Would you live in a Tsunami affected area?

Why live in a cyclone risk area...

Why go outside

Your more likely to kill yourself than die from a Tsunami (I didnt bother doing the research but its probably a safe assumption)
 
Exactly XBenX!!!

Sungok, why not concentrate on what you can be do now to help these poor devastated people rather than worrying about circumstances beyond yours or anyone's control. Make the most of everyday, be thankful for your friends, family and the precious gift of life.

Have a Happy New Year. :)

Cheers,

Jo
 
Sungok said:
With the 115,000 dead (so far from some reports) from the current Tsunami's I think it is opportune to look at why someone would put themselves at unnecessary risk.

Knowing what you do about Tsunami's why would someone live in a coastal area subjecting themselves to higher risks from cyclones and the like?

E.g.
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/st.../20041229/2054983100.htm&ewp=ewp_news_tsunami

Why?

Because these people that were affected have little/no choice about where they live. Tourism and fishing are the main industries for these people and i think you'll find fishing is best done on the coast lines... the fishing isn't too good in the mountainous regions.

Why do people live along the San Andreas fault? There is also major fault line that runs through the North island of New Zealand from Auckland. Why do people live in America's mid-west where tornadoes rip through every year? Why do people live in places where the life expectancy is considerably reduced like the slums of Rio or South Central LA?
 
Hi Sungok

You have posed an interesting question. However, Earth is a living planet and is constantly on the move.

For years I lived in a Bush Fire Zone - the whole area had been incinerated back in 1962 and we had to pay a premium for insurance even 30 years later.

My business had to pay an Earthquake levy - and this was in Croydon, Victoria, but right at the end of the fault coming in from Bass Straight way down in Gippsland.

No matter where we live, we are subject to 'natural events'. We can't live our lives in fear of what might happen, when the odds on that happening are millions to one.

Australia is a termite zone, a cyclone zone, an earthquake zone, and being such a huge island, a tsunami zone.

We may as well just keep a stock of baked beans in the pantry and enjoy life while we can.

Cheers

Kristine
 
Many people hit by the tsunami did not even know what a tsunami was, or that they even existed. Apparently this was one of the biggest problems, as the drastic change in the tide attracted more people to the shore, rather than being a warning sign to run to higher ground.

Back to the original question, everyone has already said it, but there is little point living in fear.
 
There are places on the Eastern seaboard of Oz that could suffer a lot of damage from even a small tidal surge, particularly if it coincided with bigger tides or other natural events, such as a cyclone.

This is another reason why building on dunes and reclaiming the foreshore is generally a bad idea. Likewise over-development of canals can increase flooding problems.


Doubtless the Australian media will be running alarmist stories complete with artists' impressions on what could happen if a tsunami struck the East coast of Oz.
 
Hi Sungok,

Whether we like it or not, we live on a big rock hurtling through space that could be hit at any time by a another big rock...... :(

The mounting death toll from the tsunamis is hideous - there is no argument on this point. However, reading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake
the section "Casualties in a historical context" has even more frightening numbers:

The deadliest earthquakes since 1899 were the Tangshan, China, earthquake of 1976, in which at least 255,000 were killed (estimates for this earthquake are as high as 650,000)

Imagine over half a million people getting wiped out.... I can't. it's beyond my comprehension.

However, it is not just natural disasters. Look at the annual road fatalities in the USA - 41,471 lives lost in the year 1998 :eek:

Wherever you are, there is risk.

Cheers,

The Y-man
 
The Y-man said:
However, it is not just natural disasters. Look at the annual road fatalities in the USA - 41,471 lives lost in the year 1998 :eek:
On this point, India has 85,000 fatalities and 1.3 million people crippled for life on their roads - each and every year.

A large number of these deaths and injuries are related to two-wheeler accidents - 5x the number as for four wheelers.

Most two wheeler injuries are due to the pillion rider being thrown off whilst not wearing a helmet. Helmets are mandatory under Indian law.

By my figuring that would be between 35,000 and 65,000 deaths and 540,000 and 1 million crippling injuries that are easily and directly preventable each year.

REF: http://www.rediff.com/news/2004/jan/03road.htm

Cheers,

Aceyducey
 
Last edited:
Make it liveable

Sungok's query is would we live in a tsunami prone area.

My answer is 'yes' provided precautions are made. Governments esp the Oz govt are talking of putting in a regional tsunami warning system. That should have given enough warning to some countries like Sri Lanka where the biggest tsunami took about 2 hours to reach the country. Apparently, the largest tsunami this time round was about 16 m high, so if you build on higher ground and raised flooring to that level it would have minimised damage and increase safety of not being washed away. I could see many coconut trees are still standing on the beaches devasted by the tsunami so building of this structural strength cannot be too difficult to build.

As usual, the wherewithals of money and technology can make a pretty tough environment into a hospital place. :)
 
OK,

I'm an optimist by nature, but let's talk realistically about a tsunami warning system...

1) We can detect tsunamis at an early stage with around 40% accuracy within two hours of analysis with current technologies (if they were implemented). (yes I've done some research on the topic)

Let's assume that in the next few years we can raise this to 80% within one hour.

2) Once the tsunami is detected and confirmed the regional warning system has to contact the appropriate people responsible for each area likely to be affected. Let's say it takes 30 minutes to reach these people and notify them of the tsunami....of course this assumes there are no hold-ups, no-one crucial is away and telecommunications systems work to 1st world levels.

3) The people responsible have to get the message out to emergency services, inhabitants & tourists. Within 30 minutes with a perfect organisation they can get the word to radio stations & TV stations and onto the air. Within an hour they can have all the emergency services in position on stand-by - assuming again no delays, first world communications standards, that everyone understands it's not a hoax, etc.

Thus within only two hours of a disaster we have broadcasts going out notifying people in affected areas what is happening and within 2.5 hours emergency services can start co-ordinating evacuations.....

Not too bad as a best case....realistically considering breakdowns in systems it would take 4-5 hours to get warnings out, and some governments would not issue warnings at all, but let's stick to this best case.

NOW

4) How long does it take to evacuate people from affected areas?

The US stopped gaming large area evacuations in the 1960s because it was realised that there was no effective way to evacuiate a reasonably-sized area in under a week - and you can only do that with 4 weeks preparation.

Also evacuations (according to US military gaming) had the potential to cause higher casualties as people funnel into areas where it is more dangerous while leaving the area, plus possibilities of riots and other unpleasant events.

So in the absolute best case, I can't see there be an effective way to warn people about tsunamis for anyone living within 4 hours of the tsunami's origin.

For greater distances the warning may potentially increase the death toll due to panic, confusion, traffic jams & people filtering through areas which may take more damage than if they remained at home.

So is having a tsunami warning system about feeling we're doing something or does it actually provide value?

I'm sceptical about a tsunami warning system. I'd like to see the money dedicated to problems with clearer solutions.

Cheers,

Aceyducey
 
Asia tsunami warning system feasible

Aceyducey said:
So is having a tsunami warning system about feeling we're doing something or does it actually provide value?

I guess if rich nations have them, they probably do provide some sort of value even if they cost $250,000 each.

This was published by Reuters on 27/12/04:

Asia tsunami warning system feasible

The major obstacles to creating an early-warning system that could have saved many victims of Asia's massive tsunami are not money and technology, but poverty and political and cultural division besetting the region it hit, experts and officials said Monday.

The wall of water that killed more than 23,300 people in coastal villages in Indonesia, Thailand, India, Malaysia and Sri Lanka was tracked by U.S. seismologists who said they had no way to warn local governments of the danger.

The tsunami was spawned by the most powerful earthquake in 40 years, which struck off the Indonesian coast an hour before the tsunami made landfall on Sunday. U.S. officials tried frantically to warn the deadly wall of water was coming, but there was no official alert system in the region.

Six "tsunameters" along the Pacific coastline, one near Chile and 14 off the Japanese coast now feed data to the U.S. Pacific Tsunami Warning Centers in Hawaii and Alaska.

Scientists wanted to place two more of the tsunami meters in the Indian Ocean, including one near Indonesia, as part of a global warning system, but the plan has not been funded, said Eddie Bernard, director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle.

The tsunameters each cost $250,000 and take about a month to build, Bernard said. "It has been vetted through a (United Nations commission) and they support it but there's always a delay between proposal writing and deployment of the funds."

Jan Egeland, who heads the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, told a news conference that disaster preparation activities in the Indian Ocean area have focused on monsoons, which are common and can be devastating. Tsunamis typically occur in the area once a century, he said.

He said a warning system should be looked into. "I think it would be a massive undertaking to actually have a full-fledged tsunami warning system that would really be effective in many of these places," he said.

Hilton Root, a Milken Institute senior fellow and a former U.S. representative to the Asian Development Bank, said poverty and instability in the hardest-hit nations could be the biggest barrier to implementing the most crucial aspect of an early-warning system: moving people away from danger.

"These are countries that really don't get along, are at different stages of development and don't trust each other for political reasons," Root said. "They are just beginning to bring down trade barriers so it's an area where the political tension is easily aroused and cooperation never been easy."

But the tsunami's extraordinary toll may be "a wake-up call to these people that they need to think about regional risks and start doing something about it," Root said.

By contrast, the rich nations of the Pacific rim already have extensive, high-tech warning systems in place.

Japan, for instance, has a network of sensors that record seismic data and feed information to a national agency able to issue evacuations warnings within minutes of any quake.

And an earthquake off the California coast would have triggered instant warnings to federal and state agencies via dedicated hotlines, and to the public via emergency broadcasts, said Paul Whitmore, director of the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Alaska.

California also recently launched an electronic system that alerts citizens and emergency workers via e-mail and pager, said Sheryl Tankersley of the state Office of Emergency Services.

"We do have a robust system here in California," Tankersley said. "We like to say it's the best in the nation, if not the world. But it's all based on neighbor helping neighbor. Cooperation is essential."
 
Sungok

The main problems in Australia come from cyclones - damage from high winds and flooding. In Oz, relatively few lives are lost from these events and we have less dense populations. I think 100 lives were lost in one cyclone, but the loss of one life is tragic.

In Australia, building the right buildings in the right areas substantially treats the risks and you can still enjoy the delights of being on the coast. :)

But developers have been permitted to build on low areas - swamps, fresh and salt water marshes, creek and river overflow/break-out areas. Also on sandspits, dunes, tidal areas and the like. :(

The action you can take is to examine the 1:100 year flood plain maps and the tidal surge maps available from City Councils and State Govts. For example, pick a few postcodes (say) 4507, 4211, 4218 and see if any rate a mention. If so around 1.7 tropical cyclones pass near SEQld each year (BoM stats).

Check that a decent builder built the house and preferably, that it was not built during a boom :p

Include these actions in your due diligence and you should be OK.

Hope this helps.
LPlate
 
I have often wondered about waterfront coastal properties. What happens if the sea permanently claims your house and land? What if it was previously attracting land tax? Do you just vanquish your house and land and spend lots more $ trying to convince the land tax office that your property no longer exists, or does land get taxed even if it is underwater?
 
Lplate said:
But developers have been permitted to build on low areas - swamps, fresh and salt water marshes, creek and river overflow/break-out areas. Also on sandspits, dunes, tidal areas and the like. :(
Sadly, these areas are our most valuable, ecologically speaking, but the cheapest for developers to buy so that is where BIG developments occur. And they get canals and sea views.:mad: Bloody shame!!!

Thommo
 
Having watched a doco on tsunamis tonight it would seem that most of this thread revolves around earthquake produced tsunamis when landslide produced tsunamis are worse and can't be predicted ergo forget the early warning signs. Earthquakes usually cause a split with one side rising higher than the other by around 10 metres. The height of the rise is usually the height of the wave caused and a 10 metre wave is pretty destructive!

Imagine the size of the wave if a HUGE chunk of land slipped into the sea!

Geologists having researched the entire world for likely spots that this will happen have chosen the island of La Palma, in the Canary Islands off the coast of North Africa as the most likely place and it can happen anytime from now. It's a definite - it's going to happen - it's just a matter of when. The island is made up of 2 volcanos - 1 active and 1 inactive and there is a massive fault line running about 20kms across the island. They explored the inactive volcano to discover clues as to the cause and found that volcanos hold a lot of water that is trapped in 'dams' made from the vertical columns of hardened lava from previous eruptions. With heat, water expands, breaks through the 'dam walls' and chunks of the volcano slide/fall off.

The show showed simulated lab tests and even using conservative figures predicted a 30 mile wide wave, 650 metres high and travelling at around 720mph which would reach the east coast of America within 5 hours and travel about 20kms inland along the entire coastline.

You can read more on it here -
http://www.benfieldhrc.org/SiteRoot...ings/Insurance Day/why_the_only_certainty.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/mega_tsunami.shtml
http://armageddononline.tripod.com/tsunamis.htm

I know we take our lives in our hands every day and just about every country in the world COULD have an earthquake or volcano eruption or tornado etc, but we go about our daily business in ignorant bliss. But when they say a huge chunk of an island will DEFINITELY slide off and cause a MASSIVE tsunami that WILL wipe out the east coast of America, and it could happen at any moment, then to answer Sungok - I would not live on the east coast of America.

Cheers
Olly
 
Blitzkrieg said:
Tsunami? What ever happened to a good ol'fashioned "tidal wave"?

Just a Blitzkrieg musing......
I learnt "tidal wave" at school many years ago. I vaguely remember hearing some years later that this term was incorrect- the term "tsunami" came in some years later (apparently Japanese for "harbour wave")- but never became really well known- until now.

I found it quite disturbing that the article in Wikipedia on tsunamis was briefly replaced by a racist message.
 
Back
Top