Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

One more dumb question regarding the earthquake in Asia...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Science Donate to DU
 
lindashaw Donating Member (921 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 07:37 AM
Original message
One more dumb question regarding the earthquake in Asia...
Since we know that the atmosphere has become contaminated by all the atomic testing, space stuff, electronic stuff, earth pollutants, etc., is it logical to wonder if:

Perhaps the "bones" of our earth where this earthquake spawned have also been affected?

You know, we've exploded many millions of tons of ordinance upon this poor planet. All that "shock and awe" stuff we've just dumped onto the Asian part of this earth -- could we have fractured something? Perhaps the earth was just reacting to something that man has done to injure it. The earth is organic, you know. It can be hurt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tx_dem41 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 07:40 AM
Response to Original message
1. Earthquakes have been happening since the beginning of time....
How would you explain them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alexwcovington Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 07:43 AM
Response to Original message
2. Wow
Not to make fun, as I'm sure it's not a unique misconception... but the reality is simple plate tectonics. The entire Pacific Ocean is slowly but surely closing in on itself. What happened is that the floor of the Indian Ocean slid over part of the Pacfic Ocean, releasing massive tension in the Earth's crust.

That's it. No mystic injury to the Gaia spirit or anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0007 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #2
58. True and maybe this was just a baby bump. Perhaps the next
shift of the plates will be a bigger one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Art_from_Ark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #2
59. Actually, the Pacific Ocean wasn't involved
According to the US Geological Survey, the epicenter was on the interface between the India and Burma plates. The India Plate does not come into contact with the Pacific Plate.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqinthenews/2004/usslav /

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
livvy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 07:50 AM
Response to Original message
3. Links for informational purposes.
Edited on Wed Dec-29-04 07:53 AM by livvy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
livvy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #3
18. I don't think your question was dumb either.
The links above should help explain the earth's plates, how they move, etc. An earthquake is a sudden shift in the plates. If it occurs under water, it can result in tsunamis. All that released energy from the shift really stirs up the "ocean pot". Hope the info helps. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yardwork Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 08:03 AM
Response to Original message
4. Earthquakes and tsunamis are a natural part of Earth's life
If we need to point a finger of blame, we could point it toward dense human development along the shorelines of the world. Earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, and floods are predictable parts of life on Earth.

Should we be spending hundreds of billions of dollars waging war, or could that money be better spent on safer housing for people?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mhr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 08:09 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Ah, Grasshopper But That Would Require Foresight And Planning
Do we know that those human qualities are abundantly evident in our fellow man?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bones_7672 Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 08:07 AM
Response to Original message
5. I agree: it's a dumb question. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JanMichael Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 08:10 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Could you possibly try to be more rude
next time?

Stephanie
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bones_7672 Donating Member (558 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 08:18 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Hey, just agreeing!! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #7
9. Yes, he can.
Check out his other messages!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 04:37 PM
Response to Reply #5
33. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
10. Not a dumb question at all.
But fortunately the forces involved in earthquakes & volcanoes are much, much stronger than anything we have been able to muster. I think I heard the Asia quake had the equivalent of thousands of atomic bombs. I don't think we could cause a quake intentionally, let alone unintentionally.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickofTime Donating Member (102 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #10
20. Men Have Caused Earthquakes
Here's a document that discusses man-made earthquakes. Note that two different mechanisms are described.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WoodrowFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #20
27. link
Edited on Wed Dec-29-04 12:34 PM by WoodrowFan
the link in your post doesn't work. This one should.

http://www.seismosoc.org/publications/SRL/SRL_73/srl_73...

FYI, this is an opinion piece, not peer-reviewed and the examples given were not nearly as powerful as the earthquake we just saw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
satori Donating Member (198 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #27
34. The scientific community won't touch the topic because of fear
Edited on Wed Dec-29-04 06:11 PM by satori
The reason why it has not been scientifically discussed by the powers that be in the science community in science journals or research is because the science community won't touch the topic with 10 foot pole even if it is a genuine question to ask. Why? Well I think the opinion piece says it best:

Finally, let's face it: Fear of liability and bad publicity by those who trigger earthquakes is hindering research in anthropogenic earthquakes. Ashtabula, Ohio offers a sad example.

And my opinion:

This is a problem that has been going on for more then 60 years. See Ralph Lapps book Kill and Overkill, he discusses in that book and others he wrote how the scientific community starting in the 1940s was taken over by the military. They (the military)would define what they research and where after scientists starting protesting the dangers of the Atomic and Neutron Bombs saying that the bombs should be disarmed. Ralph Lapp was one of the original scientists who helped create atomic weapons from the early days of the Manhattan Project but he got fired because his opinions upset the military.

In short most modern day scientists wont touch the topic as well for fear of losing their corporate welfare jobs in the science community.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trotsky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #20
29. Very interesting.
Any idea why that's only under an "Opinion" section of the journal? Are there any peer-reviewed articles about the subject?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #20
31. The Phenomenon Described, Sir
Bears no relation, even in the mind of the author of the piece you cite, to events of the sort recently occuting off Sumatra. The scale o f these man made events is trifling in comparison, and can only remain so, given the amount of energy involved in larger quakes. A level five Richter event is only one ten thousandth the strength of a level nine Richter event; a level four Richter event is only one hundred thousandth the stength of a level nine Richter event.

There are, every day, literally thousands of earthquakes detectable by instrumentation. There are each year roughly a thousand such occurances of sufficient power to be capable of doing damage to human habitation, and of these, more than a hundred are capable of oing severe damage. The great preponderance of these, of course, occu in areas where they do not actually do such harm, since the greatest proportion of the globe remains uninhabited. Thus, people easily get the idea earthquakes are rare, but that is far from the case.

Humanity is utterly incapable of effecting the movement of tectonic plats, and their interaction at their junctures: humanity cannot marshal anything like the energies necessary to do so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacifictiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #20
49. yes, small man made earthquakes have
occurred, but nothing remotely approaching this magnitude
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 08:33 AM
Response to Original message
11. Unmentioned, but there is also
The stress caused by our rather large moon orbiting this unstable wet rock.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickofTime Donating Member (102 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 09:01 AM
Response to Original message
12. Tsunami's Related to Global Warming
All of the injuries done to our planet are interrelated, see this Reuters report linking pollution, tsunami's, and global warming. Those Right-wing Republican religious nuts with three or four children in an SUV are killing people daily. All of the pollution eventually sinks into the ground, & rots away the "bones" holding our planet together, and causes earthquakes.

They are happening after Xmas, when the pollution from the fever of driving around in SUV's to buy presents and burning extra energy in Xmas displays for crass commercial (Republican) propaganda is at its worst. See this article about the December 26, 2003 Bam earthquake. The Sumatra earthquake that happened December 26, 2004 is related to the tsunami and must be related to destroying the earth.

None of this would have happened if Al Gore had been elected in 2000, as the USA would have implemented the Kyoto Treaty.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WoodrowFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 09:06 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. did you actually READ the article you linked to..
The Tsunami was NOT "related" to the earthquake. :eyes: The article says rising sea levels and the decline of reefs will make more coast,lines vulnerable to such events in the future. There's no cause and effect between global warming and earthquakes and the suggestion that there is only makes me wonder if you EVER took a science class (and passed0>

sheesh
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickofTime Donating Member (102 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 11:52 AM
Response to Reply #13
19. The Tsunami was NOT "related" to the earthquake?
Edited on Wed Dec-29-04 11:56 AM by NickofTime
Of course it was, the earthquake in Sumatra happened first, then the tsunami. The sequence of events makes the relationship obvious. Global warming raises sea levels, thereby lowering land levels. Pollution causes global warming. Pollution seeps deep into the earth. How do you know it doesn't cause earthquakes, too?



This article describes how earthquakes cause clouds, and how ground water seeps into cracks caused by tiny earthquakes. Also, see this other article, which states:



"The concept that humans can cause earthquakes is more than a century old, yet it is still astonishing. Reservoir-induced earthquakes were not necessarily the first anthropogenic earthquakes, but they were widely recognized and studied in the mid-20th century because they could be explained by straightforward and physically plausible models. Perturbations of subsurface poromechanical conditions from the load of water in large reservoirs are clearly substantial, even at seismogenic depths, and were calculated to be of sufficient amplitude to cause failure on faults already loaded by tectonic stress. The important role of pore pressure and interstitial fluid flow became obvious when earthquakes were triggered by deep fluid injection near Denver, Colorado in the early 1960's. The propagation of seismicity as far as 5 km away from the well was interpreted as the effect of an expanding fluid pressure front. Injection was halted to reduce earthquake hazard, yet seismicity continued, producing the largest earthquake a year later."



Those tiny cracks are the shattering of the bones of the Earth. As men assail our planet, it will fight back for survival.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WoodrowFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #19
25. I mistyped
I meant to say "the tsunami is not related to global warming." something I'll standby despite silly rhetoric about "the bones of the earth' and earth "fighting back."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jdj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-05 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #25
64. okay that's better.
I was about to give on on trying to follow this discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #12
32. This Is Nonesense, Sir
There is only one point involved that hs the least reality, and that is that a general rise in sea levels will tend to incrase the destructiveness of a tsunami, although in an major instance such as the recent event off Sumatra, a rise of even several inches in the general sea level would have produced only a marginal increase in the destruction caused by amplitude waves extending dozens of feet above the general sea level.

Trying to shanghai this event into service of a crusade against oversized vehicles will achieve nothing but to render persons attempting to press such an argument into figures of fun for the spectators to the debates in which they are made easily to look like extremely foolish fellows....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tacos al Carbon Donating Member (326 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #12
35. "None of this would have happened if Al Gore had been elected in 2000..."
That has GOT to be the funniest thing I've read on DU in a long, long time. Seriously, kudos!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #35
37. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Tacos al Carbon Donating Member (326 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. Oh, I think so too
But he's still really funny. Damned clever, actually. Got to give credit where credit is due.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pacifictiger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 11:06 PM
Response to Reply #12
50. I'm concerned about global warming
too - but this is just nonsense.
I always wonder how much these more way-out ideas are related to searches for funding or publicity for some intellectual's pet project!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #12
51. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
K-W Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 09:11 AM
Response to Original message
14. The earth isnt organic.
Dont generalize things like that. Any online encyclopedia can give you a good account of how earthquakes occurr. After you understand that, see if you still see a way in which human actions could influence them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickofTime Donating Member (102 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #14
22. NASA Scientists Believe in Gaia - The Living Earth
See this article, which says:



"In 1979, Lovelock wrote the book "Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth", which developed his ideas. He stated that: '... the physical and chemical condition of the surface of the Earth, of the atmosphere, and of the oceans has been and is actively made fit and comfortable by the presence of life itself. This is in contrast to the conventional wisdom which held that life adapted to the planetary conditions as it and they evolved their separate ways.'



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
idiosyncratic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #22
28. I heard an interview with Simon Winchester yesterday
He is a fantastic author (The Professor and the Madman, Krakatoa, The Day the World Exploded).

He mentioned the Gaia idea. Sounds like something to learn much more about.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-05 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #14
85. LOL actually, the earth is organic -- carbon-based
bwaaahaaahaaa!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WoodrowFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 09:12 AM
Response to Original message
15. not a dumb question
you were curious and you asked, that's cool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silverhair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
16. No.
Tectonic plates are massive beyond your imagination. Compared to them, our biggest explosives are tiny. You have a better change of bring down Devil's Tower with a firecracker than moving a T-plate with a nuke.

And no to the "corroding the bones" theory, whatever that means. The continents can be compared to pond scum on a pond. Have you ever watched such scum on a pond. Have you noticed as a small current will push one scum island against another, the two crumple together, and a wrinkle lifts up where they meet. Same thing with the T-plates, and the wrinkles are mountains. The crust of the earth floats on a molten core. It isn't supported against anything.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickofTime Donating Member (102 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #16
24. Yes or at Least Very Likely
All life, even bacteria, is interrelated, and pollution seeping deep into the Earth affects all of us profoundly. Al Gore understood this, see his book:



"The richness and diversity of our religious tradition throughout history is a spiritual resource long ignored by people of faith, who are often afraid to open their minds to teachings first offered outside their own system of belief. But the emergence of a civilization in which knowledge moves freely and almost instantaneously throughout the world has. . . spurred a renewed investigation of the wisdom distilled by all faiths. This panreligious perspective may prove especially important where our global civilization's responsibility for the earth is concerned. (pages 258-259)"


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
satori Donating Member (198 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #24
36. It was because of that book Earth in the Balance he was not Selected
Edited on Wed Dec-29-04 06:20 PM by satori
The powers that be the PNAC the military industrial complex whatever you want to call it had to overturn the election when President Gore was elected in 2000.

Gore was vice president so he probably knew exactly whom were the PNAC shadow government lobby people that happened to get jobs in the government. I'm sure he would of fired them all which would of been a major power shift in American politics even greater then the JFK era.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tacos al Carbon Donating Member (326 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. If his book hadn't sold so many copies
Edited on Wed Dec-29-04 06:28 PM by Tacos al Carbon
Less trees would have been cut down to print the book, there would have been less global warming, global warming would not have caused the earthquakes, the tsunamis would not have happened and the world would be a happy place today.

It's all Al Gore's fault. He caused the tsunamis.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silverhair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #24
45. He wasn't talking about earthquakes.
Man does not yet have the ability to push tectonic plates around, or to in any way influence their movement. The forces that drive that are many miles under the earth, beneath the crust, and (thankfully) beyond our reach.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
satori Donating Member (198 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #16
40. It is not the Nuke as an explosive power but the Nuke as a trigger?
Edited on Wed Dec-29-04 08:54 PM by satori
I am not a scientist and I only took a physics course in college, but it seems to me that the general current opinion about underground nuclear explosions causing earthquakes, is not so much the actual explosive power of the nuke that causes the earthquake but rather of the nuke setting off or triggering a chain reaction around the world of earthquakes by causing plates to shift that are already unstable by nature so that the earthquake that might go off in say 5000 years time in nature from now goes off in real time because the nuke as a trigger causes the earthquake to go off earlier in time, then it naturally would and again the Nuke shifts the hazard to an earlier time then nature had intended thus it is a man made earthquake for the following reasons quoted from the well written opinion Mechanical Pollution:

In spite of the current interest in earthquake-earthquake triggering, anthropogenic earthquakes remain largely off our profession's radar screen.

Triggering only shifts the hazard in time." When triggered, an earthquake occurs earlier than it would have naturally because a perturbation raised the stress to failure prematurely. An area undergoing industrialization may experience a burst of anthropogenic earthquakes and thus an increase in seismicity and hazard.

http://www.seismosoc.org/publications/SRL/SRL_73/srl_73...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silverhair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #40
44. That would require being able to accurately map the stresses.
After all, the nuke would have to be put in exactly the right spot, which means that you would have to know where that spot is. That is not yet within humanity ability. And the right spot may be very deep underground, or under miles of ocean and then miles of rock. You would have to go into the target area and drill a well down to the spot. I don't think an enemy would let you do that.

And you would not be able to deny it. A nuke bursting underground has a very distinct seismic signature.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
satori Donating Member (198 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 12:25 AM
Response to Reply #44
52. Some opinion articles I read have contrary opinions
Edited on Thu Dec-30-04 12:33 AM by satori
I have two opinion articles one is from Costal Post the other is from the United States Air Force (USAF) Counterproliferation Center and they seem to have contrary opinions concerning underground nuclear testing.

The costal Post article http://www.coastalpost.com/96/4/5.htm says that underground nuclear explosions can have reactions that ricochet around inside the earth which can cause hurricanes, volcanic activity, and earthquakes in all different parts of the planet.

For example, the Coastal Post:

French tests are now complete. What are the results.

After the Chinese test of August 17 and the French test of Sept. 5, there was a long series of hurricanes.

With volcanic activity, a day after the Chinese test of August 17, a dormant volcano erupted on Montserrat in the Caribbean.

May 17, the Chinese test registered 6.1 ground zero, 16 hours later there was a 7.7 quake in the Indonesian triangle. Fourteen hours later there was a 6.5 aftershock.

And the United States Air Force (USAF) published The Counter proliferation Papers in 1999 saying that Top Secret underground Nuclear testing in a hollowed out cavern is difficult to detect and that a distinct seismic signature is difficult to detect.

September 1999
Warner D. Farr, LTC, U.S. Army
The Counterproliferation Papers
Future Warfare Series No. 2
USAF Counterproliferation Center
Air War College
Air University
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama

Underground testing in a hollowed out cavern is difficult to detect. A West Germany Army Magazine, Wehrtechnik, in June 1976, claimed that Western reports documented a 1963 underground test in the Negev. Other reports show a test at Al-Naqab, Negev in October 1966.83

A bright flash in the south Indian Ocean, observed by an American satellite on 22 September 1979, is widely believed to be a South Africa-Israel joint nuclear test. It was, according to some, the third test of a neutron bomb. The first two were hidden in clouds to fool the satellite and the third was an accidentthe weather cleared.84

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cpc-pubs/farr.htm


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silverhair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #52
55. Proximity in time is NOT proof of cause & effect.
The earth is constantly shaking. After any event, (Lets use the Miss America Pagent)you can check and see that there was were earthquakes somewhere in the world the following week. Was the globe reacting to a new winner???? Even you would doubt that.

Hurricanes have different causes from earthquakes. A nuke can't cause one of those either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
satori Donating Member (198 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 02:03 PM
Response to Reply #55
61. Counterpunch-Earthquakes, Tsunamis and Nuke Testing Unnatural Disaster ?
Edited on Thu Dec-30-04 02:05 PM by satori
Counterpunch
Earthquakes, Tsunamis and Nuclear Testing
Unnatural Disaster?
December 30, 2004
By LILA RAJIVA

http://www.counterpunch.org/rajiva12302004.html

Q: What are some other disturbances that can cause tsunamis?

A: Landslides or explosions such as underwater nuclear testing.

Q: Is underwater nuclear testing common?

A: Yes, The United States has conducted 1,054 tests of nuclear devices between July 16, 1945 and September 23, 1992. Before 1962, all the tests were atmospheric (on land or in the Pacific or Atlantic oceans) but overall the majority - 839 - were underground tests. From 1966 to 1990, 167 French nuclear test explosions have been performed on two atolls in French Polynesia, Morurua and Fangataua. Of the 167 tests, 44 were atmospheric. Atmospheric explosions were carried out until 1974, but only underground tests after that. The underground tests have been conducted at the bottom of shafts bored 500-1200 meters into the basalt core of the atoll. Initially these shafts were drilled in the outer rim of the atoll. In 1981, most likely due to the weakening of that rim, the tests with higher yields were shifted to shafts drilled under the lagoon itself.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silverhair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-31-04 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. Junk science.
No matter how much you seem to want to blame humans for the earthquake, it just ain't so. The source that you quote has an agenda. Agendas make poor science. Real science has no agenda.

Might I suggest that you get a genuine serious scientific education if you are interested in that question?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karlrschneider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #40
47. This is an adaptation/embellishment on the "butterfly effect"
which is an interesting thought experiment but has no empirical basis for a theoretical proposition. Sometimes chaos is just a cigar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
evolvenow Donating Member (800 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #16
54. Not all believe the core to be molten...more recent physics claim other...
Are you aware of the amount of nuclear testing, bombing, missile testing, sonar, Haarp, scalar...that these fools are subjecting this planet to? Not to mention natural phenomenon: solar flares, gravitational pull, pole switches, magnetic anomalies, weather, etc. IMHO.

You may want to consider the synergistic effects of all of this. There is no way anyone could possibly know the quantitative outcome of even one of these events, let alone, all of them combined.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silverhair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #54
57. Yes, one can know that.
First simply calculate the angular momentum of the earth itself. That number is so amazingly high, that it becomes laughable to propose that humans can do anything about it. I'm sorry, but you simply do NOT know what you are talking about.

The natural phenomenon have been happening for billions of years, and the earth is still here, and still rotating in the same direction. Althought it has slowed some. Best estimates are that during the time of the dinosaurs the day was 22 hours long. The earth's rotation is very, very slowly slowing down due to the sun's gravity. Eventually it would stop and become gravity locked to the sun, just as the moon is to the earth. But before then the sun will become a red gaint and vaporize the earth as it swells to include the earth's orbit inside it.

Might I suggest that you get a serious genuine scientific education?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-05 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #57
72. Well said...
and good replies above too.

Thanks for adding some sanity to a place where it has been otherwise missing for the last week or so.

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theboss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
17. Or it could be plate tectonics
There have been horrifying natural disasters since man first stood upright.

The difference today is that so many people live along coasts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Desertrose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #17
21. or possibly a meteor hit....?
see link

http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index624.htm

not sure I feel this is the way it happened, but then again.... :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickofTime Donating Member (102 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 12:15 PM
Response to Reply #21
23. Real Good Link - Meteorite Impact Earthquake
Sounds reasonable to me!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jokerman93 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 12:24 PM
Response to Reply #21
26. any after shocks?
Have there been any after shocks? I don't recall reading or hearing about any, but a meteor would probably NOT have aftershocks, and an earthquake would. Anybody know?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
firebee Donating Member (260 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. 6.1 aftershock today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silverhair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #21
46. Easy answer - NO. Laws of Physics.
Remember, this earthquake was under over six miles of water. A metaor big enough to have enough kinetic energy to trigger and earthquake would be a disaster in its own right. You wouldn't be guessing if a meteor that big hit. You would KNOW it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
evolvenow Donating Member (800 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 08:53 PM
Response to Original message
41. Excellent question. Should be asked before every action...all events are
are inter-conncected.

Also have heard that melted water from snow/ice can trigger earthquakes. Imagine the weight of what must have melted in Antartica.

Also, Earth was in a very tense exact location between Sun and Moon at time of earthquake...apparently enormous gravitational pull.

Plus, all of the bombing around the world Must be impacting the planet in a large way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silverhair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #41
48. The bombing is about as signifigant as firecrackers on a mountain.
Think about how huge a tectonic plate is. And the ice melt doesn't even amount to an inch of sea level change yet. One inch on a depth of over 6 miles is not going to cause a measureable pressure change on the bottom of the ocean. In fact, there is greater local sea level change there during the El Nino cycles.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 09:18 PM
Response to Original message
42. I think we are seeing examples of scientific ignorance on this thread
Edited on Wed Dec-29-04 09:19 PM by Lydia Leftcoast
Earthquakes have happened all the time throughout history. When I lived in Oregon, the weather page of the local paper showed the most recent earthquakes on a map. Most of them were too small to be detectable, but the largest one I felt during my 19 years there was a 5.2 in 1993. We also felt the effects of the 6+ earthquake that struck Seattle a couple of years ago.

FYI, the largest earthquake ever in the continental U.S. occurred in Missouri in 1811. It was so strong that it disturbed the course of the Mississippi River. There was another biggie in Charleston S.C. in 1886.

The geological record shows evidence of a massive earthquake in the Pacific Northwest early in the eighteenth century. This matches historical records of a huge tsunami that hit Japan in January 1700.

Then there was the Lisbon, Portugal earthquake of 1776.

Medieval Japanese literature speaks of large earthquakes.

All of these were caused by a combination of atomic testing and global warming--NOT.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jesus H. Christ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-29-04 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
43. That is a dumb one.
But I don't know, maybe you're still in jr. high or something.

Anyway, I recommend picking up a book on basic geology. You can find nice ones in your school library. Or local library.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jdj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-05 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #43
65. Verily I say
thou has become a tad bitchier than thou used to be...was it the Gibson movie?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 12:53 AM
Response to Original message
53. Certainly not a dumb question....
I learned alot reading through the replies, thanks for asking it!

I'm concerned about the West Coast right now. They're getting alot of rain, the ground is very heavy, and both quakes I went through came after unusually heavy rains.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NickofTime Donating Member (102 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #53
56. Check What the NYT Thinks Before You Decide!
See Simon Winchester's Op-Ed The Year the Earth Fought Back:

"Given these cascades of disasters past and present, one can only wonder: might there be some kind of butterfly effect, latent and deadly, lying out in the seismic world? There is of course no hard scientific truth - no firm certainty that a rupture on a tectonic boundary in the western Pacific (in Honshu, say) can lead directly to a break in a boundary in the eastern Pacific (in Parkfield), or another in the eastern Indian ocean (off Sumatra, say). But anecdotally, as this year has so tragically shown, there is evidence aplenty."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WoodrowFan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-30-04 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #56
60. actually 2004
Edited on Thu Dec-30-04 10:31 AM by WoodrowFan
From what I heard on the CBS news last night (no link, sorry). 2004 was quieter than 2003 in terms of seismic activity. Maybe "Gaia" is passive-aggressive???

On edit: found some good stats here..

http://wwwneic.cr.usgs.gov/neis/eqlists/eqstats.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Silverhair Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-05 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #56
84. This only proves the the NYT can be scientifically ignorant too.
Most reporters do not have science educations and make errors when they try to cover a science story.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Baja Margie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-05 12:20 AM
Response to Original message
63. I don't think it's a dumb question.
Edited on Sat Jan-01-05 12:48 AM by Baja Margie
and who really knows? We can claim to know all the facts scientifically, and measure and calculate, not that that isn't valid, surely it is and a wonderful tool. But, I get your drift, and afterall, still scientists are worrying over cutting down the rainforests, not only on an environmental level, but losing precious basic materials that might prove to be lifesaving drug components stil yet undiscovered, and the potential for releasing viral infectants that have maybe been buried deep for eons for which there is neither resistance or vaccines. Still, debate remains over the beginnings of eboli and aids.

We have done so much damage to the environment, unbelievable. And I think natural disasters could very well be nature's way of telling us, something is wrong.

I don't think it's an impossibility, not at all.


on edit: Here's what the Hopi's think:



http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/atlas.htm


The Kogi and Maori have some good ones too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jdj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-05 12:29 AM
Response to Original message
66. The earth can kick our asses to kingdom come.
A whole lot quicker than we can "hurt" it in the way you describe.

Toba could go anyday, and our whole history, x-boxes and MTV and NASCAR and all the rest of it would be ashes in a fraction of a second.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
satori Donating Member (198 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-05 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
67. Herald Sun-Comparisons with man-made explosions draw a frightening picture
Herald Sun
Nature's mega-brute
By DEREK BALLANTINE
AU
02Jan05

Comparisons with man-made explosions draw a frightening picture.

Detonating a tonne of TNT underground would produce a seismic wave energy equivalent to an earthquake measuring 2 on the Richter scale; a small nuclear weapon would measure about 4. Yet the Boxing Day earthquake was 9.

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,54...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-05 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. You Do Read The Things You Put Up, Mr. Satori, Do You Not?
The "frightening picture" drawn by the article is the vast power of nature by compare with the puny energies available ti human-kind.

The article suggests that the energy released by an earthquake producing shock wave amplitudes (which is what the Richter scale actually measures) one level above the previous on that scale involves the release of thirty-one times the energy of the event represented by the lower measure. Thus an earthquake of level nine on the Richter scale would be thirty-one to the fifth power more energetic than one of level four, the shock a smaller nuclear weapon would register. It is too early in my morning to essay the arithmetic off the cuff, but you might try it: thirty-one times thirty-one times thirty-one times thirty-one times thirty-one....

The result will be astonishing....

"The mind wobbles...."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
satori Donating Member (198 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-05 01:31 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. Your point?
Edited on Sat Jan-01-05 01:47 PM by satori
I do not read anywhere in the opinions that they write it saying that the underground nukes tests and the resulting waves that ricochet around the earth are equal in explosive force even if it is 500, miles away like say the way a tsunamis force stays the same when its energy starts from 500 miles away, as you seem to be implying.

Again I am not a scientist but from what I read from those that have an opinion about underground nuke tests is that the underground nuke tests acts as a trigger in nature to shift in time a earthquake or earthquakes that was set by nature to go off say 500 years in the future to the present to me that seems like all they are saying in plain English.

The underground nuke test shifts in time can result in a earthquake going off in the present rather then in the future because the internal waves from the underground nuke test trigger internal waves that ricochet around the planet that can also shift in time a earthquake that was by nature set to go off say 500 years in the future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-05 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #69
70. The Same As It Has Always Been In This Foolishness, Sir
Edited on Sat Jan-01-05 01:46 PM by The Magistrate
The preservation of a sense of scale.

A given expenditure of energy cannot produce the expenditure of an amount of energy more than twenty-eight millions times itself.

The difficulty you seem to have with this, put bluntly, baffles me, as does why you cling to, and seek to spread, the nonesensical view that the Sumatran quake was caused by human agency.

Nothing you have put forward in support of the proposition actually does support it in any degree, and one would think your own confession of ignorance in scientific matters would constrain you somewhat in discussing them. My ignorance of automobile motors is complete, and accordingly you will never find me participating in discussions of what that "odd noise" may signify is wrong with one....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
satori Donating Member (198 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-05 02:02 PM
Response to Reply #70
73. What about the atom?
The atom is a form of energy right? From what I read about that the power of that is basically to infinity. Even Einstein as I recall he had no empirical knowledge to explain his theories of why the atom works saying it is the world of the unknown.

And in the world of physics and the atom zero=infinity=zero is the only mathematical way to explain the energy the power that is beyond scientific study, thus turning Newton upside down.

Even Einstein said he was not an expert in the atom theory because he has no clue as to why it exists in nature or how it works. Should Einstein of stopped asking questions about the atom because it was beyond empirical study?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-05 02:11 PM
Response to Reply #73
75. Quit While You Are Behind, Sir
Questions of fission and fusion have no relevance to the mechanical actions involved here....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-05 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #70
76. I agree with you, Sir, but have one additional point...
I, too, believe that the earthquake and resulting tsunami were completely natural occurances, and that Man, in no way, shape or form, has any ablitity to affect plate tectonics. As you so aptly described, it's all about energy, and we just don't have enough.

You said:
A given expenditure of energy cannot produce the expenditure of an amount of energy more than twenty-eight millions times itself.

However, in the case of fissionable weapons, a small expenditure of energy (the conventional explosion which compacts the plutonium) is used to release the stored atomic energy, which causes the big boom. Though it is not the case, some may misinterpret this energy release as energy creation.

I will continue to look forward to your posts, Sir.

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-05 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #76
77. Indeed, Mr. Dithers
However, what occurs at the sub-atomic level has no relevance to this question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
satori Donating Member (198 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-05 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #77
78. Why does a weapons energy v. natures energy have no relevance?
Edited on Sat Jan-01-05 04:02 PM by satori
Again I am not a scientist. You may have raised a valid point but because I am not familiar with theories of science concerning energy perhaps you could define your theory better.

For example you said something about energy having limits in nature. I had the counterpoint that other forms of energy are made of atoms as well and that it (energy) is not limited and that the power of the energy could be infinite and not limited as you implied.

You then countered with well a nuke's energy is different then natures energy like with an earthquake. If you can explain your scientific theory in plain English (because I am not trained in science) then perhaps you have a point.

But it seems to me your counterpoint to my position that the energy only applies to a nuke's atoms on the sub-atomic level is not logical because a small particle or whatever it is called a neutron or something creates in nature the explosion caused by the nuke and it seems to me as if in the case of a nuke that the forces of nature were put in the bomb, to unleash even more forces of nature via the explosion from the nuke and if those forces of nature exist in the nuke are infinite... then why are those same forces not infinite in nature such as those forces concerning earthquakes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-05 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #78
79. Honestly, Fellow
Edited on Sat Jan-01-05 04:15 PM by The Magistrate
Do you imagine that the process of an earthquake involves the release of nuclear energy?

Energy released by mechanical or chemical means involves very different principles than the release of energy by subatomic processes. The former class involves the movement of matter, even in the tiny scale involved in the breakng and re-forming of chemical bonds, without altering the state of its existance as matter; the latter involves the direct conversion of matter from the state of matter into the state of energy. The things are so different as to bear no relation: the fact that a fairly small chemical explosion can compress fissible material into a state of critical mass, where its own natural instability will shatter the congregated nuclei by virtue of the density of both their presence and of the particle radiation they continually emit in some degree, has no bearing whatever on whether an energetic three year old can push so hard against a semi-trailer truck as to set it motion on a level grade....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
satori Donating Member (198 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-05 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #79
80. No I said that perhaps nuke energy can change the natural balance
Edited on Sat Jan-01-05 05:22 PM by satori
No my theory basically is that a underground nuke explosion changes the balance of nature in a way that is not natural but man made.

For example the plates that caused the earthquake mother nature sets up the plates in such a way that with movements of the plates it has different reactions such as after the Asia earthquake of 2004 a volcano started to act up and some would speculate that that is good because it vents the energy that may of been building up for another earthquake, but that natural self-healing action of nature is prevented from pollution such as global warming, mining, excessive drilling for oil, and underground nuke explosions ,which triggers mother nature to act in ways that are unnatural.

So nuclear underground explosion causes internal waves that ricochet waves inside all parts of the earth which change the natural balances sort of like the mechanical function of a engine if the engine is not maintained in the way it was designed it will not work and the car will be of no use until it is fixed by a mechanic If we do not allow the mechanic (mother nature) to prevent and fix itself because of pollution then unnatural events can occur.

It is unnatural for the earth to experience excessive drilling for oil, mining, underground nuke explosions and Global warming so as powerful as the plates as you say they are in self correcting themselves, that self correction in nature cannot work if other man made energies are causing it top become unbalanced, thus man made earthquakes are triggered by man as well as nature.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-05 11:03 PM
Response to Reply #80
86. Since The Man-Made Energies Are Trifles, Sir
By compare to the energies involved in the movement of the plates, what you suggest is mere nonesense, and in a most profound sense, damned arrogant nonesense as well, since it elevates to such an extent the already insufferable pretensions of our kind to dominance and mastery over nature....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selteri Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-07-05 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #80
88. Clarification
So you are stating that in essence the energies from underground nuclear testing dissipates along the plats because they are transmitting much the same way non-newton fluids, such as Lava, transmit the frequencies of both energy and percussion in a slow initial wave.

In essence - Since the energy has to go somewhere it's going there, it's the same reason why it can be detected on seismographic instruments when they perform an underground nuclear test.

I can see how it would have an affect if you consider how it would apply energy into the plate cumulatively.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
satori Donating Member (198 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-05 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #79
81.  Re:...process of an earthquake involves the release of nuclear energy?
Edited on Sat Jan-01-05 05:49 PM by satori
Well do you have any scientific studies abstracts, references... of how underground nuke explosions could or could not affect the different mechanical or chemical functions you describe in your theory?

As of now you just described that atomic and mechanical energies are different but not how the huke energies when researched in this experiment show this or that for example.

And again I am not a scientist so please try and use more English to define you scientific theories for the laymen such as myself in your counterpoints.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-05 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #81
87. My English, Sir, Could Not Be More Plain
You claim to have taken a college physics course, and so should be sufficiently conversant with the differences between chemical and mechanical energies and fission and fusion energies to obviate the need for rehashing the matter on a level suited to a primary school.

Similarly, what you are requesting in your opening above amounts to a request for a citation proving that a billion is a greater quantit than ten, or that a ton is a greater weight than a pound. If you wish a demonstration, pick up a sack of potatoes inthe produce aisle, then go out to the parking lot and attempt to pick up an automobile. You will find the energy sufficient for the former is useless in attempting the latter.

"It's easy to tell who isn't paying attention in class."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EdumundBurke Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-05 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
71. Could thousands have been saved
Dear Friends,

I'm a new registered member of the forums and can therefore not start a new thread. Perhaps one of you could make post this as a new thread if you think it worthy.


Much has been made of the fact that there is no tsunami warning system for the Indian Ocean, but it seems to have escaped everyone's attention that there is a very significant warning system that was completely ignored.
Is the following scenario completely unreasonable?
I.
1. A major earthquake strikes in the ocean
2. Seismologists recognise that there is a real POSSIBILTIY of a tsunami
3. There are 2 to 12 hours before the tsunami strikes
4. Scientists bypass government bureaucracies and directly alert international broadcasters such as BBC, CNN, SKY and CNBC asking them to broadcast a warning for low lying areas, along with some warning signs such as a suddenly receding ocean etc.

Is it unreasonable to think that some of the tourists in their hotels and/or hotel staff might have seen and perhaps heeded these warnings? Aren't there 10s of thousands of listeners in the affected countries? Is there some law or regulation preventing these stations from broadcasting such warnings?

II.
The U.S., Russia, China and other major powers have submarines in every ocean on the planet. In as wide an expanse as the tsunami affected, is it unreasonable to think that one of these submarines would have felt its effects?
Wouldn't it have been possible for them to alert some government officials who could have broadcast an alert on the major international news stations?

I've been forwarding these questions to all major news organisations. Please feel free to do the same.

John Smith
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
satori Donating Member (198 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-01-05 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #71
74. Politicians and the scientists they hire don't think logic only $$$
I agree with your theory 100%. The politicians did not want to panic the tourist industry, so what they have been doing is installing incompetents to do what some would think are jobs of great responsibility
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
satori Donating Member (198 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-05 05:18 PM
Response to Original message
82. World renowned scientist-The Earth as a weapon in 21st Century of Wars
Third World Network
The Earth as a weapon in 21st Century of Wars
By Rahab S Hawa

While scientists, governments and concerned groups worry about increased industrial emissions of greenhouse gases and its effects on the planet, the role of the military in climate change has been ignored.

When environmental crises occur, it is usually only the civilian economy that is called upon to rectify the balance, while military programmes are rarely taken to task, says Dr Rosalie Bertell, renowned scientist and nuclear activist.

At the Peoples Health Assembly in December 2000 in Dhaka, Bangladesh, Dr. Bertell revealed to a shocked and incredulous audience that the latest weapons in the arsenal of the US military is the Planet Earth itself ... and weather will be one of the worst destructive weapons by the year 2025.

Dr. Bertell was referring to how engineered earthquakes and tornadoes could wreak havoc on populations and nations.

http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/hawa2.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-03-05 05:31 PM
Response to Reply #82
83. Presicely why Kucinich introduced H. R. 2977
Bill 107th CONGRESS, 1st Session, H. R. 2977
To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons

    Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as

    (i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;
    (ii) chemtrails;
    (iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;
    (iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;
    (v) laser weapons systems;
    (vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and
    (vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.

    (C) The term `exotic weapons systems' includes weapons designed to damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, and tectonic systems with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space.


==


DoD News Briefing
Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen
Monday, April 28, 1997 - 8:45 a.m. EDT

Cohen's keynote address at the Conference on Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy at the Georgia Center, Mahler Auditorium, University of Georgia, Athens, Ga. The event is part of the Sam Nunn Policy Forum being hosted by the University of Georgia. Secretary Cohen is joined by Sen. Sam Nunn and Sen. Richard G. Lugar.]

Others are engaging even in an eco-type of terrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes, volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.

"So there are plenty of ingenious minds out there that are at work finding ways in which they can wreak terror upon other nations. It's real, and that's the reason why we have to intensify our efforts, and that's why this is so important."

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/1997/t042897_t04...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Aug 18th 2017, 02:07 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Science Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC