----- Original Message -----
From: "G.Marsh" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 4:17 AM
Subject: [Fwd: Re: 9 on the Richter Scale: Please clarify ?]
> Philip
> Apparently I can't send to the list below > could you send this on for me
> please.
> See you on Monday
> Graham-------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: 9 on the Richter Scale: Please clarify ?
> From: <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tue, January 4, 2005 4:13 am
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>
>> Dear All again
> I have not a clue as to the answer to this question as whether it is 7,8
> or 9 is quite meaningless to all but those who understand the particular
> language involved - similar to 1 in 100 year floods. To the lay person
> there is no understanding.
> Along with what Terry and Philip have said I also wonder who will be
> responsible for making sure that the promised aid actually gets through
> to those who need it? I heard on radio today in Australia that the UN
> is worried that much of the money will not be delivered. If that's not
> bad enough, Damien Kingsbury reported that (from memory) in Aceh the
> Indonesian army is being very selective in the delivery of aid i.e.
> suspected rebel supporters find it difficult to receive aid; truck
> drivers are being bribed to deliver to selected people including to the
> army and the situation is being used to send more troops in to Aceh.
> There was more. Could the same thing be happening in Sri Lanka?One good
> thing may be that there are 3,000 US marines now situated there and they
> along with many journalists may act as a break on the army. How does
> the
> international community monitor this then? What lessons can be learned
> for the future?
> Reports today also indicate the US is worried about increased poverty
> leading to terrorism in the future therefore there's a need to give aid
> massively now. The whole Politics surrounding the aid processes and
> it's delivery should be monitored then.
> Could we bounce ideas around through this email listing as to how best
> to assist in the rebuilding of communities when there's been such
> family, social, and psychological destruction? How do you rebuild the
> traditional family structures when there's been such loss of life and
> place and livelihood?
> On a slightly different note a letter writer has placed the tsunami in a
> perspective that we should also be considering i.e. the even greater
> numbers suffering and dying of AIDS each year.
>
> Graham Marsh
> Coventry
>
> Dear all
>>
>> From a generalist DRM person, could someone with more technical
>> expertise please clarify what 9 on the Richter scale is equivalent to
>> ? I heard an expert on the radio mentioning that 9 was 1,000 times
>> more powerful than a rating 7. A colleague of mine has questioned
>> this, believing the multiplier to be 100. Again I've read elsewhere
>> it's all a bit more complicated than this !! I realise this is a
>> somewhat moot point, but I want to clarify this issue if possible..
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Chris
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Terry Cannon
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 2:55 AM
>> Subject: Re: What went wrong with Early Warning?
>>
>>
>> Dear All,
>> my two pence worth - its already a very rich resource in this
>> debate.
>> The main thing I would add is this, which supports Philip's point
>> about the social and cultural context for warnings being absolutely
>> crucial! We must avoid at all costs the idea that a warning system is
>> 'technological' - it has to have the social and cultural elements
>> built into it from the start.
>>
>> Especially, any warning system initiated for Indian Ocean tsunami
>> will
>> have to take account of the return period problem. What will people be
>> doing and conscious of 50 or even 100 years from now? What 'memory'
>> will people have in Tamil Nadu, Indonesia and Sri Lanka that were hit
>> in 2004? What can be done in other countries that have not been badly
>> hit, like Bangladesh and other parts of India?
>>
>> Film programmes must be compiled that portray the hazard, that
>> explain
>> it, and the threat (and the damage and suffering that it caused. These
>> films will have to be stored on different media as the technology
>> changes, with a responsible body for doing this and disseminating them
>> - for 100 years or more! That means having the resources to do this as
>> the world (and especially the poorer countries - even if they become
>> less poor) media change - from video to DVD to whatever at the
>> consumer end, and in whatever form is useful to the broadcast media
>> over the years. Regular broadcasts will be needed to remind people.
>> Other forms of dissemination should be encoured, eg local theatre
>> activities.
>>
>> In Netherlands, everyone is reminded on a monthly basis that many of
>> them live below sea level. ON the first Monday every month, sirens
>> blare out at noon to check they are working. I am not sure if they
>> have evacuation plans, but the warning systems that must be left in
>> the long legacy outlined above is only going to work if it involves
>> proper evacuation rehearsals that are updated regularly.
>>
>> best wishes,
>>
>> Terry Cannon
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> At 00:25 03/01/2005, philip buckle wrote:
>>
>> Ben's comments and those that have preceded him in this debate
>> are
>> interesting and there can be little doubt that an improved early
>> warning system would have reduced the loss of lives and the great
>> number of injuries. Whether it would have reduced property and asset
>> losses, damage to livelihoods and damage to cultural assets and
>> social networks is much less clear.
>>
>> I take Ben's point and agree with it that the poor, the
>> marginalised
>> and the vulnerable have fewer options than the wealthy and their need
>> to stay to protect assets that are vital to survival may
>> overwhelm their impetus for self-protection.
>>
>> There is evidence from Australia and elsewhere of people, usually
>> homeowners, choosing to put themselves in the paths of wildfires to
>> protect their homes. If they are prepared this can be a successful
>> strategy. Though sometimes it is not. But it illustrates that
>> responding to warnings, alerts and orders to evacuate is much more
>> than expecting and achieving an automatic and immediate evacuation.
>>
>> Warnings and evacuation have to be seen in the context of
>> individual
>> and social behaviour. Many warning and evacuation systems have
>> foundered on these issues. Where warnings are infrequent people rely
>> upon local knowledge and information from familiar and trusted
>> sources, often not governments and scientists. Where warnings are
>> acknowledged people often require the evidence of their own eyes.
>>
>> Much disaster management planning is based on unrealistic
>> assessments of how people actually do behave in disasters. Obedience
>> to authority, rational (as defined by disaster managers) behaviour,
>> acceptance and understanding of information - there is much evidence
>> that at the critical moment people may not, often do not, behave as
>> they are planned and expected to.
>>
>> This is not an argument against warning systems but an argument
>> that
>> they need to be based in the experience, culture and imperatives of
>> the people and communities at risk. It is an argument too that
>> warning systems are much more than the technology of conveying
>> information about the progress of the hazard agent.
>>
>> For myself one of the most moving and memorable images of this
>> disaster has been of the mother running towards the wave to get to her
>> children.
>>
>> Philip
>> Terry Cannon
>> Reader in Development Studies, School of Humanities,
>> University of Greenwich, Old Royal Naval College
>> 30 Park Row, Greenwich, London SE10 9LS United Kingdom
>> Phone +44 (0)20 8331 8944
>>
>> also attached to:
>> Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, Central Avenue
>> Chatham, ME4 4TB Kent UK
>
>
>
>
|
