More "health & safety" gone mad
 

"Tsunami Early Warning System".

When an earthquake occurs under the ocean, it
is detected and located in innumerable places these days
almost immediately, and the news is broadcast.

Any Tsunami will travel fast radially outwards from the epicentre.

Is this difficult?

David

It is all about politicians needing to look like they are doing something. Also a bit of CYA insurance.

Perhaps the TSA should be mentioned also.

[QUOTE=davieddy;243346]"Tsunami Early Warning System".[/quote]Was there some recent news regarding such a system that prompted your OP?

[quote]When an earthquake occurs under the ocean, it is detected and located in innumerable places these days almost immediately, and the news is broadcast.[/QUOTE]... via radio-frequency waves, yes.

Does everyone living near a seacoast always have a radio or TV turned on? Does every well-populated coastal region have an effective system for disseminating tsunami warnings through local broadcast stations? Do all heavily-populated coastal areas have siren systems to warn non-radio/TV-attentive folks of a coming tsunami?

The December 26, 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean killed over 200,000 people. Was that a consequence of incomplete penetration of radio and TV into populated coastal areas of that region of the world? Or was that too small a number to justify a better warning system? If neither of those is true, why the "More 'health & safety' gone mad" title for this thread?

[quote]Any Tsunami will travel fast radially outwards from the epicentre.[/quote]... so a tsunami-warning system sometimes has only a few minutes to warn people near the coast. (Consider, also, the time needed for a warned near-beach-dweller to travel to safety.)

[QUOTE=retina;243348]It is all about politicians needing to look like they are doing something. Also a bit of CYA insurance.[/QUOTE]Which part is busy-work? Which is CYA?

[quote]Perhaps the TSA should be mentioned also.[/quote]Fine. Which cautionary parallels did you have in mind?

A *very* low-tech tsunami "early warning system".
 

If you are near the ocean, and you see it suddenly recede...

Run at your (and yours') best possible speed to higher ground (if any exists).

Otherwise, climb the most secure and tallest thing you can, and hang on.

Immediately.

Because in a few seconds your environment is going to experience a whole lot of energy....

[QUOTE=chalsall;243431]If you are near the ocean, and you see it suddenly recede...

Run at your (and yours') best possible speed to higher ground (if any exists).[/QUOTE]That is just lore that the indigenous folk say. All of those oral traditions are just bunk, unsophisticated people passing along mythology.


[SPOILER]Oh, wait that is what the modern scientific experts say too. =D [/SPOILER]

[QUOTE=cheesehead;243428]Was there some recent news regarding such a system that prompted your OP?

[/QUOTE]

Yes, and much play is made of the Pacific system being
more sophisticated than others. Obviously it is desirable that
there be means of alerting coastal dwellers at risk; easier said
than done?

My point is that the risk is completely predictable the instant
an undersea quake is detected, and not rocket science. Buoys
scattered around the ocean to "detect" a tsunami should not
be necessary. Plenty of boats around, anyway.

In 2004, surely there was time to alert India and Sri Lanka,
although presumably not Sumatra. That said I think they
felt the quake itself bigtime did they not?

I guess Sri Lanka copped it so hard because most energy
was transmitted perpendicular to the fault line (diffraction).
I guess this would account for Bangla Desh getting off
surprizingly (to me) lightly.

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;243440]My point is that the risk is completely predictable the instant
an undersea quake is detected, and not rocket science. Buoys
scattered around the ocean to "detect" a tsunami should not
be necessary. Plenty of boats around, anyway.[/QUOTE]

Undersea quake is a necessary but not sufficient condition for tsunami, IIRC. Ergo, to avoid false positives and unnecessary panic, you'd want a positive detection mechanism. However, as have been said, quick & effective dissemination of information is the key factor needed for a successful "early warning system".

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;243435]That is just lore that the indigenous folk say. All of those oral traditions are just bunk, unsophisticated people passing along mythology.


[SPOILER]Oh, wait that is what the modern scientific experts say too. =D [/SPOILER][/QUOTE]

Not to mention anyone who has ever been to the seaside!

David

[QUOTE=axn;243441]Undersea quake is a necessary but not sufficient condition for tsunami, IIRC. Ergo, to avoid false positives and unnecessary panic, you'd want a positive detection mechanism.[/QUOTE]

And knowing where and when it will be gives a certain amount
of option for ascertaining its strength.

David

Bottom line is I thought "lack of warning system" was
a pisspoor excuse for any lack of joined up thinking/negligence
on the part of anyone in a position to recognize the impending danger.

David

Like "strongest earthquake ever" shouldn't ring an
alarm bell or two.

[QUOTE=davieddy;243444]Not to mention anyone who has ever been to the seaside![/QUOTE]

Not everyone... Many who died in 2004 actually walked out onto the suddenly exposed seabed to investigate "this interesting phenomenon"!

Evolution in action?