• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

Could the Tsunami Disaster have been prevented?

RitalinKid

New Member
Very self evident. Could it have been prevented? Is someone responsible? I'm at work, so I'll jump in later.
 

hay82

Active Member
It couldn't have been prevented. I don't think that anyone is responsible and if anyone wants someone to blame, blame the hole of mankind.
 

baddichter

New Member
It's all preventable in hindsight, isn't it? Like losing the lottery (and I was only one number off!) And responsibility? You could say if someone had bought Hitler's paintings, maybe he wouldn't have turned from a frustrated artist in Vienna into a word-chomping, egomaniacal monster. But I think two things are apparent. The world is a very complicated, fluxing, layered, cross-purposed, self-purposed place. And life is not fair or even or ever will be. Hopefully, everyone tries to do the best they can with what they got, and sometimes in the end you win and sometimes you're just sitting on the beach, on a nice sunny day, and a forty-foot wave suddenly jumps from over the horizon and sweeps you away.
 

gallagher672003

New Member
Very well put Baddicther. This event was a freak of nature,hard to predict impossible to stop.

Life can be so cruel.We are born into a world of potential joy and opportunity and the catch is that it can be taken away in a microsecond.But the irony is that without death life is meaningless.
 

Jenem

kickbox
in the current state of that area, i don't believe it could have been prevented. but if they had had a proper warning system in place, i think two thirds (2/3) could have been saved. it is a tragedy, and more so because the first event like this in that area was so strong and damaging. this event has shown the local governments they need that warning system, i wish that it would have come at a much lower cost.

this is an interesting article about what actually was done

and here is the NOAA statement on the issue
 

Cathy C

New Member
And, of course, you have to keep in mind the "ifs".

IF there had been monitors in the Indian Ocean, and

IF the sensor acted properly and relayed the exact magnitude from the exact epicenter of the quake, and

IF the monitor station had understood the strength of the tsunami which would result AND had been able to reach by telephone the head of every country affected, and

IF each of those country's leaders had been able to contact the radio stations and television stations and resort owners in the space of 30-60 minutes, and

IF every resort owner and mayor and village chief had acted immediately, and

IF there was sufficient transportation available to move towns and villages of 1,000-40,000 people in the space of another 60-90 minutes,

THEN, yes, the disaster could have been averted. But that's an awfully LOT of ifs... :(
 

Sun-SSS

New Member
LONDON (AFP) - A 10-year-old British schoolgirl saved the lives of hundreds of people in southern Asia by warning them a wall of water was about to strike, after learning about tsunamis in geography class, British media reported.

Tilly, who has been renamed the "angel of the beach" by the top-selling tabloid The Sun, was holidaying with her family on the Thai island of Phuket when she suddenly grasped what was taking place and alerted her mother.

"Last term Mr Kearney taught us about earthquakes and how they can cause tsunamis," Tilly was quoted as saying by The Sun.

"I was on the beach and the water started to go funny. There were bubbles and the tide went out all of a sudden.

"I recognised what was happening and had a feeling there was going to be a tsunami. I told mummy."

Her intuition was enough to raise the alert and prompt the evacuation of Phuket's Maikhao beach and a neighbouring hotel before the water came crashing in, saving hundreds of people from death and injury.

According to The Sun, no one on Maikhao beach was seriously hurt by the tsunamis that have left more than 125,000 dead and millions homeless around the shores of the Indian Ocean.
--------------

There you go, poster who said in Heartfelt Sympathy that it was no use yelling warnings, because everyone would think you were nuts. All you need to do is tell mummy. Any intelligent 10 year old can do it. Of course you first have to have a mummy who’s not so screwed up as to worry in case someone might think she’s nuts.
 

Wabbit

New Member
I wouldn't believe anything you read in the Sun :rolleyes:

It's one of the worst and mistrusted tabloids here and is known for making stuff up constantly. This is a paper that uses small words, women with their "tits out" on page 3, and has runs staple stories along the lines with "vicar caught in kinky action with PM" They have been sued more times for libel and false reporting than you have had not dinners.
 

Sun-SSS

New Member
How do you know how many times I've had not dinners? Or even hot, ones for that matter.

I saw piece in Yahoo News or somewhere. They did name names, including that of the kid's school, and a statement from her teacher. And while I don't trust tabloid press very much, I have seen here a lot of so-called news quotes I trust even less. CNN, for one.
 

Sun-SSS

New Member
Signing Off

As a reminder, this is the letter that started this whole thing rolling, back in page one of that other thread:

US seismologists knew more than an hour in advance that a tsunami would follow the earthquake off the coast of Sumatra but the appropriate communication tools were not in place to warn southern Asian authorities of the impending life-threatening danger.

Why not? Technology has made the world a smaller place. Why do we have to learn such harsh lessons before life-saving techniques become available?
With thirty minutes’ warning, tens of thousands of lives possibly could have been saved.

It makes me very angry—

Steve Sinclair.


One of my guests of last night stayed over. The one who interrupted what I was doing to agree with everyone that I am an old grumpiguts. She is from Rangoon. She used this internet connection to keep in touch with home, in between my intermittent reading of postings and posting replies.

Today she read all of the debate in Heartfelt Sympathy. Her reaction? A sad, “Yes, well, they do tend to live their lives with their heads stuck up their own backsides, those northern Europeans.”

She has lived in northern Europe, I have not; so I can’t argue. Invited to elaborate, she said she suspects a reaction more like Steve Sinclair’s might have emerged from the northern hemisphere had it been European countries which were devastated without warning, when they could have been warned.

Looking back, I think I, too, detect a strong hint of closet racism in what people said in that thread. One said it was poor countries which were affected, and that was why they were not warned. Many said adequate communication systems were not available—while themselves sending messages around the world at something approaching the speed of light. All sorts of ludicrous reasons, some of them quite crazy, some barely literate, were put forward to justify inaction on the part of those who knew what was going to happen. My favourite is the one that says it was no use warning them because they wouldn’t have listened. And lately we have someone critcising Saudi Arabia for not giving enough, the implication being that they should give more because so many of the victims were followers of Islam. Now it that’s not a racist remark, I don’t know what is.

Bury your heads as deep in the sand as makes you feel comfortable, dear posters. You won't be hearing from me again.
 

Cathy C

New Member
Sun-SSS Wrote: And lately we have someone critcising Saudi Arabia for not giving enough, the implication being that they should give more because so many of the victims were followers of Islam. Now it that’s not a racist remark, I don’t know what is.

:confused: How is this a "racist" remark, Sun? Nobody said that because they're dark-skinned or from the Middle East, they should give more. The point being made, IMO, was that a wealthy nation of a similar religious belief might have assisted others of like mind more heavily than those of other religious beliefs. While I don't necessarily approve of the concept of religious bias, it is fairly common that Christians support Christian relief funds, Jewish support funds to assist other Jewish citizens before they would support, for example, a Catholic charity. Islamics support the Red Crescent, rather than the Red Cross. None of these are racist. They are merely preference.
 

hay82

Active Member
Sun-SSS said:
Looking back, I think I, too, detect a strong hint of closet racism in what people said in that thread. One said it was poor countries which were affected, and that was why they were not warned.
What language do you speak in Australia? I can't be english. You accused me of saying that before and it is still not what I said. I said that because they are poor countries they don't have the funds for such a warning system... I think that you need to realise that not all countries are so advanced as your own, I believe the stories that it was impossible to warn them, because it seems to be very realistic. 1 or 2 hours isn't lot of time to give such a warning without having a warning system.
 

RitalinKid

New Member
Sun-SSS said:
Today she read all of the debate in Heartfelt Sympathy. Her reaction? A sad, “Yes, well, they do tend to live their lives with their heads stuck up their own backsides, those northern Europeans.”

She has lived in northern Europe, I have not; so I can’t argue. Invited to elaborate, she said she suspects a reaction more like Steve Sinclair’s might have emerged from the northern hemisphere had it been European countries which were devastated without warning, when they could have been warned.
Okay, you're accusing me of racism, and you use your friend's opinion on the location of the heads of Northern Europeans to back up your opinion that information was withheld due to closet racism. Is this not the pot calling the kettle black? Does anyone else see this?

Sun-SSS said:
And lately we have someone critcising Saudi Arabia for not giving enough, the implication being that they should give more because so many of the victims were followers of Islam. Now it that’s not a racist remark, I don’t know what is.
Sun, you're reading what you want into what I wrote. I said that I found it surprising that they weren't giving more. It was a geopolitical analysis, not racism. If George W. Bush starting taxing religious organizations, I would then say, "Hey, that's odd that Bush started taxes for the religious right since that's who was responsible for his election and, hence, his political position." There's no racism there. If someone else feels it's racist, please let me know. Looking at the statement, I could have elaborated more, but you could write a book on the subject. The statement I made is as follows:

That is a shocker about Saudi Arabia. There were a lot of Muslims affected, and currently, the House of Saud is under attack by the religious right in their country.

You can argue all day over whether or not my political analysis is wrong (and please do), but I can't see where it's racist. I want other opinions; is this racist?
 

RitalinKid

New Member
hay82 said:
I said that because they are poor countries they don't have the funds for such a warning system... I think that you need to realise that not all countries are so advanced as your own, I believe the stories that it was impossible to warn them, because it seems to be very realistic. 1 or 2 hours isn't lot of time to give such a warning without having a warning system.
I agree with you about the short time frame, hay, but I'm not sure that it was a money problem. I think no one envisioned such a disaster, and the need for such a system was underestimated. I'm sure the world wants to analyze the situation, and there will probably be numerous investigations because no one wants to miss a call like that again.
 

RitalinKid

New Member
Cathy C said:
:confused: How is this a "racist" remark, Sun? Nobody said that because they're dark-skinned or from the Middle East, they should give more. The point being made, IMO, was that a wealthy nation of a similar religious belief might have assisted others of like mind more heavily than those of other religious beliefs. While I don't necessarily approve of the concept of religious bias, it is fairly common that Christians support Christian relief funds, Jewish support funds to assist other Jewish citizens before they would support, for example, a Catholic charity. Islamics support the Red Crescent, rather than the Red Cross. None of these are racist. They are merely preference.
Cathy, please read my post if you haven't because i wasn't implying what you have posted about. What you have posted about does occur, and can be classified as racism, but it's not an ideal world, and we all know that favoritism goes on whether intentionally or subconsciously. I would continue on with my post, but that's for a racism forum if anyone feels like opening that bottomless can of worms.
 

hay82

Active Member
RitalinKid said:
I agree with you about the short time frame, hay, but I'm not sure that it was a money problem. I think no one envisioned such a disaster, and the need for such a system was underestimated. I'm sure the world wants to analyze the situation, and there will probably be numerous investigations because no one wants to miss a call like that again.
I don't know if its because its a money problem thats just a guess. I think you are right in saying that it more like not believing such a disaster is going to hit.
 

Sun-SSS

New Member
hay82 said:
What language do you speak in Australia? I can't be english. You accused me of saying that before and it is still not what I said. I said that because they are poor countries they don't have the funds for such a warning system... I think that you need to realise that not all countries are so advanced as your own, I believe the stories that it was impossible to warn them, because it seems to be very realistic. 1 or 2 hours isn't lot of time to give such a warning without having a warning system.

I said: (or rather quoted someone who said) US seismologists knew more than an hour in advance that a tsunami would follow the earthquake off the coast of Sumatra

You said: The countries affected by this are not rich so that can probably present a problem for a warning system

Clearly you are saying, whether you mean to or not, that because the countries concerned are not rich, they cannot benefit from the knowledge gathered by the US seismologists, which is the only warning system mentioned. How many times, how many different ways, do I have to say it? For the umpteenth time, this is the way it works: (1) seismologists detect the earthquake, (2) they know a tsunami must follow, (3) they alert the countries of the danger. THAT is the warning system. If you don't get the point by now, you never will. I cannot help you.

I have already signed off.

Please leave me alone. Talk and exchange smiley faces with each other.
 

hay82

Active Member
Sun-SSS said:
Clearly you are saying, whether you mean to or not, that because the countries concerned are not rich, they cannot benefit from the knowledge gathered by the US seismologists, which is the only warning system mentioned. How many times, how many different ways, do I have to say it? For the umpteenth time, this is the way it works: (1) seismologists detect the earthquake, (2) they know a tsunami must follow, (3) they alert the countries of the danger. THAT is the warning system. If you don't get the point by now, you never will. I cannot help you.
Not saying that they cannot benefit from it because they are not rich, but because they are not part of the warning system, thus making it harder to warn them... Would be a good thing if you actually where able to read what be say and not what you think they say..
Sun-SSS said:
I have already signed off.

Please leave me alone. Talk and exchange smiley faces with each other.
Thats probably the most lame thing I have ever heard... BTW there are other ways to see the world than yours but apparently you are not able to see that.
Now I'll leave you alone and hope that you eventually learn to see more than one side of a thing.
 

Sun-SSS

New Member
hay82 said:
Thats probably the most lame thing I have ever heard... BTW there are other ways to see the world than yours but apparently you are not able to see that.
Now I'll leave you alone and hope that you eventually learn to see more than one side of a thing.

Nothing lame about it. I just don't want to talk to you. I consider it a total waste of time. And I'm sure that if everyone who doesn't want to waste time talking to you is lame, I'd better invest in the crutches industy.

I know there are other ways to see the world than mine, but I don't want to hear about all the silly ones.
 
Top