Warnings are only for wimps apparently. The mucho macho folks discount all of it as a hoax /fake news/Liberal bullsh**. Whether they are drowning in rising seas due to the accelerating of melting icebergs they will NEVER admit it since they are as dumb as mud. SIGH. Thank you for your reply Sharon and the nifty graphic
No, Nature's not "angry" with anyone. An earthquake is a side-effect of the planet's internal workings, but people do choose to settle areas prone to earthquakes.
Or fires or hurricanes or tornadoes. Or they insist/persist on living right at the edge of rivers that constantly overflow. Or in areas that are below sea level by the sea for the pretty view. Go figger. They keep rebuilding on sites that were burned out, earthquaked out, flooded out, mudslided out , tornadoed to shreds and hurricaned beyond salvation. Repeatedly. Why I don't know. They are very slow to get it apparently and some never do. SIGH. Thank you for your reply Durdle.
This post was edited by RosieG at December 15, 2017 3:52 PM MST
People become very attached to their home areas however hazardous, and seem to think "they" will do something to protect them from the next repeat. Which of course "they" can't or won't.
We are lucky in the British Isles in that we suffer from storms that can cause damage but are never hurricanes, and our numerous earthquakes are very slight (many are thought to be from old mines collapsing).
What we do have are rivers that can overflow. Rivers have always done this. It's an immutable part of physical geography!
Britain's old towns and villages, dating from Mediaeval times, were generally built up the valley sides a bit because the locals of the time knew their river's behaviour from accumulated local knowledge. Sometimes they were caught out, but until quite recently no-one had the delicate carpets, electrical equipment and so on we have. What they did own was fairly flood-resistant or if small, could be carried upstairs.
Then in the last couple of decades or so, people began to ask, "Why are 'we' allowing developers to build on flood-plains?" The answers were really that the planning authorities did not appreciate the hazard and risk, the developers did not care, the estate-agents kept quiet about it, the buyers did not know since most were from out of town. I'm not sure about the insurers though - they might have stopped giving flood cover on such properties.
So the insurers and the Environment Agency put their heads together and said, let's produce some sensible guidance. So they opened up the Ordnance Survey maps and drew lines parallel to the river banks and coasts, at a nominal distance from them, saying if it's within that line it's a flood risk. Only no-one thought to ensure the combined heads understood contours, which are clearly marked on these maps.
Result? Many houses genuinely at some risk had their flood cover reduced or removed (or the premiums hiked). And so did many others within that band but actually, on valley or coastal slopes well above the height of any conceivable water-level! A friend living in one Pennine Hills river valley had this problem, and he had a heck of a job convincing the insurers that yes, his house is only 100 yards from the river, but is 100 feet in altitude above it!
Thank you for your very thoughtful, informative and comprehensive reply Durdle. The Brits have always been smarter than the Americans. Yes. You can quote me on that. Though not perfect (who is?) you are far more rational than we or so it seems to me. Can you imagine your countrymen electing a Trump for anything? Of course you can't. That is unimaginable. Have waves ever reached a height of 100 feet? The biggest Tsunami in the world even? If you live on an island you are always at risk from the water UNLESS you live on a mountain on that island. Living at the base of a mountain would scare me. If a dam/reservoir were right above it that could conceivably break and the town would vanish it would be even scarier.Years ago after one of our more severe earthquakes there was that possibility from the Van Norman Dam in the San Fernando Valley. Those who lived below it were told to evacuate until it could be examined to make sure there was no damage. There was a two-mile radius that affected us. It was hours before we knew if we'd be safe. My then-husband and I had jobs within that radius. His work was actually just outside it while mine smack dab in the center of it. There was no school that day of course and everything was abandoned. My son and I went over to my husband's work and we all sat there listening to the radio waiting to find out what was happening..What does more damage? Fire or water or winds or quakes? San Francisco was leveled by an earthquake pretty much but it was the subsequent fires that finished the job. Mother Nature does have the upper hand for sure. Happy Saturday Durdle! :)
Thank you Rosie - compliment very much appreciated!
We Britons do moan about the abilities of our Prime Ministers, but they are not elected into that position from nowhere. They are Members of Parliament first, elected by their constituents but chosen to stand by the parties they represent, and generally hold one or another Ministerial post before Prime Minister. So whatever we think of them - for or against - they do have considerable Parliamentary and general political experience before becoming Prime Minister, and they are still constituency MPs.
Also, they do not choose the heads of Civil Service Departments. Although the Governmental overseer and liaison officer of those (the Minister) is an MP, the Civil Service is independent of Government, a quality it both fiercely holds and is made to hold, to the extent that there are strict controls on what political activities civil servants are allowed to do.
::::::::
100 foot waves? I don't know. I think waves approaching that have occasionally been known, but I don't know if any that high have ever been recorded. A Tsunami behaves like any large sea wave. It crosses the deep ocean as a low, harmless swell, and the water stays more or less where it is - the wave motion runs on, but anything on the water such as a boat, is simply lifted and put back down in a circular movement. The wave rears up into a huge breaker that tumbles and pushes a violent mass of water forwards only when it nears shore and the shallowing water impedes its progress.
I think the world's largest tsunami yet recorded was that thrown up by the underwater collapse and ensuing explosion of Krakatau in the late 19C. The volcano had been erupting strongly for a few days, and it seems to have suddenly disintegrated, allowing the cold sea water to flood its red-hot interior so cause a huge flash-steam explosion far more violent than the lava eruption itself. The wave is though to have been detected even on a tide-recorder in a harbour in South-West England, by a small but rapid rise-and-fall out of character for the area and the local sea conditions at the time.
I don't know which type of disaster is the worse. A hurricane covers a much larger area than an earthquake, but the heavy losses of life in some major earthquakes is due to the destruction of cities. Also, storms and hurricanes can be predicted, allowing people to take suitable shelter to move out of the way. Earthquakes are notoriously difficult or impossible to predict, either in time or severity.
There was a particularly unusual dam disaster in Italy some time last century - I can't find the name or date I'm afraid - in which the dam held but a huge slab of mountain side slid into the reservoir, displacing a mass of water over the top of the dam. The designers had either not realised or had decided safe, the geology of the valley-side.
The Pacific Ocean's East and West coasts are so prone to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, that the whole suite is called "The Pacific Ring of Fire" - essentially the ocean is slowly closing, with its floor crustal plates being subducted (forced down below) the continents. This has been happening for many millions of years, and will continue for many millions of years yet.
A school not far from my home has its very own seismograph, one of about a dozen in schools around Britain, recording all the time, showing the vibration son a screen above it, and linked to the State-owned British Geological Survey' seismic monitoring network. I have seen it when visiting the school for public lectures held on Winter evenings. It is quite a small device - its glass case is about the size of a coffee-table - but sensitive enough to show vibrations from powerful earthquakes in Asia, on the opposite "side" of the globe.
You're welcome Durdle though I'm not sure just saying what's true is a compliment. You know what? I'm gonna ask. As for your system of government well it's a perfect example of your country's leaders being far more intelligent than ours. You REQUIRE political experience! You also LIMIT political power. How uniquely extraordinarily LOGICAL is that? Whereas we hire former actors and reality show blowhards to be prez. You get what you pay for assuredly. I don't know where in the he** this country is going. Right now it is on a willy nilly track headed to he**. Each day a new awful occurs. A new low..A new "I can't believe this is happening". We shall leave that at that for now. As for your comprehensive and thoroughly helpful/informative reply about Tsunamis and other natural destructive occurrences thank you once again for your meticulous and down-to-earth explanation of how it all works. You are a very good teacher/educator you know. You never talk down to folks. You just explain in layman's terms what is going on. I think you enjoy sharing information and are very generous with your time in doing so. Some folks are cheapskates and spend as little of themselves on others as possible (oh another question just got born) and either don't know or don't want YOU to know. They either are ignorant OR pretend to be. I prefer your style much more.Hope your day goes well. Mine started off with an incredibly nice surprise! Lucky me. Lucky you too I hope m'dear! :)
Thank you - I always try to answer in a way that respects the question and questioner!
Most British MPs do have a trade or professional background before entering politics, which adds to what they bring to Parliament. In fact the wider the backgrounds among the Houses of Commons and Lords, the better. There's no reason an actor can't make it in politics here, and it's happened, but it's a long way from standing for first election to a Ministerial post.
The actress Glenda Jackson, a bricklayer's daughter, became a Labour politician 1992 after a long, illustrious stage and screen career. With an interest in transport matters, quite soon she became Junior Transport Minister (not "transportation" as Wikipedia has it). She stood down from politics in 2015, and has returned to acting.
The former Conservative Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, was originally an industrial chemist.
My lay knowledge of earthquakes etc. is thanks to studying geology as a hobby. This, and working in technical manufacturing companies, and a general life-long interest in science and engineering, helped me understand basic scientific method (not the same as specific methods in plural).
I also know the difference between hazard and risk, from writing simple risk-assessments required at work by health-and-safety law. I am not a statistician though, which involves mathematics beyond me except at the most basic level.
Patchouli 