CDB

I'll answer my own question then: multiple sources (easily Googled) indicate that tourism typically accounts for 6% of Thailand's GDP.

The more pessimistic analysts suggest that in the wake of the tsunami it might only be 5% in 2005.

So basically she's equating all tourists in Thailand with sex tourism. And she files a photo showing the center of the bar area with less than 20% of the normal numbers for this time of year.

Her two eyewitnesses say nothing about having sex for money...

Pathetic sensationalism.

This is partly to do with sex tourism, which accounts for 5 per cent of Thailand's gross domestic product .

Interesting statistic. I wonder what her source for this is?

It's not necessarily some animal sixth sense, is it?

Both elephants and buffalo can detect much lower frequency sounds than humans, and those low-frequency sounds travel a long way.

I guess they heard something very big coming toward them. Or does anyone else have a scientific explanation?

USGS: Warnings Could Have Saved Thousands in Asia

Dec 26, 12:09 PM (ET)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A warning center such as those used along the Pacific Rim could have saved most of the thousands of people who died in Asia's earthquake and tsunami, a U.S. Geological Survey official said on Sunday.

None of the countries that lost thousands -- including India, Thailand, Indonesia and Sri Lanka -- had a tsunami warning system or tidal gauges to alert people to the wall of water that followed a massive earthquake, said Waverly Person of the USGS National Earthquake Information Center.

"Most of those people could have been saved if they had had a tsunami warning system in place or tide gauges," he said.

"And I think this will be a lesson to them," he said, referring to the governments of the devastated countries.

Person also said that because tsunamis in the Indian Ocean are extremely rare, people were never taught to flee inland after they felt the tremors of an earthquake.

The 8.9-magnitude underwater quake -- one of the most powerful in history -- off the Indonesian island of Sumatra devastated southern Asia and triggered a tsunami, or seismic sea wave, of up to 30 feet high.

The quake in the sea off Antartica and felt in Tasmania on Christmas eve was I believe an 8.1 on the richter scale.....a big quake by any standard....no Tsunami occured from that quake....now to put your suggestion in perspective.....an 8.5 quake off the coast about 400 miles from the American coast....would you evacuate every city within a 600 mile radius because a tsunami may occur....I think not.

The strength and the occurance of a tsunami has less to do with the strength of a quake but rather the ever changing sea floor.....many quakes produce tsunami's but some just peter out because of the conditions....Tsunami's may appear as a large swell out to sea....but as the water depth becomes less and all that water is compacted into a smaller area....then the "wave" builds in speed and intensity....watch a swell turn into a breaking wave...that is a mini tsunami...Look at the power generated in its final moments as it hits the beach.  Now magnify that many times over.

The time from when that swell becomes a destructive force sometimes can be measured in seconds not minutes and not hours.....sure from the time of the quake maybe hours.....but from detection to hit is usually not that long.

Great description, gburns. I was watching BBC a few moments ago, and they had some footage, from a couple of areas, of the last few seconds of some swells before rising and forming into a wave, breaking, then moving VERY fast and forcefully... Easy to see how it would catch one off-guard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And preceding this swell was a rapid recession of the waterline by several hundred meters in only a few seconds. Easy to see that if if you were educated about the warning signs you would have had time to get out of the way.

If you were still watching BBC world you'll have seen their item about how it was up to three hours between the earthquake and some tsunami strikes, and that a warning system like the one in the Pacific would likely have helped...

In fact it is not difficult nor terribly expensive to set up a tsunami warning system -- as already exists in the Pacific.

I don't know why some strange people consider this blaming someone; it's primarily a comment on how such a tragedy can be avoided in the future.

Tsunami waves can hit within minutes or many hours, it's just a factor of how far away the coastline is. They travel fast but slow down before they hit. In today's event it was around 30 minutes after the Indonesian quake before Thailand was hit and several hours before India and Srilanka were hit. Plenty of time for a warning.

Tsunamis only come from strong earthquakes. It only takes a few minutes for scientists around the world to know that a strong earthquake has occurred. Then those people within a circle of coastline away from the epicenter can be warned with a siren. This is how its done in the Pacific. It doesn't require the cooperation of the Indonesian govenment either since seismic data is available globally.

Yes it's true that many times there are earthquakes without tsunamis. But what's the harm in a few false alarms every year? The use of other devices such tide gauges can refine the system further.

The simplest preventative measure is to educate people that suddenly receding waters on the beach means great danger. This is true 100% of the time I believe!

Tsunamis are rare in this part of the world but they certainly are not unknown. When Cracatoa exploded in the 19th century there was even greater disaster. That was a volcano not an earthquake, but it's true that authorities have been a little complacent about the danger of tsunamis. There is hardly reason to to blame anyone, but that does NOT negate the fact that some aspects of this tragedy can be prevented in the future.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The quake in the sea off Antartica and felt in Tasmania on Christmas eve was I believe an 8.1 on the richter scale.....a big quake by any standard....no Tsunami occured from that quake....now to put your suggestion in perspective.....an 8.5 quake off the coast about 400 miles from the American coast....would you evacuate every city within a 600 mile radius because a tsunami may occur....I think not.

The strength and the occurance of a tsunami has less to do with the strength of a quake but rather the ever changing sea floor.....many quakes produce tsunami's but some just peter out because of the conditions....Tsunami's may appear as a large swell out to sea....but as the water depth becomes less and all that water is compacted into a smaller area....then the "wave" builds in speed and intensity....watch a swell turn into a breaking wave...that is a mini tsunami...Look at the power generated in its final moments as it hits the beach. Now magnify that many times over.

The time from when that swell becomes a destructive force sometimes can be measured in seconds not minutes and not hours.....sure from the time of the quake maybe hours.....but from detection to hit is usually not that long.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you read the earlier posts you'll see that the earthquake off Antratica was a different type -- one that does not cause tsunamis. Also there were not many heavily populated areas in its radius of influence.

Yes you are right that many conditions are factors in the development of a tsunami, but what's wrong with a few false warnings? And it's not just any seismic activity -- it really has to be a STRONG quake to produce widespread destructive tsunamis.

And it often does take HOURS from first detection to impact -- as in the Chilean earthquake that affected Japan and also as in India today.

Still photos and TV footage indicate that Phi Phi was totally devasted. Earlier reports mentioned 200+ dead one report mentioned up to 700 missing.

Latest reports (23:10) indicate 7000+ around the region and since far flung and isolated regions have not reported (including the whole of Burma) we can expect that the final toll would top 20,000+

International cable TV channels are trying to find the balance of reporting between the thousands of unknown faceless impoverished coastal fishermen and the smaller number of well-off western tourists in Phuket and Maldives

Information about Tsunami warning sytems can be found at

http://www.prh.noaa.gov/ptwc/

http://www.geophys.washington.edu/tsunami/...ng/warning.html

And Google will provide more links to show that such sytems can work.

Of course there are false alarms but what does that matter?

If a siren went off 15 minutes after the Indonesian quake and hotel staff knew what it meant, then I do believe lives could be saved. And what about Sri Lanka and India which were hit much later?

Most people can reach safety on higher ground within 2 minutes.

Also if you listen to the eyewitness reports you'll see that many people admitted they did not understand what the receding waters foreshadowed. In the US, they have signs on the beaches telling people to react to such signs by fleeing to higher ground.

Given the fact that such an event has not occured for so long there was no way there was going to be preventative measures in these poorer SE Asian countries. But the likelihood of this event reocurring is not so remote. With the fantantastic development of seaside resorts in this part of the world, it is something that can be factored in the future.

This was a natural disaster but unlike other natural disasters humans are not powerless to take preventaive measures

In fact it is not difficult nor terribly expensive to set up a tsunami warning system -- as already exists in the Pacific.

I don't know why some strange people consider this blaming someone; it's primarily a comment on how such a tragedy can be avoided in the future.

Tsunami waves can hit within minutes or many hours, it's just a factor of how far away the coastline is. They travel fast but slow down before they hit. In today's event it was around 30 minutes after the Indonesian quake before Thailand was hit and several hours before India and Srilanka were hit. Plenty of time for a warning.

Tsunamis only come from strong earthquakes. It only takes a few minutes for scientists around the world to know that a strong earthquake has occurred. Then those people within a circle of coastline away from the epicenter can be warned with a siren. This is how its done in the Pacific. It doesn't require the cooperation of the Indonesian govenment either since seismic data is available globally.

Yes it's true that many times there are earthquakes without tsunamis. But what's the harm in a few false alarms every year? The use of other devices such tide gauges can refine the system further.

The simplest preventative measure is to educate people that suddenly receding waters on the beach means great danger. This is true 100% of the time I believe!

Tsunamis are rare in this part of the world but they certainly are not unknown. When Cracatoa exploded in the 19th century there was even greater disaster. That was a volcano not an earthquake, but it's true that authorities have been a little complacent about the danger of tsunamis. There is hardly reason to to blame anyone, but that does NOT negate the fact that some aspects of this tragedy can be prevented in the future.

I am not interested in pointing fingers but it is true that a lot of lives could have been saved if a warning system was set up similar to the ones in the Pacific.

Any time there is a strong earthquake near the sea there is a risk of tsunamis. And SE Asia is in a risk zone. It doesn't cost so much money or expertise. The problem is simply complacency since we haven't had such an event for over a century.

These warning systems produce a lot of false warnings but do save lives (Hawaii is an example). Simply educating people that they should run for their lives if they see water receding rapidly on the beach would have saved lives. Yes, this is a natural disaster but there IS a lot people can do to lessen the impact of such an event in the future (unlike earthquakes themselves which are largely unpredictable).

To the event itself; it has affected all segments of Thai society not just tourists or the poor. In fact a member of the Royal family has been killed but this news is being withheld until the palace announce it.

If someone else overseas can help you juggle the cash, a further option is this:

(1) Purchase the condo with a 100% cash transfer from abroad, making sure you get a thor. tor. 3 from the bank to show intended use of funds (use the sale/purchase agreement)

(2) Once you have the deed, use it as security with a Thai bank to take out an SME loan (overdraft) for 60-70% of the appraised condo value. It takes around 4+ weeks to loop the cash back to the person helping you juggle. Note that the purpose of the loan should be improvments to the condo or any reasonable story EXCEPT financing the condo purchase itself banks are not supposed to help foreigners finance real estate purchases. Bangkok Bank gave me interest at MLR for two years, rising a little after that. Interest at MLR is quite respectable (~7%) since property prices have been rising faster than that, but of course it's higher than Thai people pay for their mortgages -- so the banks WILL be eager to help you

(3) You now have effectively purchased a condo with a 30+% deposit. But the loan structure as an overdraft may not be the way you want it. It's likely the loan can be restructured by a third party into installments, or you may prefer just paying interest on the loan every month for as long as you like...

The hard part is find someone to help you loop the cash the first place.

It's always been the case that night entertainment areas are not supposed to be near temples and schools, but the enforcement of this rule has been varied.

In Bangkok Khao Sarn road was turned down as a night life zone because of its proximity to temples and schools. I remember ten years ago some Thais wanted to open dancing shows or go-go bars close to Khao Sarn but were turned down for the same reason.

So there isn't a new rule but the current climate of strictness probably will make such considerations more important. I do think that if restrictions on nightlife in Thailand are to be relaxed then it's important not to have open conflicts with the more respectable side of Thai life. That's the Thai way -- as long as things are hidden and not in open conflict, they are acceptable. And that's not illogical after all, is it?

I generally use Bamrungrad myself and it's the best hospital I've ever been in. Despite some typically biased horror stories I've heard, there's ample evidence that the standard of medical care is better than most U.S. Hospitals.

The only conceivable downside in my opinion is that you can't sue them for vast sums of money if something goes wrong. This applies to all Thai hospitals -- even if you succeed in a malpractice suit, the damages will be small.

However my girlfriend doesn't have medical insurance so I was looking for a cheaper alternative when she became pregnant. In Bamrungrad and BNH a cesarean section can run to 150,000+ THB. Many friends recommended St. Louis but I was initially suspicious because of a visit I there 10 years ago when I had quite a lot of waiting around to do and the decor was a bit shabby.

I am happy to report that nowsdays the decor is as gleamingly marbled and new as any top end private hospital and there is even an "Au Bon Pain" inside the hospital itself. More importantly service was fast and prompt and even though we typically arrived late for the pre-natal checks we never had to wait around. The doctors were kind and professional and explained preganancy issues at great length to my gf.

For her labor and delivery, the private room was positively cavernous with a nice view and typical hotel ammenities. The (Thai) food was pretty good too. The total bill for four days came to 27,000 baht including surgery, take home drugs, accomodation, food, doctor's fees, some parenting magzines, photos and so on. That's a bargain in my books for a comfortable private hospital delivery.

Yes there's cheaper private hospitals in Bangkok (and I've been in many over the years) but St. Louis seems a good balance between cost and quality.

Hello?

Hello?

Hello?

Yeah I occationally get those. I think they're just Thais who don't speak English and don't know what to say or do.

No, that's not it!

You're confusing the English word "Hello" with the Thai word "Hello".

"Hello" in Thai is not a greeting but a word used specifically on the telephone to mean something like "can you hear me?" (and even "please identify yourself")

Thai ATMs have a limit of 20,000 THB per transaction. This applies to transfers as well as withdrawals.

But you can make mutiple withdrawals or transfers one after the other. In fact my Bangkok Bank "Be1st" ATM card lets me withdraw up to 100,000 THB a day and on a number of occasions I've taken that much out with five consecutive withdrawals in a single session.

There must be hard-coded reason that the machines will only give out 20 K because it's common that ATM withdrawal limits are way higher than the transaction limit..

The amount you give at a wedding is not the same for every guest nor for every wedding.

It relates to

* your status

* the status of the couple

* how close you are to the couple

So if you have a senior management position and were invited to your middle-class secretary's wedding, 1,000 baht would be too little.

For an English teacher going to a colleague's wedding 500 THB should be fine. For me, I think it's best to err on the side of giving too much if it's someone that you know well or work with. If you are a manager or in professional services 1,000 THB is quite normal.

BTW it's common to reuse the evelope that the wedding invite came in.