Tsunami Scare In Thailand After Strong Quake Hit Indonesia

[webfact]

TSUNAMI

Tsunami scare after strong quake hit Indonesia

The Nation, Agencies

Tourists and Thai residents take shelter on a high rooftop watching the ocean seeking safety during a tsunami alert in Phuket on April 11. (EPA)

THAILAND: -- Memories of the 2004 disaster flood back after powerful quake strikes again off Indonesia's Sumatra; No casualties reported as small wave hits Andaman coast; southern airports temporarily closed

Tsunami panic spread across much of Thailand after a massive earthquake struck off the coast of the Indonesian island of Sumatra yesterday afternoon at a location eerily close to the epicentre of the huge quake that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in 2004.

A 10-centimetre-high tsunami wave reached Koh Miang in Phang Nga province, but there were no reports of casualties.

An 8.2-magnitude aftershock later occurred off the Sumatran coast in the evening, raising concern that such a powerful quake could trigger a large tsunami. The Pacific Tsunami Warning Centre cancelled its "tsunami watch" for both the initial quake and the aftershock.

The situation began to return to normal when the director of the National Disaster Warning Centre held a press conference to lift the tsunami warning shortly after 7pm.

As soon as the first quake, of 8.6 magnitude, hit in the afternoon, authorities issued tsunami alerts and locals in the coastal areas of Krabi, Ranong, Phang Nga, Phuket, Trang and Satun provinces ran to safety.

"We want them move to high ground before 5.50pm for safety reasons," said Information and Communications Technology Minister Anudith Nakornthap. "We are worried about a tsunami."

Still haunted by the devastating tsunami of December 26, 2004, residents in these southern provinces along the Andaman coast quickly responded to alerts and left beach and other coastal areas.

The scenes were somewhat chaotic as terrified people poured out on to the streets, and traffic jams built up in towns as people headed for higher ground.

Mobile-phone users, meanwhile, were hit by network failures, as the number of calls made overwhelmed the system.

"I managed to call staff at my restaurant on Phi Phi Island and they told me they had already evacuated to the top of a hill," said Arunpong Srisawas.

Phi Phi Island, in Krabi province, is a tropical paradise. However, it was the scene of devastation and death when the giant waves crashed down eight years ago.

Yesterday's first quake was felt far and wide, with Bangkok residents experiencing the ground shaking under their feet.

The earthquake was felt in many of the capital's high-rise buildings, with some office workers stampeding down to the ground floor after noticing curtains and lamps shaking. "I rushed out of Interchange Tower because the floor was shaking so much that I felt dizzy," said a Bangkok woman.

German experts who helped install the tsunami-warning system off Indonesia said the quake was horizontal, rather than vertical, making a big tsunami less likely.

"There wasn't much vertical movement," said Rainer Kind of the German Geo-Research Centre.

Watcharin Thongsakun, deputy governor of Satun province, added: "We are closely monitoring the situation and are on alert."

The international airport in Phuket was temporarily closed. It was expected to resume operations from 8am today.

In Bangkok, a parliamentary session on constitutional amendments ended as MPs from the South headed back to their region, preparing to help people in the event that disaster really did strike.

Public Health Minister Witthaya Buranasiri instructed the heads of provincial public health offices in the six Andaman provinces to set up a war room to ensure efficient crisis management should a tsunami hit the area.

At 7pm, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra convened a meeting with relevant authorities. The Andaman provinces' tsunami warning was lifted at about the same time.

-- The Nation 2012-04-12

[harada]

Im guessing the people down on the road couldnt afford a rooftop position ??

[sparebox2]

Another one of those scam by equipment suppliers.

[Sam Drucker]

"A 10-centimetre-high tsunami wave reached Koh Miang in Phang Nga province, but there were no reports of casualties."

You read stories like this occasionally. What I've always wondered is how you can spot a 10 cm. tsunami wave amonst the normal wave action at the beach? Wouldn't it just blend in?

[woodyleonhard]

"A 10-centimetre-high tsunami wave reached Koh Miang in Phang Nga province, but there were no reports of casualties."

That typifies the kind of news "reporting" that's made hundreds of thousands of people, all over the world, anxious about the safety of their friends and relatives.

The first earthquake - the big one - was one-third the size of the Boxing Day quake. Could it have caused a tsunami? Possibly. A big tsunami that hit Thailand before it hit any other inhabited area in the Indian Ocean? Rather doubtful, I should think.

The foreign press played this for all they could. Facts be damned.

[Sam Drucker]

Okay Woody, yes, the first quake was 1/3 the strength of the 2004 quake. So based on that, it had the potential to send a tsunami 1/3 the size of the previous one, or about 3 meters. (Not really, but for the sake of argument . . .) That would certainly have resulted in loss of life! Yes, with the rapid communications we have today, the major press has difficulty verifying facts before reporting. In a dynamic situation like yesterday, they feel compelled to report the "raw" news before it can be verified (like "someone tweeted that they saw the sea receding . . ." and so on.) Probably better to err on the side of safety in such a potentially dangerous situation, wouldn't you agree?

The reality (particularly as we learned yesterday) is that the Richter scale number is but one factor in determining the presence and size of a tsunami. The horizontal motion of the earthquake yesterday resulted in much less water displacement (and thus, wave generation) than a quake with vertical motion. We don't have all the tools and technology to predict with 100% accuracy, but we can predict the potential conditions that could lead to a tsunami.

It's not a perfect world with respect to news reporting, and it's not 1972 anymore. News gets reported (in some cases) too quickly and without validation. That quick reporting also can potentially save lives. There is both upside and downside compared to the reporting style of 40 years ago. The validation I saw with yesterday's reporting was that the situation was unclear, but potentially dangerous. The fact that warnings from the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center remained in effect until well into the evening hours seems to confirm there was real potential for disaster.

[anterian]

Okay Woody, yes, the first quake was 1/3 the strength of the 2004 quake. So based on that, it had the potential to send a tsunami 1/3 the size of the previous one, or about 3 meters. (Not really, but for the sake of argument . . .) That would certainly have resulted in loss of life! Yes, with the rapid communications we have today, the major press has difficulty verifying facts before reporting. In a dynamic situation like yesterday, they feel compelled to report the "raw" news before it can be verified (like "someone tweeted that they saw the sea receding . . ." and so on.) Probably better to err on the side of safety in such a potentially dangerous situation, wouldn't you agree?

The reality (particularly as we learned yesterday) is that the Richter scale number is but one factor in determining the presence and size of a tsunami. The horizontal motion of the earthquake yesterday resulted in much less water displacement (and thus, wave generation) than a quake with vertical motion. We don't have all the tools and technology to predict with 100% accuracy, but we can predict the potential conditions that could lead to a tsunami.

It's not a perfect world with respect to news reporting, and it's not 1972 anymore. News gets reported (in some cases) too quickly and without validation. That quick reporting also can potentially save lives. There is both upside and downside compared to the reporting style of 40 years ago. The validation I saw with yesterday's reporting was that the situation was unclear, but potentially dangerous. The fact that warnings from the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center remained in effect until well into the evening hours seems to confirm there was real potential for disaster.

The Richter scale is a logarithmic scale, so yesterday's earthquake was a tenth the size of the 2004 one.

[Sam Drucker]

Okay Woody, yes, the first quake was 1/3 the strength of the 2004 quake. So based on that, it had the potential to send a tsunami 1/3 the size of the previous one, or about 3 meters. (Not really, but for the sake of argument . . .) That would certainly have resulted in loss of life! Yes, with the rapid communications we have today, the major press has difficulty verifying facts before reporting. In a dynamic situation like yesterday, they feel compelled to report the "raw" news before it can be verified (like "someone tweeted that they saw the sea receding . . ." and so on.) Probably better to err on the side of safety in such a potentially dangerous situation, wouldn't you agree?

The reality (particularly as we learned yesterday) is that the Richter scale number is but one factor in determining the presence and size of a tsunami. The horizontal motion of the earthquake yesterday resulted in much less water displacement (and thus, wave generation) than a quake with vertical motion. We don't have all the tools and technology to predict with 100% accuracy, but we can predict the potential conditions that could lead to a tsunami.

It's not a perfect world with respect to news reporting, and it's not 1972 anymore. News gets reported (in some cases) too quickly and without validation. That quick reporting also can potentially save lives. There is both upside and downside compared to the reporting style of 40 years ago. The validation I saw with yesterday's reporting was that the situation was unclear, but potentially dangerous. The fact that warnings from the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center remained in effect until well into the evening hours seems to confirm there was real potential for disaster.

The Richter scale is a logarithmic scale, so yesterday's earthquake was a tenth the size of the 2004 one.

I believe you're off Anterian. The 2004 quake was a 9.2. If yesterday's quake were 8.2 it would be 10%. However, yesterday's quake was 8.6, thus, the approximation Woody made of roughly 1/3 would seem more accurate.

[gark]

I ain't a tsunami expert but it belies common sense to be able to tell a 10 cm 'tsunami' wave from the ordinary waves which are usually much taller. How the heck can you tell?

[anterian]

Okay Woody, yes, the first quake was 1/3 the strength of the 2004 quake. So based on that, it had the potential to send a tsunami 1/3 the size of the previous one, or about 3 meters. (Not really, but for the sake of argument . . .) That would certainly have resulted in loss of life! Yes, with the rapid communications we have today, the major press has difficulty verifying facts before reporting. In a dynamic situation like yesterday, they feel compelled to report the "raw" news before it can be verified (like "someone tweeted that they saw the sea receding . . ." and so on.) Probably better to err on the side of safety in such a potentially dangerous situation, wouldn't you agree?

The reality (particularly as we learned yesterday) is that the Richter scale number is but one factor in determining the presence and size of a tsunami. The horizontal motion of the earthquake yesterday resulted in much less water displacement (and thus, wave generation) than a quake with vertical motion. We don't have all the tools and technology to predict with 100% accuracy, but we can predict the potential conditions that could lead to a tsunami.

It's not a perfect world with respect to news reporting, and it's not 1972 anymore. News gets reported (in some cases) too quickly and without validation. That quick reporting also can potentially save lives. There is both upside and downside compared to the reporting style of 40 years ago. The validation I saw with yesterday's reporting was that the situation was unclear, but potentially dangerous. The fact that warnings from the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center remained in effect until well into the evening hours seems to confirm there was real potential for disaster.

The Richter scale is a logarithmic scale, so yesterday's earthquake was a tenth the size of the 2004 one.

I believe you're off Anterian. The 2004 quake was a 9.2. If yesterday's quake were 8.2 it would be 10%. However, yesterday's quake was 8.6, thus, the approximation Woody made of roughly 1/3 would seem more accurate.

well an 8.6 is roughly equivalent to 100 megatones of TNT. and a 9.2 to 950 megatones. this seems like roughly a 10 to 1 reduction in force. Perhaps you do not understand what a logarithmic scale is. http://science.howstuffworks.com/nature/natural-disasters/earthquake6.htm