children with weak immune defenses to die from it. People still die from the common cold ffs.

But it'd never spread the the way it did, and even in an isolated community, in the third world or somesuch where it could spread, people would have gotten out of it better than in those days.

But someone had prolly died.