US (NOAA) now claims foreknowledge of tsunami.....

[ChairOne]

Their answer to the "well why the fuck didn't you tell anybody?" question comes in 4 parts:

(1) We didn't know who to tell.

(2) We told people. Dunno what they did with the info.

(3) We were scared about it being an expensive false alarm.

(4) Given the time it takes to evacuate, the warning wouldn't have done any good.

But at least we knew! 44,000 dead? Bah! USA! USA! USA!

And I just *love* the fatalistic attitudes they're copping:

"Even if you give the tourist resorts in Thailand a half-hour's notice, it is no easy matter to evacuate vast swaths of coastland," he says. "You have to plan and train people. And then do it all over again."

Properly motivated, I could run 5 miles in 30 minutes. And then climb the stairs of the largest nearby building.

Just wait - pretty soon they'll be saying it was god's will.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=676&e=14&u=/usatoday/20041228/ts_usatoday/scientistsinusasawtsunamicoming

[Squatch]

1. It seems like they acted properly.

[ChairOne]

3. You and I see differently then.....

I see a bunch of incompatible excuses for general inaction. Of almost the 9/11 variety...

[Squatch]

6. I see this as one more attempt to heap blame

on the US's lap.

[SaveElmer]

10. Exactly what should they have done ?

That they didn't do !

[nascarblue]

57. They haven't done anything yet.

Aid hasn't even arrived yet! Reporters are there before the UN or the Red Cross. Republicans are too busy bashing the UN for making a comment about Bush being so stingy. Scarborough Country just spent the 1st half hour bashing the UN instead of focusing on 60,000 dead.

[SaveElmer]

62. Aid is not the NOAA...

I agree Bush has comletely dropped the ball on aid...but that has nothing to do with the NOAA response.

[rman]

30. but how did they act?

they themselves don't seem to be sure wether or not they told anyone.

so how can you say they acted properly?

[Darranar]

2. Blatant incompetence. This kind of thing needs to be...

improved a lot, to avert similar catastrophes.

[Squatch]

5. Agreed. Incompetence on the part of the in situ

Sri Lankan, etc. government organizations, not NOAA.

[Darranar]

11. I do not know exactly what they could have done...

so I am not going to place blame on anyone. But it's outrageous that people had foreknowledge and this foreknowledge didn't make much of a difference. Somewhere around the line, mistakes were made, and for the sake of the tens of thousands who may die the next time, that sort of thing should be prevented.

[Squatch]

12. Agreed

But I do not believe those mistakes were made in this country or by it's research organizations.

[SaveElmer]

16. Look to India, Sri Lanka and the other countries

If you wish to place blame. This was their resposibility. If they had asked the U.S. for help with this I am sure we would have given it.

I expect they will step up and correct this now

[shawcomm]

17. Blatant incompetence?

A quake that big isn't going to be averted, and anyone who lives on a coast near it when such a thing happens is going to be in trouble. How does an act of nature and poor planning by governments other than the U.S. equate to blatent incompetence by the NOAA?

[Darranar]

27. Somewhere along the line there WAS incompetence...

because nothing substantial was done, despite the fact that there was foreknowledge of the disaster.

[SaveElmer]

4. They did what they could

Hard to see anything else they could have done in that short of a time. I think your sarcasm is misplaced!

[Squatch]

7. Agreed 150%

[ChairOne]

22. Hmmm... dunno which branch here to respond to....

lol - they're all the same, so maybe it doesn't matter so much...

Folks, they gave 4 explanations, which incompatible as a whole. Three of them are explanations of why they didn't tell anybody ( (1), (3), (4) ).

Are you asking me to believe that NOAA *really* couldn't find anybody to tell? That's incompetence and/or apathy.

Are you asking me to accept a cost/benefit analysis of the form $X vs 50,000 lives? That's sociopathic.

Are you asking me to believe that a warning would've done no good? That's pessimistic and fatalistic. *Even if* that were true - and I gave good reason to believe it isn't - *at least* give the poor schmucks a fighting chance for fuck's sakes...

They also gave explanation (2), which directly contradicts the other explanations. (2) explains why "nothing was done" by passing the buck.

This explanation takes the form: "We warned them as strongly as possiblethat a tsunami with the potential to kill tens of thousands of people was coming, and they didn't see fit to do anything about it". Such a scenario strikes me as implausible. But it may be true, I suppose...

Relevant questions:

(a) Were any US government officials caught in the tsunami? If not, did they happen to change their locations just prior to its arrival?

(b) Back stateside, did NOAA, or any other governement agency put anything out (web, shortwave, etc.) prior to the tsunami's hitting?

(c) ? Any other relevant questions...

Is the US to blame for the tsunami's existence? Of course not - that's stupid. Did the US do all it could to warn people of the the potential danger? Possibly, but I think this article calls that into doubt.

[Mistress Quickly]

8. Maybe those governments

should spend more on such things as the monitoring equipment, and less on such things as (in India's case) nuclear weaponry.

The fault lies with those governments, not the NOAA.

[Squatch]

9. It's not NOAA's responsibility to

"plan and train" the populations of foreign countries.

The blame for inaction lies squarely with those governments' incompetence.

[Bridget Burke]

21. Did NOAA truly do everything it could?

If all authorities were notified & the authorities did nothing--yes, there's the blame.

But it appears that NOAA was concerned with "expensive false alarms" & dithered about administrative bullshit while the clock was running. Let's see some evidence that they did jack shit to warn anybody.

[ChairOne]

23. Wow - took me 10x as many words to say the same damn thing...

LOL

[flygal]

46. IMHO I believe the * admin wants to get rid of NOAA

I know someone with NOAA and since * is in office he has feared for his job. They have whole paragraphs deleted from reports and he has received written warnings for using the term "global warming". I just have to wonder if this is going to be used against them for more cuts.

[Squatch]

47. I hope not...I plan on working for them once done with my PhD

[SariesNightly]

13. Preventing prevention.

They should invent a phrase for this. It's the exact opposite of shouting fire in a crowded movie theater.

[xultar]

14. If the Asian Governments didn't put a notice on the TeeV and radio

then they are to blame.
How could NOAA put warnings on Asian TeeV & Radio stations?

[ChairOne]

24. Au contraire...

Seems to me that the relevant govts not putting warnings on the air is more likely evidence that THEY WEREN'T TOLD.

[Squatch]

28. So, they have to be told to act?

They have to rely on information from other countries before they act?

And, Indonesian government officials were warned:

""We put out a bulletin within 20 minutes, technically as fast as we could do it," says Jeff LaDouce of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. LaDouce says e-mails were dispatched to Indonesian officials, but he doesn't know what happened to the information."

That is a goverment that has not done all it can to protect its citizens.

[ChairOne]

34. Fine... if you're ok with just *ignoring* the other explanations....

... NOAA gave, which were explanations of why they *didn't* tell anybody....

If see that one explanation, and only that explanation, and nothing else, then I'm down with your conclusion. The article I read gave more explanations, and they were incompatible.

[Squatch]

38. I will concede one point

and one point only...LOL

NOAA, FEMA, USGS should have an SOP (like a list of peoples' names, offices, organizations) for contacting foreign governments to effect disaster mitigation.

I bet they will after this.

[ChairOne]

40. lol - the "email" thing gotcha a bit? /eom

[Squatch]

41. Well, sorta.

Just saying "I didn't know who to call" seemed like something they could have figured out a long long time ago and for about $20 bucks.

[ChairOne]

43. Fair 'nuff.... lol - to add insult to injury....

... considering the standing of the US in the world now, those emails probably got routed to their spam folder...

[Squatch]

44. I can see it now...

Foreign government employee's office: (fade through black)

"Hmm...Hot cheating Housewives...nah...delete
Cialis increase penis size...maybe later...delete
Tsunami coming! head for the hills...yeah, right...delete
Girls next door action...sounds interesting...*click*
What the hell?..."

(sound of very close surf)
(Fade to black)

[ChairOne]

45. That's soooo wrong.....

rofl

[Squatch]

29. Dupe...sorry

[xultar]

35. Well I get it now. NOAA sent an effin EMAIL WTF IS THAT you don't

send a warning of that MAGNITUDE in an EFFIN EMAIL!!!

They are supposed to get on the effin PHONE and CALL a mofo.

That is incompetence @ the HIGHEST ORDER!

[ChairOne]

36. Good catch /eom

[SoCalDem]

48. I am no expert on Tsunamis, and even I know

that whenever a large earthquake happens, ANY coastal area touching the body of water affected CAN be in danger..

The coastal areas surely have TV, and even as lousy as CNN is these days, they DID report on the earthquake, so people living near the coast "should" have taken it upon themselves to spread the word. It's sad that they did not, but the "National" part of NOAA refers to the US.. It's not the INTERnational OAA..

I doubt that NOAA could be faulted for not issuing alerts on SriLankan TV stations..

The US (and other developed nations) COULD be faulted for waiting for such an event to occur, before they pressed "coastal" nations to inform their complacent populations about the possible dangers..but that should have been done YEARS ago..

People who live on coasts should always be aware of the possibilities, but it's easy to become mesmerized by the beauty of coastal living.

Florida proves this point.. People pay MILLIONS of dollars to live by a dangerous coastline, and yearly they are reminded of the price they may soomeday pay for their "pleasures"..

[itzamirakul]

15. Well, maybe now, some big corporations can move in and

take over those seaside villages and fishing towns - now that GOD has cleared them of the native people. Build som resorts and casinos, etc. Much better and more profitable than trying to help them.

I understand that delivery of fresh water is so slow that people are drinking from the contaminated sea and digging burial holes with their bare hands.

Whatever happened to emergency drops of supplies and equipment?

Oh, that's right...everything has to be used to fight this unnecessary, criminal war in Iraq to save us from the terrorists.

Sleep well, George Bush.

On edit:

Oh, and btw...how the hell long does it take to tell people to 'RUN! DAMMIT! RUN FOR HIGHER GROUND!"

[firebee]

42. Where the heck do you think all our IT jobs went...

We already took over those seaside villages and fishing towns. This could be a good thing for India, Malaysia and Indonesia because the U.S. corporations may abandon the reconstruction of their factories. The problems with transportation, power and production may be a bigger headache than what it's worth to these corporations. In return, due to international aid, these countries may charter their own corporations and tell the U.S. corporations to f#<k off. Considering that Bush's family and associates invested about 70% of the money that founded India's IT industry, I see this as a good thing in the long run. The people will recover, but Bush's puppet corporations are going to take huge losses.

[itzamirakul]

54. I was just being sarcastic in response to another post...

I think someone had posted that Bush's inauguration was costing 40 million but all we were offering the victims was 15 million. Now I understand that we are giving them a 35 million dollar credit line.Whatever...we can be sure that if there is a possible dime to be made in profit from this tragedy, the moneyhawks will be on it tooth and nail.

I can't agree that this terrible devastation is in anyway a good thing.

I think a lot of our jobs DID go to India, but i am not sure about any of them going to the other little countries. None of them seemed very advanced for more than the tourist industry, and fishing which of course, as you point out, they did not own.

[opihimoimoi]

18. If there isn't, there should be, a RED HOT LINE to each nations

E people, The Emergency Crew. They could get the warning from whoever, in this case NOAA, and sound the alarm. A 1 minute warning is a 1 minute warning. Not all lives will be saved but it will make a difference to those hearing and reacting. A ten minute warning of course is better. Better odds.

And I realize the vast majority of the lives were lost resulted in areas where warning devices are sparse if not non existant.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

19. The CIA has been expirimenting with tsunami-control devices for years

looks like they made one work.

[Squatch]

20. LOL

:freak:

[Blue Wally]

31. Probably for the oil.

All planned by the PNAC, BFEE, and Goss-CIA. The tipping of the earth's crust will allow the middle east oil to flow under Sri Lanka. Exxon can then drill for oil in a depopulated Sri lanka and steal all of the Arab oli reserves.

[SeveneightyWhoa]

53. LMAO

Yup, that about sums it up!

[sybylla]

25. CBC/NWI coverage yesterday morning said there was no warning system

in place in these countries for tsunamis in part because these are largely ill-equipped for such a task and because tsunamis are such a rare occurrence. They said that officials in several of the governments involved had warning of the events about to strike. But as there was no public warning system in place, I will be fair and assume that there was little they could do to evacuate an entire coastline until more information is available.

I'm sure as time passes and more is known about the events that took place between the time of the earthquake and the time of tsunamis, pointing fingers will become a more accurate past time.

Regardless, the US does not have a monopoly on geo-technology and to blame the death toll entirely on some percieved failure of the US government to notify the countries in the tsunami's wake seems a bit over the top.

[Squatch]

32. I saw news footage of a helicopter flying over an island in the

Maldives, after the tsunami had struck.

The public announcement went out over the airwaves right at that instant.

[sybylla]

37. My mistake, You said they got the warning out after the tsunami struck

So I'm editing my response.

The Maldives are quite isolated and I'm not surprised they didn't get a warning until after the tsunami hit. They weren't that far from the epicenter and tsunamis move fast.

Regardless, it seems that these countries were not prepared for a tsunami and were essentially helpless when it came to providing sufficient protections to their people. In the case of the Maldives, a cnain of small islands with its highest point at three meters above sea level, they needed more than a public warning system. They needed an evacuation plan. A hotline from the US would have made no difference even if we were the only source of information on tsunamis on the planet.

[Squatch]

39. I guess my point was that the warning came after the fact.

[KharmaTrain]

26. Reality Check

Yes, many of these poor nations could have warned their people better, but the speed of events and the scope of the wave would have led to massive destruction no matter what. I wish we had more geologists explain what's going on rather than self-appointed experts who two weeks ago were analyizing Scott Peterson.

There was really no way to know how forceful the wave would be when it hit Sri Lanka or Thailand until it was minutes from the shore. Even our greatest satellites can't determine the force...and how much surge would be behind it...there's too little past history and this event covers too many geological variables.

It's interesting how little reference has been made to a similar incident in 1960...an earthquake in the Pacific off Chile that resulted in a wave that all but wiped out Hilo, Hawaii. Being on an island or coastal plane doesn't give one much place to hide when a 10 or 30 foot surge suddenly comes ashore.

A Tsunami or wave of this sort is a rare instance and one that geologists can now study to establish a model in which future incidents and reactions can be gauged. It's sad about all the loss of life and that some could have been prevented with better warnings and communications, but to put on tin foil hats here is just as absurd as the wingnuts chimping about this being some kinda divine retribution against the "moslims".

[rman]

33. earthquake at sea = tsunami, big quake = big tsunami

even if you don't know exactly how big it is.

surely a warning would have saved lives.
even if you don't know exactly how many lives it would have saved.

[Serial Mom]

50. I agree, any warning is better than none

The tsunami traveled at approx. 500 mph - Sri Lanka was 3,000 miles away from the epi-center of the quake, that equates to at least 5-6 hours warning.

[Liberty Belle]

55. In Homer, Alaska, they have tsunami warning sirens

and signs warning that if you hear the siren or feel an earthquake, get off the spit and onto high ground on the mainland as fast as you can.

[Walt Starr]

49. The lesson from this is they need the warning buoys in ALL oceans

Think about the effect of a similar situation where a 9.1 hits the Azores! The East Coast would be devestated.

[Javaman]

51. AKA "they were going to die anyway, so fuck'em!"

God I hate all those that serve for this moronic admin.

[eyepaddle]

52. Wow, the DU is awash in geologically relevant threads today,

You'd think I'd be as happy as a pig in .....! This post may seem a little esoteric, but it should touch on several relevant issues.

First, studying geology is in many ways a study of cataclysmic natural disasters--why do I bring that up? Mainly because it indicates that there are a lot of natural disasters--many of which gave some indication beforehand. Why wasn't there a warning, or perhaps a more forceful one? The cost of a false alarm isn't trivial, this is why these agencies take so much flak when they get it wrong, however the main danger is the "boy who cried wolf" syndrome. Too many false alarms and people stop believing you. Look into the Mt. Pinatubo eruption to see how close this can come, people were already starting to trickle back home when the mountain decided to blow. If Pinatubo had gone off a few days later thousands more would've died. That is a rare geo-prediction that went right. The Chinese have actually had the best luck in forecasting earthquakes, but that in large part is due to the fact that when they tell you to evacuate, you DO. YOur belief is not required. For a non-authoritarian example look to volcanic prediction in Latin America.

I haven't seen the recent numbers but even with all of our best stuff monitoring for places like Hawaii they still get it wrong most of the time. With no bouys to go by just relying o a computer model, well.....

I am now gonna take the opportunity to get on a soapbox. Carl Sagan talked frequently about the dangers to society when only a few truly understand science--sort of a high priesthood. This is a situation where many can easily be led disastrously astray. I've seen a lot of this in a couple of recent threads--people are curious and questioning, but alas far out of their depth. When obtaining a proper science education you are not just fed a line and told to swallow it, you are also shown the process by which the current postition is arrived at. Disagreements are common, and often fairly bitter--sometimes even petty, but in no way does this mean ANY interpretation is equally valid. After the wrangling plays itself out science moves forward and adresses new points--this is how we advance knowledge. If anybody just wanders up, looks at a couple of pictures and sticks their oar in we're gonna wind up plowing the same row over and over again.

Am I saying "take my word for it?" No. I'm saying take the time, get the background, ask questions and be prepared to defend you results.

Thank you.

[rman]

56. this isn't about predicting the quake but the tsunami

isn't it a given that a quake at sea causes a tsunami?

if so then there's no "boy who cried wolf" problem here.

[Squatch]

58. The actual earthquake is only a minor contributor to

the formation of a tsunami wave train. Slumping, uplift, or other rapid vertical movements of large quantities of sediment, rock, etc are what give tsunamis their destructive energy.

[eyepaddle]

61. Not all undersea earthquakes

cause tsunamis--and there have been tsunami false alarms. The yahoo piece mentioned one for Hawaii and stated a cost figure of 30 million dollars.

I merely used earthquakes and volcanology to illustrate a point. In a nutshell, people don't generally want to drop everything and flee their homes or jobs, of you make them and nothing bad happens they won't believe you and become even less likely to flee.

[ThoughtCriminal]

59. Just a thought

Hypothetically, lets say that someone in the NOAA starts calling luxury hotels in SE Asia. Possibly a handful (relative to the total losses) of mostly wealthy tourists are saved, but very few locals.

How do you think the press in the region might play this?

[Squatch]

60. I kinda asked that same question here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2876361