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?

[QUOTE=chalsall;243489]Not everyone... Many who died in 2004 actually walked out onto the suddenly exposed seabed to investigate "this interesting phenomenon"!

Evolution in action?[/QUOTE]

Indeed. But I was referring to the simple observation that the
water in front of a wave breaking on the shore travels outwards.

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;243551]Indeed. But I was referring to the simple observation that the
water in front of a wave breaking on the shore travels outwards.[/QUOTE]

Understood.

But, empirically... not everyone maps that observation to all wave-fronts (even though they should)....

[QUOTE=davieddy;243440]My point is that the risk is completely predictable the instant an undersea quake is detected,[/quote]"completely"?

[quote]Buoys scattered around the ocean to "detect" a tsunami should not be necessary. Plenty of boats around, anyway.[/quote]... even though people on boats in the ocean may not notice anything and boats aren't designed to detect the particular signature of a tsunami anyway?

[quote]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.[/QUOTE]So, people in some directions are more in danger than people in others?

[QUOTE=davieddy;243449]Like "strongest earthquake ever" shouldn't ring an alarm bell or two.[/QUOTE]What is your [i]real[/i] gripe? They sent you the bill for 500 buoys?

[QUOTE=davieddy;243551]But I was referring to the simple observation that the water in front of a wave breaking on the shore travels outwards.[/QUOTE]So, you don't want people to have any more advance warning than that?

I guess you consider "red sky in morning, sailors take warning" is all folks need to know for blizzards, flash floods, tornadoes and hurricanes, right?

One man's warning is another man's dare.

But don't take that as a dare.

I decline (as usual) to rise to the bait.

Your tedious technique is to deliberately
interpret sentences, out of context, in a way as
far from the spirit intended as possible.

David

If you meant me, there's nothing tedious about desiring
clarity and exactness.

[QUOTE=davar55;243634]If you meant me, there's nothing tedious about desiring
clarity and exactness.[/QUOTE]

No. I meant Richard.

We three seem to be having trouble distinguishing each other ATM:smile:

(e.g. Newer Milestone thread)

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;243637]We three seem to be having trouble distinguishing each other ATM:smile:
[/QUOTE]As I write this, my new eye glass prescription is right in front of me. -.25. +2.00, 160 and so on.:smile:

[QUOTE=davieddy;243632]I decline (as usual) to rise to the bait.

Your tedious technique is to deliberately
interpret sentences, out of context, in a way as
far from the spirit intended as possible.

David[/QUOTE]
I know this is directed at Cheesehead but I'm going to stick my oar in here.
David, you started a thread on the sixth anniversary of one of the deadliest catastrophes in living memory suggesting that the effort to put in place a warning system ("get away from the coast now!") which surely would have saved countless lives in 2004, is health and safety gone mad.
Pretty astonishing thing to say!:surprised
I know this is the lounge, not the soap box, and we are supposed to take it easy here. But I still think you need to make it clear what you are talking about. You might have some point, but whatever it is is not clear to me at the moment. Maybe you could explain why the reaction was out of context: that might provide some clarification.
:smile:

[QUOTE=Brian-E;243654]I know this is directed at Cheesehead but I'm going to stick my oar in here.
David, you started a thread on the sixth anniversary of one of the deadliest catastrophes in living memory suggesting that the effort to put in place a warning system ("get away from the coast now!") which surely would have saved countless lives in 2004, is health and safety gone mad.
Pretty astonishing thing to say!:surprised
I know this is the lounge, not the soap box, and we are supposed to take it easy here. But I still think you need to make it clear what you are talking about. You might have some point, but whatever it is is not clear to me at the moment. Maybe you could explain why the reaction was out of context: that might provide some clarification.
:smile:[/QUOTE]
Well Retina got my intended meaning immediately in post #2.

Why were folk not warned to "get away from the coast now!" as
soon as the monster quake was detected? No detecting buoys in the
Indian Ocean has always struck me as a pathetic excuse for failing
to predict the likelihood and progress of the tsunami.

Obviously, it is a good idea to do whatever is feasible to monitor
the strength and speed of any tsunami directly, but the risk (or
more like near certainty) of a whopping tsunami should have been
blatantly obvious, and warning broadcast immediately and as widely
as possible.

Perhaps all effort WAS made but lack of communications with the
relevant coastal areas were inadequate. If this was the case,
improvement is obviously desirable, even if (as I said) that maybe
easier said than done.

I may lack piety but I'm not callous.

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;243677][...]
Perhaps all effort WAS made but lack of communications with the
relevant coastal areas were inadequate. If this was the case,
improvement is obviously desirable, even if (as I said) that maybe
easier said than done.

I may lack piety but I'm not callous.

David[/QUOTE]
So you [B]do[/B] understand the need, or at least the possible need, for the early warning system. I am in complete agreement with what you write in this quoted section. And indeed, easier said than done: that's why an expensive system needed to be put in place.

I had a pretty good idea already that you aren't callous, which is why I decided to question a bit further. I'm glad I did.:smile:

[QUOTE=cheesehead;243615]"completely"?
[/QUOTE]
Sufficiently to merit all possible warning to be issued
immediately.
[QUOTE]
So, people in some directions are more in danger than people in others?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, and in a predictable way, as if triage was appropriate in
such an emergency.

I would guess that the severity of the tsunami depended
on how much vertical movement of the sea floor was involved.
But I would guess that even this could be gauged from prior
knowledge of the faultline involved and/or seismological data.

As Axn said, "early warning" involves two distinct aspects:

1) Recognizing the immanent risk.
2) Warning the folk likely to be affected.

My "gripe" is that it sounds to me as if "failing to have
the buoys (or whatever) in place" was advanced as an excuse
for failure to do either 1) or 2).

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;243677]No detecting buoys in the Indian Ocean....[/QUOTE]
Because the USA hates brown people.[attach]6012[/attach]

[QUOTE=davieddy;243724]Sufficiently to merit all possible warning to be issued immediately.[/QUOTE]What about [I]alarm fatigue[/I] (AKA "Boy who cried wolf" syndrome)?

This makes it important to take steps not to send alarms unnecessarily to areas where it's not necessary. (Sure, the immediate area has to be warned in all directions, but farther areas could get first a preliminary alert, then a warning (or all-clear) where justified by better data.) Once directionality is established (which buoys would aid), then the alarm can be concentrated where needed.

[quote]as if triage was appropriate in such an emergency.[/quote]Not crying "wolf" is appropriate.

[quote]I would guess that the severity of the tsunami depended on how much vertical movement of the sea floor was involved. But I would guess that even this could be gauged from prior knowledge of the faultline involved and/or seismological data.[/quote]Just how do you propose establishing, without measurements such as buoys provide, the relationship between (a) prior knowledge and seismological data, and (b) direction, speed and severity of this particular tsunami?

Is the earliest seismological data from a quake (or other event) always enough to determine the details of ocean floor movement sufficiently to predict tsunamis?

[quote]1) Recognizing the immanent risk.
2) Warning the folk likely to be affected.

My "gripe" is that it sounds to me as if "failing to have the buoys (or whatever) in place" was advanced as an excuse for failure to do either 1) or 2).[/quote]I don't understand your reasoning. Isn't having "the buoys (or whatever) in place" part of 1) ? So that failure to do so was indeed an explanation, not an exculpatory excuse, for insufficiency of 1) ?

This is a (possibly interesting) BTW:

What do these buoys do that boats can't?

David

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;243740]Because the USA hates brown people.[attach]6012[/attach][/QUOTE]

Yes, I know you're just try to dig me deeper into
the brown stuff, but I'd temporarily forgotten GWB's
"War On Terror".

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSuSWZUYHmg]God on our side[/url]

David

[QUOTE=davieddy;243845]This is a (possibly interesting) BTW:

What do these buoys do that boats can't?[/QUOTE]

As far as I understand...

1. They are at fixed (or at least, un-powered), known locations.

2. They are appropriately distributed -- boats / ships tend to move around and might not be at the best locations to detect what needs to be detected.

3. They are particularly sensitive to the (average) depth of the ocean.

3.1. Please note that until the depth of the ocean through which the massive amount of wave energy (tsunami) is passing becomes shallow, the actual delta of the average depth can be less than a meter.

3.1.1. I.E. less than the higher-frequency waves which might be being experienced. Read:unmeasurable by standard navigation kit (and, of course, humans) on most boats / ships which are more concerned about Lat/Long/Direction/True Speed than (Deep) Depth.

[QUOTE=davieddy;243849]Yes, I know you're just try to dig me deeper into
the brown stuff, but I'd temporarily forgotten GWB's
"War On Terror".

[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSuSWZUYHmg"]God on our side[/URL]

David[/QUOTE]

Before I cop it again from Brian or Richard, I am sure there
are several (probably untold) stories about folk in the know
doing their best.

David

[QUOTE=chalsall;243850]As far as I understand...

1. They are at fixed (or at least, un-powered), known locations.

2. They are appropriately distributed -- boats / ships tend to move around and might not be at the best locations to detect what needs to be detected.

3. They are particularly sensitive to the (average) depth of the ocean.[/QUOTE] 4. They are much cheaper to operate 25/7/366 (left as an exercise to the reader).
5. Because of the way they operate (tied down and design) , they can detect the fast pulse of the the wave despite the standard slower but larger amplitude waves.

Thinking about this problem space over dinner...
 

Thinking about this a bit further this evening, a thought came to me. I'm sure this has been thought about by others already who are far smarter than me, but please let me share...

A methodology far better than buoys might be a detection matrix resting on the sea floor.

These could be autonomous, self contained, self powered (batteries and/or fuel cell) modules which could be dropped to the sea floor from ships. These would measure the weight of the water above them on a very regular basis. When the power supply is about to run out, you drop some more.

Radio waves (RF) don't travel through water well. But audio waves do (just ask the whales).

Unlike a buoy which will move around somewhat on its tether, a sensor sitting on the ocean floor will only move a few cm a year nominally, and will always be able to measure the pressure difference of the water sitting above it to an extremely accurate degree.

I haven't researched the prior art to see if this has been done already. But it seems a pretty reasonable solution to me -- and thus I must conclude that it has already been implemented.

[QUOTE=chalsall;243897]A methodology far better than buoys might be a detection matrix resting on the sea floor.

These could be autonomous, self contained, self powered (batteries and/or fuel cell) modules which could be dropped to the sea floor from ships. These would measure the weight of the water above them on a very regular basis. When the power supply is about to run out, you drop some more.

Radio waves (RF) don't travel through water well. But audio waves do (just ask the whales).[/QUOTE]Problems/differences.

Buoys are solar powered [B]+1[/B] buoys

Seafloor sensors would require a buoy to transmit data to the stations via radio waves at the speed required for some warnings. [B]+1[/B] buoys

[QUOTE=Uncwilly;243910]Problems/differences.[/QUOTE]

I respect and appreciate debate.

WRT buoys being solar powered. Yes. But you can pack a *whole* lot of energy into (for example) a 45 gallon drum containing tanks of highly compressed (but not necessarily liquid) oxygen and methane (for example).

Add a fuel-cell, and you're good to go for (probably) years.

Please don't forget that many wild animal researchers "tag" their subjects with GPS receiving collars which are battery-only powered which last for over a year. (GPS reception and resolution is relatively expensive from a power perspective.)

@Uncwilly: "Seafloor sensors would require a buoy to transmit data to the stations via radio waves at the speed required for some warnings.

Not always.

"Sound" travels at approximately 1.5 km/s through water. And much further than through "air".

Yes, I agree that at some point there must be at least one receiver listening to the sea-bed monitoring stations.

But they don't always have to be buoys.

[QUOTE=chalsall;243897]I haven't researched the prior art to see if this has been done already. But it seems a pretty reasonable solution to me -- and thus I must conclude that it has already been implemented.[/QUOTE]

I really need to learn to research prior art before I speak based on fundamental knowledge...

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Tsunami_Warning_Center"]Pacific Tsunami Warning Center[/URL]

Interestingly, the "sea-bed" sensors last longer than the "buoys"....

[QUOTE=chalsall;243929]I really need to learn to research prior art before I speak based on fundamental knowledge...

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Tsunami_Warning_Center"]Pacific Tsunami Warning Center[/URL]

Interestingly, the "sea-bed" sensors last longer than the "buoys"....[/QUOTE]
THX for the link which includes one to this one:
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake[/URL]

Only comment I feel able to make ATM is Phuket.

David

A ten year old can do it...
 

[QUOTE=davieddy;243854]I am sure there
are several (probably untold) stories about folk in the know
doing their best.

David[/QUOTE]

Here's a good one:
[URL]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4229392.stm[/URL]

Though it brings tears to my eyes, I think it just goes to
prove my original point that more could have been done once
the quake was detected.

David

"Where the Buoys Are, Budget Cuts Wait for Me"

[url]http://www.nationaljournal.com/where-the-buoys-are-budget-cuts-wait-for-me-20110311[/url]

[quote=Maggie Fox]An early-warning system that helped residents on the West Coast of the U.S. prepare for Friday’s tsunami worked as designed but is vulnerable to proposed budget cuts, experts say.

. . .

A string of 39 buoys operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is an important part of the world’s early-warning system for such waves. As recently as last October, a panel of experts at the National Research Council raised concerns that the warning system had weaknesses.

. . .

The National Weather Service Employees Organization has been complaining that proposed budget cuts will damage the service’s ability to warn people not only about tsunamis but also about other dangerous events, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, and blizzards.

The union says that Congress's continuing resolution for keeping the federal government funded would cut the Weather Service's budget by 28 percent and damage early-warning efforts.

“What would happen if the continuing resolution passes [is], there will be a dismantling of our nation’s early-warning system,” Dan Sobien, president of the National Weather Service Employees Organization, said in a telephone interview. “It would result in a roughly 30 percent cut in the budget of the National Weather Service.” Sobien said that current plans call for the Weather Service to close individual offices for about a month at a time on a rolling basis.

. . .[/quote]

David,

I apologize for my cranky and rude post #37 ("Do ..."). It was completely unwarranted.

Though I have a Post-It note on my monitor with the reminder "Before forum logon, check your mood", I failed to do that last night.

- - -

Moderators,

Please remove my post #37 ("Do ...").

Non secateur
 

[QUOTE=cheesehead;255018]David,

I apologize for my cranky and rude post #37 ("Do ..."). It was completely unwarranted.

Though I have a Post-It note on my monitor with the reminder "Before forum logon, check your mood", I failed to do that last night.

- - -

Moderators,

Please remove my post #37 ("Do ...").[/QUOTE]

No probs Richard.
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcBh9IgMz5U]Good year for the roses[/url]

David