What do people thin of the apparent misuse of the word "Tsunami" by authorities.
I'm a bit steamed up by yet another example the seeming continual exaggeration by authorities "those in whom we need to trust".
My neighbours here in Central NZ, where we are close to the recent earthquake, responded to
radio mentions of "Tsunami" by waking us all up in panic, 3.00 am. Bless them for caring, and allowing us to care for them. But in ignorance and trust , without taking extra time to check what was really going on, we drove them and ourselves to higher ground away from the
water front.
An item on Civil Defence
radio later (say 3.30) discussed the "Tsunami Activity" recorded as a 200 mm (8 in waves). And then I found the tide was 1.8 meters low, and near to low in terms of timing, and the tidal
current was flowing in the same direction as the main earthquake related flow. The Damn "Tsunami" would stop 50 meters from high tide mark, at worst.
My thinking is the proper definition of a Tsnami is a "Large Body of Moving Water" as a result of Earthquake or Volcanic activity. Other definitions include that it must also be potentially damaging (due to its large size). Do most people agree with this definition?
Some areas here regularly get storm waves of 8 to ten meters, and they can cause a bit of erosion and flooding if coinciding with high tide, so surely the words "Tsunami Waves" should avoid avoided unless they are gonna fit with the accepted definition - ie large waves, earthquake formed with damage potential damaging.
Why the hell did the NZ authorities think it was OK to use the word "Tsunamu Waves" in the same sentence as 200 mm (eight in high) ripple. And then for the world press, including this thread, we all pick up the word Tsumani. There wasn't a Tsunami. Never happened. And you can't have a "small Tsunami" either. And don't be fooled by the bs video on the
internet backing claims we did have a Tsunami with video from actual Tsunamis (Japan or
indonesia.) They are absolute bs. too. Call them out
Does anyone else agree this new usage of these dramatic words - over the top and in its inaccuracy, risky for the future, in the manner of the boy that called wolf.
In this new usage, Cruisers are likely to hear the word. Regional "Tsunami Warning", panic a bit, and think they are doing right by and clear out of a safe harbour un-neccesarily.
But a six inch ripple, or a 12 inch, or a 2 foot, not going to cause damage in the vast majority of areas. Lets try to keep the officials accurate eh, instead of them apparently crying to save us all and justify their jobs?
I'm writing a strongly worded letter asking them to limit the use of the word to Tsunami to real risk suitations
Linear Mode
Recent Discussions