Posts by ChrisW
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to Carol Stewart,
It's important that the hard questions continue to be asked, but a L'Aquila style beat up is not something to be encouraged.
Exactly what I had in mind too. But the L'Aquila story on risk communication and liability is complicated too - this current Scientific American blog helpful - http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2011/10/20/italian-seismologists-on-trial-for-failing-to-communicate-well/
-
Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to merc,
The people of Christchurch were, therefore, told that there could be a sizeable aftershock, but not the areas where it was most likely to occur. Having emerged unscathed from the December 26 jolt in terms of lives lost, they were unaware that the worst-case scenario of the GNS provided no prospect of such a fortunate outcome being replicated. By any valid yardstick, this was wrong.
This [NZH editorial] is misleading nonsense by any yardstick. The worst-case scenario is being hit by an asteroid but GNS did not warn that there would be no prospect of no loss of life in such an event either.
GNS did not know whether the December 26 magnitude 4.9 aftershock would be followed by one as large as 6, nor where it would occur if one did or where it was most likely. The list of possible places they gave is of course a translation of 'anywhere along, around and beyond the original fault rupture'.
-
Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to Joe Wylie,
I'm referring essentially to assessments of the earthquake-generating end of the system (the current subject of the Commission hearings and commentary) where my "trust" expresses a goodly amount of confidence that the surprises and severity and huge human and financial cost of these earthquakes will make a major difference nationally over the next few years and more. Admittedly that must also include an element of 'hope' of lesser standard than that 'sure and certain hope of the resurrection'.
I see Gerry Brownlee's current "geodata" and the general arse-covering as relating more to the other end of the system, the impacts of those earthquakes on buildings, infrastructure and lives. So concerning geodata on the top tens of metres of ground conditions, and also structural engineering, regulation, planning, emergency management and so on, including the critical factors in the deaths and damage (CTV building in particular) in the immediacy and aftermath.
Good interview with GNS’s Kelvin Berryman on RNZ ‘Checkpoint’ yesterday, straight-up as always, no sign of arse-covering cynicism there, and (inexplicitly) answering the question of what was disappointing because inaccurate in the NZHerald’s story in the morning – there was no “forecast” of a devastating earthquake in Christchurch to withhold, there were many possibilities and no way of judging how likely was the worst case scenario, other than (very) low.
-
Late to this, and wonder whether rather too much is being expected of earthquake prediction here - after the event of course the probability it will occur is 1, but predicting the future is so much harder.
Say it’s a 50/50 that the largest aftershock will be as big as 1 magnitude unit below the primary earthquake as the general rule, and the trend of aftershocks over the first 2-3 months is indicating probably smaller than that, but maybe not. And the biggest aftershock might occur where the most aftershocks are occurring, or where they’re not occurring, off the other end of the fault zone 60 km away, or somewhere else again - should Christchurch be warned to expect an aftershock significantly bigger than that global experience suggests, but right under them and with higher intensity shaking than ever recorded for an earthquake of anything like that magnitude, some time in the next few months?
I’d hazard a suggestion that wouldn’t be all that far off the Ken Ring model of earthquake risk communication.
Downplaying earthquake risks is the obvious way to retain or enhance research funding?
Back at the Ford/Radley submission and the dangerous blind fault under Sydenham/ Woolston apparently known earlier to the geologist grapevine – how could an unseen scarcely imaged fault be known to be “dangerous” without any measure of the past movement frequency and character? Geological faults are everywhere in NZ so everywhere is equally at risk? No – some faults are more dangerous than others, but working that out quantitatively in full detail – not so easy.
I trust there will be very strong recommendations for increased resourcing for a major upgrade in earthquake risk and hazard assessments throughout NZ, and they will be well received and accepted by Government at all levels, and acted upon over many years. But in the meantime, and regardless, it will be attention to building/planning matters that yield greater improvements in safety.
-
Some rather clever person had written huge letters in the sand spelling out “Clean Me”.
Where "huge" = ~24 metres high, impressively neat lettering too! Less impressive the scruffier "NO Mining John" a mere 3-5 metres, ambiguous without a comma of course so I have to feel ambivalent, but perhaps clear enough in the context.
I've been travelling, felt the urge to climb Mauao again for the first time since childhood close to 50 years ago and saw this from the summit last Saturday when the beach was still closed. Rena lurking offshore, stranded as if another flat-topped island inside the horizon, but sinsister, while a similar-sized container ship headed out and north past Mayor Island ...
-
As well as the urban and suburban NZs, there are provincial towns and even rural areas out there, where electorate MPs with a sense of place may be useful*.
Consider the Napier-Gisborne railway - photo attached (with a little bit of luck**) - threatened from above and below, left and right - and which way is KiwiRail heading?*Alas ones like Anne Tolley, MP for East Coast, not so much.
**Alas luck lacking - any clues??
-
Hard News: The Politics of Absence, in reply to Rich Lock,
What she says seems to be discounted by John Key and those in the power, and she has to tow the party line. Even when it is against what she wants to say. Like funding for rail networks.
To be fair, and if I recall correctly, she has actually voted against her own party once or twice on Auckland issues. Someone else will have to provide detail, though.
Ah, that would be because she was *towing* the the party line - ie out in front of the line trying to drag it with her. Rather than *toeing* the line, standing behind it intimidated into conformity by a sneering sergeant-major.
-
Hard News: Who owns the news?, in reply to Islander,
"Sorrow is knowledge,
those that know the most
must mourn the deepest,
the tree of knowledge
is not the tree of life."Nice quote Islander - I guess the complementarity of 'Sorrow is knowledge' to Keats' 'Beauty is truth ...' is obvious, as well as its greater truthfulness perhaps? I looked it up seeking context and find it pre-dates Keats by three years and is somewhat different from above -
But grief should be the instructor of the wise;
Sorrow is knowledge: they who know the most
Must mourn the deepest o`er the fatal truth,
The Tree of Knowledge is not that of Life.Half-way back on topic - I gave up on TV news at 6pm yesterday when 3News started on a third phase of its lead item being some inconsequential murder acquittal in Italy, after 6 or 7 minutes already - switched to TVNZ and found the same close-ups of bra-strap, switched off in disgust.
-
Well to join in by getting down to the guts of it, my image to replace the blank grey, perhaps only a rumour that it looks like it might come from "The Little Prince"?
-
Legal Beagle: On Cats and Coro, in reply to rachelf,
Indeed rachelf - perpetuate ex-planes the fave our's of seance aft of this office.
An massive errorts
perpetrated by the Lawyer
historically ensuring
minor parts of problems are
examined minutely
(not necessarily a bad thing!)