Tsunami Warning System For the Atlantic; it's necessary?

[HURAKAN]

Sometimes I get angry with governments because there needs to be a catastrophe before something is changed. Examples, before Andrew there was not much caring about the methods of construction in South Florida, after Andrew then everything changed and new constructions codes and methods were inplanted. Before 9/11, there was not to much to care about the security in the airports, now everything has changed and security checks are more rigorously. Before the tsunami in the Indian Ocean, I had never heard anyone mentioning about any threat of a tsunami in the Atlantic, no one even knew about the threat in the Canary Islands. And there are lots ans lots of other examples. Now, this is my question, Should the US government use millions of dollars to protect the east coast and caribbean nations about the dangers of a tsunami, or should that money be used to protect better our coasts of hurricanes and to develop new methods for cities to defend themselves againt hurricanes? After all, hurricanes represent a threat every year and tsunimis in the Atlantic are rare, very rare occurrences.

[Derek Ortt]

lets try and mitigate the cane damage and in doing so, we will also mitigate the tsunami damage since a tsunami is basically a hurricane without the wind

[Aslkahuna]

The fact that people have been killed by Atlantic tsunamis in the past should be reason enough to have a warning system. Killer tsunamis in te pcaific aren't all that common either (except for Japan which is why they have a Japanese term) but the danger is always there so it's good to have a warning system in place.

Steve

[HurricaneBill]

Didn't Portugal get hit by a devastating tsunami once?

I know Nova Scotia did in in the early 20th Century.

[cycloneye]

Puerto Rico was hit by a tsunami in the western part of the island in 1918 when a 7.3 quake occured with epicenter in the mona pasage.Many people died in that event and that was the last time a strong quake and tsunami haved struck this island.That is why the goverment in Puerto Rico now is putting many signs in some areas of western and northern PR to provoke awareness from the population about it. All of this signs promotion happens after the SE Asia disaster.Studys made in recent days show that there are areas in Puerto Rico that are vunerable to tsunamis and those are the west coast,the NW area near Aguadilla,the San Juan facing coast,Condado,Isla Verde,Luquillo and the Ponce coast area.

[Guest]

Portugal got hit by a tsunami in the Lisbon Earthquake (around 1715 I believe). I don't think we should have a tsunami warning system. The media would make a huge deal about a quake, and everyone has televisions and lots of people have cell phones. Maybe for the South American coast however.....

I still don't see why they want a tsunami warning system in the Indian. It is very rare to get tsunami's there of this proportion, maybe once in 500 years.

[The Big Dog]

There was a 6.8 quake in the middle of the Atlantic last week. A little above that and you're in tsunami range. Yes, I think we should have a warning system for the Atlantic. I don't see why we can't have that and still continue research on hurricanes. As you implied in your first post, we need to start being more proactive and less reactive about such things. It's too late to install a warning system after a million people or more are wiped out from Boston to Miami.

[Aslkahuna]

The Lisbon Earthquake was in 1755 and the tsunami resulting from it killed 60000 people. True basin wide tsunamis in the IO are rare but local tsunamis in that region are not-for example, a warning system might have saved many of the 5000 who died in the Mindanao tsunami in the philippines in 1976-the same holds true for the Atlantic and Caribbean basins. Actually, it's been only 121 years since the last basin wide (and multiocean) tsunami aound the IO the previous one being the 40 meter high tsunami from Krakatau in 1883. Based upon that one could say the return period for such events is roughly 100 years which means another could happen tomorrow or hundreds of years from now. The recent earthquake released strain on the north end of the subduction zone and megathrust fault where it occurred, but the zone and fault extend well SE from that area and it may have become strongly stressed from the recent event so there could be a future large event further on down which would bring a risk to other parts of Indonesia and Australia.

Steve

[The Big Dog]

lets try and mitigate the cane damage and in doing so, we will also mitigate the tsunami damage since a tsunami is basically a hurricane without the wind

How do you figure? If you're talking about storm surge, I guess you could vaguely compare the two. But I think the issue is time, not damage. With hurricanes, we see them coming, we have a week of warning, a chance to prepare, leave town, do whatever it takes to protect our property and lives. Tsunamis strike with little, if any, warning in a matter of a few hours, if not minutes. Every second is crucial.

[Persepone]

There was a 6.8 quake in the middle of the Atlantic last week. A little above that and you're in tsunami range. Yes, I think we should have a warning system for the Atlantic. I don't see why we can't have that and still continue research on hurricanes. As you implied in your first post, we need to start being more proactive and less reactive about such things. It's too late to install a warning system after a million people or more are wiped out from Boston to Miami.

There is a big fault line (like the one in California) in the middle of the Atlantic and there are quakes there all the time. As Big Dog says, a little bigger or up and down the plate further and hence closer to land, and you'd have a Tsunami threat. There are other "storm surge" possibilities as well. Would the Tsunami warning also warn of storm surges caused by events other than earthquakes?

There may not be that much of a "threat" statistically (vs. hurricanes, which are common), but it would be more devastating in terms of loss of life.

I think Tsunamis are more like tornadoes in that you have very little time to take cover--but you do have some time--and I think lots of cities and towns have tornado warning systems where there is little statistical probability of a tornado.

Even a few minutes can make a difference in a tornado--time to get into a storm cellar--and even a few minutes to "get to higher ground" would make a difference in a Tsunami or other storm surge situation.

By the way, for those of you who live out West, is there any sort of "flash flood" warning that tells you that some area that looks "harmless" is likely to get slammed? I'd bet there is. I once visited some place that had signs that said something to the effect that if you were caught by water, you should "CLIMB UP!" and there were arrows pointing at how to do that. Once you see the sign, this is obvious--but if you were totally panicked, you might not think of climbing up the sides of the ravine instead of trying to outrun the water....

A Tsunami or other warning of its type on the East Coast would have to be accompanied by good signage that tells people how to get out of the area to higher ground quickly. Again, how do you get to safety? High tourist areas are a special risk because they don't want to put up signs to panic the tourists. It's not always obvious which way to run or even to drive!

Last, I do not think the efforts to warn should be confused with the efforts to prevent or mitigate damage. These are different concerns. Building codes, zoning laws, etc. should be pursued--but these should be in addition to warning systems.

By the way, as long as people demand they are within their rights to build or live in certain areas, there are going to be problems with zoning, etc. And for many this is economic survival. If you move to a new town and spend your life savings on a house that is (unknown to you) on the flood plain of the river, you're not going to want to hear that you can't rebuild. But there are a bunch of houses in developments built by the unscrupulous that flood every 12 or 15 years or so--and they get rebuilt or repaired and sold to the next unsuspecting person who moves in. With variations, this probably happens through the US--and perhaps the danger is not flooding but something else (mudslides?) There's no way everyone is going to be happy.

[Derek Ortt]

I mean if we make structures strong enough to withstand a 15 ft surge, then we should fare much better from a tsunami

[The Big Dog]

I mean if we make structures strong enough to withstand a 15 ft surge, then we should fare much better from a tsunami

Ok, the structures may survive, but there will still be a lot of people on the street who have no idea what's coming. Even if you can get people inside, you'd better get them up to the 3rd or 4th story because it's not about the buildings, it's about the water.

Granted, that's about all you could do if you have just minutes, but it's likely that you'd have at least 2-3 hours notice with any tsunami that strikes the U.S. Atlantic coast, provided the wave generated from a quake near or east of the mid-ocean ridge. If that's the case, you're better off getting them inland. I don't know how far inland tsunami waves can travel on land, although I'm sure there's a formula taking into account the height of the waves, the speed and the incline of the land. You wouldn't need to evacuate 200 miles, but you'd have to get at least a few miles inland to be safe, and that could be done in a few hours, which is about all the warning that a tsunami warning system would provide.

[Derek Ortt]

there is no way to evacuate people. Our coast is simply too populated. It takes more than a day to evac just 500,000 people and with a major tsunami, we'd need to evacuate the entire coast. We'll have people stranded in cars, that high rise evacuation is the best solution, IMO

Even in a best case evac, like how Myrtle Beach was somehow able to pull off with Charley (how did they get 200,000 out in just a fe hours, probably gave the order to ignore all red lights and stop signs is my only thought as it took a full day to get the same amount out during Floyd when all lanes were inland), thats still a few hours, which we likely will not have for an atlantic tsunami. This is why I favor making ALL coastal homes like a dome home because it proved that it could survive a prolonged 10 foot tsunami

[The Big Dog]

Well, you have a point, but vertical evacuation probably won't be enough for 500,000 people either. Maybe a combination of the two? Like I said, we're not talking about going very far -- just far enough to get out of the danger zone.

As for the dome home, are you talking about that guy in Pensacola? True, the house survived, but in a real tsunami, I don't know if it would make much of a difference. Obviously you couldn't ride out the wave there. The structure might stand, but it would still be destroyed internally from water filling it. It would still be a total loss. Well, unless you have a way of making it water tight, and then you'd better reinforce the walls because the pressure on the air pocket you create would crush the house regardless of the shape. That wasn't a 10 foot wave in the Indian Ocean. They describe a 50-foot "wall of water" coming at them.

Nonetheless, the idea of the dome home in intriguing. I've been thinking about this for some time for inland communities. A home that could stand theoretically to 200, even 300 mph winds. They would be prohibitively expense, though, and I don't know of any way to retrofit an existing house.

[Derek Ortt]

from the damage I saw, the tidal surge from Ivan was higher than the Tsunami. The values of 30-50 feet were from the waves, which also were reported at Pensacola from Ivan.

One other consideration is that a tidal surge occurs over several hours, while a Tsunami is a much quicker hit. The dome survived Ivan (though it did receive damage) because it is also elevated. If all houses are built like the dome home, including the elevation, then the tsunami problem should be solved.

As for inland evac for a tsunami, not much chance at all. In a cat 3 hurricane, the surge usually goes more than a mile inland, after completely covering the barrier islands. I can tell you that it takes at least a day to do an evac of Miami Beach, and that is only when 1/4 of the people hede the order. Vertical evacuation is likely the only way to go when we are talking about a lead time of 2-3 hours, which is why I feel that if we just improve our hurricane codes, the tsunami concerns will be taken care of

[cyclonaut]

Some money should go into a warning system for Tsunamis in ATL.I heard that NOAA plans to go ahead with such plans.Though it is a extremley rare occurance you just never know & if lives can be saved then it should be done!

Who would have thought just a month ago that we would have seen the horrible scenes & heard the horrible stories that took place over in Asia.But it happened.Who knows whats gonna happen tomorrow?

[george_r_1961]

Of course if I had to make the choice between the two I would elect to spend money on hurricane forecasting. The tsunami threat to the east coast is slight yet neverthelsss present. And a 100 foot-plus wall of water slamming into the coast from Florida up to Canada would kill tens of millions in a matter of minutes. And with only a 9 hour timeframe to prepare the scene would be chaos. Perhaps there is a way to determine the likliehood of such an event occuring so the coastal areas can take appropriate measures.

[cyclonaut]

I dont think that they are going to flip a coin to determine where to spend the money.I think there is enough money for both situations.It goes without saying that more time,money & effort should go into hurricanes but I hope that a mammoth catastrophe does'nt happen before some preliminary system for tsunamis is put in place.Better to be safe that sorry.I believe the EC of the US is one of the most populated in the world.

[Robert]

I would like to see a bit of that money be used to develop an effective emergency alert system, one that could be used for any sort of weather or man made disaster. Yes, I know that there are weather alert radios, and alerts that go over the TV, but I would love to have developed a "it is time to turn on the radio/ TV and find out what is going on" general warning system.

We used to have tornado sirens (some areas still do). They work great in heavily populated areas with people who sit at home with the windows open (turn on an AC unit and TV in a well sealed house and you will not hear one from any distance). Most people do not want to set down a bunch of bucks on a weather alert radio (I have always had problems with the ones I owned not getting a good signal and therefore not going off). The cell phone message is a great idea, but sometimes messages don't show up (30 minutes after a tornado warning happens, I get the message), or I get the "dense fog advisories" at 3:00 in the morning (makes the wife really happy).

I have found that 90% of the time a warning is no good for me. Tornado warning, I want to see where it is and where it is moving (we live in a large county). So, if I hear something going on, I will jump on line, or flip on the TV for more info. I am all for developing better technologies for forcasting all sorts of things, but until we find a good way to get that info into the hands of all who will be effected (or as many as possible, you will never get 100%) that information will be wasted.

[angelwing]

Personally I would rather see the money go for a Tsunami warning system. Living only 75 miles from the Jersey shore and working 20 miles from it, I would like a heads up so I can hightail it outahere!