All I am saying is, consider the issues involved in moving several million people 6km inland. If I'm gonna die anyway, I think I'd rather be sipping coffee thank you than fruitlessly trying to claw my way to higher ground.. Having read a bit more I'd say it seems the case was less definite than that. One guy on the second floor of a bar survived while everyone on the ground floor died. Still, don't castigate me for introducing cost-benefit analysis into the discussion -- why do you think there was no warning? Because tidal waves are almost unheard of in the Indian Ocean.
Sure, any lives saved are worth saving, but in the real world people take measures to protect themselves against the more likely disasters first. I don't have flood insurance here at this house -- I am on a mesa. And so on. Dana On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 08:16:38 -0400, Angel Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Did you think before you wrote that? > > If the next one hits your home town you would be happy to receive absolutely > no warning, and have no time to move a few miles > inland, but instead sit sipping coffee at little caf� on the coast as the > first 30 foot wave rolls in. > > Because of course there's nothing you could do to move say 6 kilometers > inland and save your life. > > Geez. > > We're talking about small coastal communities and exclusive beach resorts. > Those on the coast of Somalia would have had even greater > warning, and more time to head inland. > > They would have had over three hours warning. People were able to run inland > to higher ground and escape the waves in a few minutes. > Many,many lives would have been saved, for one all those people still in the > resorts wouldn't have been there, could have gotten out > in 3 to 4 hours.Lives could be saved, and once lives could be saved, a > warning is more than worth it. > > Florida? You don't need to evacuate an entire city. You need people to move > say 10 kilometers off the coast, to get off their boats > and to stop swimming and leave the beachfront. You need hotels to evacuate > immediately. You need boats in the path of the Tsunami > wave to try to get out of the way if possible.A two hour warning helps. A > three to four hour warning is even better. > > You'd prefer San Diego to be hit by Tsunamis and just tell no one that they > were on the way? > > ....Did you think before you wrote that? > > -Gel > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dana > > I have been following the story, kinda. This morning's paper focussed on the > fact that some of the hardest-hit areas did not belong > to a warning network and that there were no buoys in the Indian Ocean. But I > was wondering... how much good would warning do? Some > of the areas hit were surely very rural. Look how hard it was to evacuate in > Florida, where everyone had access to broadcast media. > I think lives would have been saved, but how many? And if something like this > was inescapably heading your way, would you really > want to know? > > Dana > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net http://www.cfhosting.net Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:141053 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
