...please be patient. Frances, which was only a tropical storm, knocked out some people's power for about a week. I'll try to keep you posted, and if for some reason I'm NOT doing that, this will probably mean I'm without power.

So cross your fingers and pray, folks. The hurricane season is getting really old...

[ 09-25-2004 04:31 AM: Message edited 1 time, lastly by Mara1Jade ]

--------------------

I'm doing my best trying to direct these puppies away from you ("I ride the stormcloud and the night!" you know... heh) but it just isn't working.

*gloom*

I hope you get through Jeanne without any major mishap. I'll be thinking of you, and will also be keeping my eyes peeled on the weather in Florida.

Hey, here's a thought: MOVE TO IOWA. Then you only have to deal with drought and flood and tornadoes and blizzards and... and...

Yeah, stay there. What's another lil ol hurricane?

Seriously, I'm praying for ya.

--------------------

--------------------

The current visible image shown has the eye of Jeanne just hanging off the southeast coast of Florida... maybe thinking of coming ashore by Miami???

That was on this date at 17:45 UTC, which according to my calculation puts it about 12:45 CDT or 13:45 Eastern time. (I BELIEVE UTC is Universal Time at Greenwich.)

Which, according to my computer clock was about 20 minutes ago.

Mara... I think you might be in for some rain. As I understand hurricanes, it seems the eastern parts of them are where the big accompanying storms are, but at least, going by the image, you are clear out on the far edge.

Hopefully you won't get nailed as hard as predicted.

I'm watching....

--------------------

--------------------

We have sustained winds at 45 and gusts up to 60 right now. We are also currently under a tornado warning--one has been sighted nearby. Right now I obviously still have power, but that may or may not change. So far there have been power outages and there has been significant tree damage due to winds. Power has flickered here several times.

Just so you all know what is going on.

--------------------

At least people under hurricane threat have an early warning that one is coming... and we in the Midwest, if not warned about the onset of an actual tornado, have learned to watch and read the sky and be ready to skedaddle to safety when one comes.

You guys get an awful lot of rain, too. I'd rather have snow, really, than all the sogginess and wet and damp. Cold air is dry air, and doesn't chill as nastily as cooler, humid air does, which is what you have there.

If I had my choice, I'd move to Tucson! Yeah, that's the ticket. Hot, dry desert, yeah.

And clear, cool to downright chilly nights! Talk about great for observation!

--------------------

While it is true, earthquakes are damaging (they often crack the foundations of houses) they rarely do any damage. The earthquake that damaged San Francisco so badly 15 years ago did so much damgage because the houses were built on garbage dumps (dumasses), and the fire did more damage than anything. But damaging earthquakes are far and few between, so I still think that California is the best. Plus, in two days, you can go from warm, humid weather (Southern California) to desert (Death Valley) to snow (Sierra Nevadas), to rain (its going to be somewhere)
to grape vines (where I live) to just about anything else except for tropical rainforest. Plus, in about an hours drive I can go see where they filmed Endor!!!

Ask Cult Master Raelgosh, I'm sure he'll most likely agree with me. By the way, when do you think I can come over to your house in Denver for snowboarding?

But... EXCUSE ME??? Earthquakes not damaging? Err-- methinks you should ponder that a bit longer. The Richter Scale is logarithmic; a 7 or 8 mag earthquake is severely damaging, and a 9 to 10 downright devastating.

Actually, geologically speaking, I think the sandier rock moves better with the quake, and less damage occurs on the surface than in the case of a harder, more brittle or denser rock. But your theory aside: just ask the people in Anchorage, Alaska who went through that awful 1964 earthquake how "little damage" was caused... and they'd laugh in your face. Streets were ripped asunder, buildings flattened, electric and gas lines ripped apart, myriad fires started, many people died....

There is also something called liquifaction, in which sandy soil is jarred loosely apart from itself, the pore spaces having filled with water, which allows anything to sink into it during the quake. This hardens as the quake halts... instant and deadly quicksand.

Finally, in the late 1800s there was the utterly devastating New Madrid earthquake which hit the middle of the continent. It changed the course of the Mississippi River.

I think you need to hit the earth science books a bit more.

And why do you think I live in Denver -- unless it is Cult Master Raelgosh you refer to?

--------------------

That's the important part of the song anyway, so locationwise, I'd say Sa'kal is right, disaster, graysith. Though one think GS, it's only SUPER RAINY during el-nino, which the last one was in '97. Which means we're due for one. Though if you drive through nevada and utah, you may think it's going on right now. It's actually green.

--------------------

Er, I believe engineers worldwide (at least in non-third-world countries) are STILL developing construction codes that withstand earthquakes, and are coming up with more and more unique methods for buildings to "sway" with them instead of cracking.

Ummm... the Northridge quake in the 90s hit in LA where they had the most up-to-date codes (for the time) and STILL freeways crumpled, buildings flattened, and again people died.

You can't just up and say that "damage is done just to places where construction is poor." That is way over-generalized and indeed quite a naive view of what is really going on in the world when it comes to natural disasters.

Yes, there is MEGA devastation in poorer countries who construct adobe homes with no foundation to speak up, which pulverize when quakes would strike. But according to what you are saying, Tokyo (as well as other areas in Japan and Hong Kong) and LA and San Francisco and other "up-to-date" locales would be basically impervious to a quake hitting them.

History has proven this to be wrong time and time again.

Another thing to consider is the type of earthquake: the Northridge one was a slope-slip one, I believe, (Ok, that's not the actual geological term, but I've gone brain-dead, so it will have to do until I can look up the term) anyway, it's the kind where the two crustal portions went up and down relative to each other instead of sideways. This was utterly unexpected, and a bit more severe than the more "normal" strike-slip which go sideways.

--------------------

1. One has no warning whatsoever of their approach.

2. The destruction is generally more widespread than in a tornado.

There are an average of 34 tornadoes A YEAR in Iowa, yet we don't hear much about them. They mostly form, hit a field, and dissipate; the majority are F-1's or maybe an F-2. As with most disasters, it's the big ones that get sensationalized by the media, and mislead the public into thinking that's what a tornado (or an earthquake, or a typhoon or a hurricane or a whatever) is all about.

It's always the worst of the worst that adheres in peoples' minds. I understand what you are saying about earthquakes perhaps not being as damaging IN YOUR AREA... but that is like me saying the same thing for me here in the Midwest. (Oh yes, we get earthquakes too, did you know that? Mostly little ones that go completely unnoticed.) And more along this line: you are basing your facts on a very slim set of statistics: perhaps a severe earthquake might come along every ten years or so in California, but they happen somewhere EVERY YEAR, SOMEWHERE on the earth, and cause untold damage and death and destruction. (Just like there is always a volcanic eruption going on somewhere, we just don't hear much about these things unless it directly effects us here in the USA, which is really not good when you come to think of it.)

So to be fair, we should be comparing the worst of the worst: earthquake to hurricane to tornado.

If given a choice, I'd take facing a tornado any day (which I have, by the way), since you have warning and can get away. Damage, for the most part, while severe, is localized except for the odd exception which happens along rarely.

Second, I'd face a hurricane. Again, there is time enough to get safely away. But regarding hurricanes, they are far more dangerous than a tornado (heck, they spawn tornadoes!) and kill far, far more people.

Finally, the last critter I'd want to be in the middle of is a large earthquake. And it is simply because there is no advance warning of its approach, and no clear path to run FOR SAFETY when it does hit. (Where do you run in an earthquake???) Whether or not you happen to be at the epicenter or along the active fault-line at the time it strikes is purely a matter of luck, and luck alone.

Not to mention that earthquakes can and do trigger tsunamis, which in turn kill lots and lots of people as well. This on top of the ruptured gas mains and all the fires that have to be combated without water, since the water mains usually rupture right along with the gas ones. Oh yeah, and the mudslides and avalanches and liquifaction...

Gimme a tornado any day. It's local, short-lived, hits hard and goes away. But at least, because of early warning systems and Doppler radar, there are increasingly more and more people who live through them to pick up those pieces and put them back together again.

[ 10-17-2004 08:36 PM: Message edited 1 time, lastly by Graysith ]

--------------------

1. Earthquakes. I've said enough on this anyway.
2. Tornado. While damaging to a very strict area aroung the tornado, they leave most other things alone.
3. Hurricane. Like Gray said, the hurricanes spawn tornados.

But you still have to realize, ALL OF THESE ARE DAMAGING. It doesn't matter what you believe, all of them still do damage.

By that reasoning, neither do tornadoes or hurricanes. It's all the other stuff they trigger/cause that causes the damage, so that's a silly statement to make.

(And... in some weird and rare cases, the tornado itself does NOT kill. I have read reports where animals -- and sometimes people, too -- have been physically picked up by the tornado, only to have been set down, very shaken, bruised, but alive.)

But... as I did mention, earthquakes themselves CAN kill, sheesh... liquifaction of soil has happened more than once, and this happens during the quake itself and is when normally solid ground turns semi-liquid and makes things sink. Then the quake ends, the ground returns to normal, and anything that sunk into it in the meantime... well, I rest my case about that.

And as for not knowing about where a tornado is going to form, yes we do have a pretty good clue, which is more than I can say about an earthquake. Doppler radar shows us upper level rotation (the infamous "hook") which usually means a tornado is going to form sometime soon from that particular storm cell. The entire cell itself can be tracked, so we know in which direction it is heading. People here read the sky, looking for the wall cloud which usually accompanies this kind of storm system; even though we might not have the exact location down to seconds of a degree pinpointed, we have general area and heading. A spotted rotating wall cloud is a pretty good indication that a funnel is likely to touch down within a mile (or usually much less) from where it is spotted.

Again, we have enough warning over a general area for people within that area to seek shelter. The same goes for people within a hurricane warning, only in their case they usually have more time in which to depart the area.

You simply cannot do that with an earthquake. It's their unpredictability that makes them so dangerous, in my opinion, more dangerous than hurricanes or tornadoes. And when you line up the statistics, you'll find earthquakes are far more deadly than tornadoes. Far, far more people have been killed in earthquakes than have ever been by tornadoes.

--------------------

While it is true that hurricanes and tornados are much easier to track, I'd still rather be in the middle of an earthquake. Your statistics for earthquakes killing more than tornados my have been true in the past, but if you think about this:

In the last five years, how many people have been killed in California by earthquakes?

Also, how many people have died in tornados in the last five years in "Tornado Alley" (it's around the same size as California anyway)?

I am speaking globally. Earthquakes GLOBALLY are more dangerous and deadly than tornadoes.

And, "tornado alley" is a tad wee bigger than California, I believe. Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas (the leader in tornado production, by the way), Nebraska, Iowa... parts of Illinois, Indiana, Missouri...

Oh yeah, lessee, tornadoes begin forming in late winter in the Florida area, then spread across the southeast until finally winding up following their "tornado alley" pattern, usually in May and June.

So, you see, tornadoes form over a far larger area than you think, and still earthquakes kill more people than they do.

--------------------

I base mine on facts I have learned by studying this topic, as well as upon the fact that I have had an actual brush with a tornado -- one landed in my backyard a couple years ago.

Scary, yes.

Tornados are indeed nasty, but extremely localized for the most part, and thus cause less damage overall. Hurricanes and earthquakes cause more widespread damage per event, when comparing say a category 4-5 hurricane, an F-5 tornado, and an earthquake measuring 8+ on the Richter scale.

Go read FEMA reports. Calls for federal assistance go out far more times in relationship to a hurricane or earthquake's strike (versus that of a tornado) and for far greater financial assistance. (Millions, and I think now actually billions -- Hurricane Charley -- versus hundreds of thousands to perhaps a million or so in the case of a "killer tornado."

Oh yeah, "killer tornados" wipe out people on the scale of tens at a time, while hurricanes and earthquakes easily hit hundreds if not thousands.

And you have no advance warning of when an earthquake is going to hit, such as you do in the case of a tornado or a hurricane.

Oh yeah, ok, so you are now stating you meant in California and not globally. Ok...

What about all the wildfires the west coast seems to get? Mudslides?? They're no fun either.

Nope, gimme Iowa's changing seasons, the occasional ice storm or blizzard, and even less occurring (actually causing damage, that is) tornado. Way better than having your house burned down or slide off a cliff, or crumpled when an unseen earthquake strikes.

California has lovely weather, true (except for the cold rains in the winter) but that's about the only pro I see to possibly balance out the cons of living on an active faultline. And in exchange, I'll take stable ground over anything. So --

Mountains? I'll take Colorado, or maybe Wyoming (although there is a risk there, it's called Yellowstone, which is an active hotspot -- actually, all the lakes in the park are old volcanic calderas!) and for weather????

Gimme Arizone.

Mmmm... yeah. Arizona.

And truly, if I wanted pure beauty and "mountains" another place I'd love to live is Washington, even with the volcanoes they have popping off there. That's a nicer climate than people think, actually. Yeah, they get rain but their climate is moderated by the ocean (at least in Seattle, which is a city I'd move to in a hearbeat if I could.

That one and Tucson....)

--------------------

But... historically, more people have died in earthquakes in California than in tornadoes in the Midwest... I think. I know the actual number of people killed by tornadoes is less than you think... and I believe that less people have been killed in tornadoes in Iowa (historically) than by earthquakes in California.

Anyway, you are comparing a state with a region, which is skewed as well. (CA vs Midwest).

The point I am trying to make here is that you are expressing an opinion, your own belief, which is your perogative.

I am stating my response, which I too am entitled to, but I am trying to base mine on facts and not just "what I believe."

Now, I need to go check on those figures about tornado-caused deaths in Iowa.

[ 10-19-2004 08:21 PM: Message edited 1 time, lastly by Graysith ]

--------------------

When it comes to the event that causes the most damage of all in the entire USA, it is the phenomenon known as "creep."

Hehe.. it's insidious. Hits slowly, over time. Causes billions of damage.

Is unstoppable, for the most part.

And strikes any place in the USA which has rain, any level of relief (actually, the lower the relief, the more this is going to hit) and has any time in the year where the temperature drops below freezing (32 deg. F).

--------------------

*I LOVE EARTH*

--------------------