tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8442430064359197279.post2605903180758685467..comments2024-03-26T10:03:51.827+13:00Comments on Karl du Fresne: Were the experts too reassuring?Karl du Fresnehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05054853925940134404noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8442430064359197279.post-44577957088306979262011-03-18T13:30:51.615+13:002011-03-18T13:30:51.615+13:00Fair enough.
I thought Parker's comments we...Fair enough. <br /><br />I thought Parker's comments were a warning alright - against repeating the level of complacency that had set in before the March biggie.<br /><br />That does not indicate the warnings were inadequate. One might argue with equakl validity that there were too many warnings and people were ignoring them.<br /><br />Fact is that people did get complacent. That is understandable given that events were following the pattern of "slowly reducing over time".<br /><br />It highlights the inadequacy of our science more than that of the warnings.The probligohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17882103150181414348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8442430064359197279.post-24114797819391522542011-03-18T11:39:58.684+13:002011-03-18T11:39:58.684+13:00Obviously there are different perceptions in Chris...Obviously there are different perceptions in Christchurch as to the adequacy of the warnings following September 4. But in support of my contention that people didn't expect a follow-up shake as big as that of February 22, I note that Bob Parker was reported yesterday (Radio NZ) as warning against complacency over the prospect of yet more quakes, saying Christchurch didn't want to get taken by surprise again. I interpret that as meaning Parker thinks the warnings were not adequate.Karl du Fresnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05054853925940134404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8442430064359197279.post-1081903537072197632011-03-09T14:17:28.540+13:002011-03-09T14:17:28.540+13:00The direct response to your initial questions Karl...The direct response to your initial questions Karl, and please note I am NOT a CHchian...<br /><br />"Did they feel the official warnings were adequate?"<br /><br />YES!!<br /><br />"Or did they prefer not to know what was theoretically possible, realising the result could have been complete paralysis?" <br /><br />The implied is "No", but then the "they" creeps in ... only joking.<br /><br />I have in the back of my mind, someone "in the news" after the Sept earthquake saying that after-shocks could continue for years.<br /><br />You said the truth - we really do not know beyond making (hopefully) educated guesses.<br /><br />R-inanity. Interesting thought, but remember that fault lines are not two dimensional like a line on paper. They are in fact three dimensional, and the plane of the fault can be bent, twisted, curved... As good as the Chch quake map site is, it is a pity that no one (to my knowledge) has plotted from September in those three dimensions. The data is there, but it is beyond my immediate capabilities. What an opportunity!The probligohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17882103150181414348noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8442430064359197279.post-35299130300953577622011-03-09T07:36:07.669+13:002011-03-09T07:36:07.669+13:00Are you suggesting it was totally unrelated to the...Are you suggesting it was totally unrelated to the September 4 event? Hmmm ....Karl du Fresnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05054853925940134404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8442430064359197279.post-54122744095025102192011-03-08T19:57:58.728+13:002011-03-08T19:57:58.728+13:00There's a small problem with your premise.
Th...There's a small problem with your premise.<br /><br />The Feb' 22 quake was not an aftershock. It was a new quake on a completely different faultline.Randominanityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06362487833854186735noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8442430064359197279.post-39231133670279749512011-03-08T07:58:11.584+13:002011-03-08T07:58:11.584+13:00Thank you Phil.Thank you Phil.Karl du Fresnehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05054853925940134404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8442430064359197279.post-11918548957673477752011-03-07T19:02:24.035+13:002011-03-07T19:02:24.035+13:00Hi,
I live in CHCH and this, I think, is a fair r...Hi,<br /><br />I live in CHCH and this, I think, is a fair representations of my circle of acquaintances view.<br /><br />We were always told that a 6.x was probably, that was the 'normal' pattern, and as time went by we were told the probability was decreasing. <br /><br />We were amazed that we walked away from September with no deaths thanking our luck that it occurred at 4am and not 4pm.<br /><br />So I would be amazed to hear of any Cantabrian that was surprised that the 2nd big one came, although we were all surprised to hear it was only 6.3 as it did so much damage.<br /><br />(as an aside, we are becoming quite adept at guessing the size of the aftershock, if you want to know the size before geonet publishes then follow twitter http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10710367)<br /><br />To be honest I am not sure what else could have been said/done. <br /><br />Life is full of risk, expecting to fully eliminate all risk is delusional.<br /><br />Outside the CBD the areas affected are different to those in September. <br /><br />So without abandoning the whole city I think reasonable, practical, PROPORTIONAL steps were taken to mitigate the risks, or steps were under way.<br /><br />If you chose to live in NZ then you have to accept that it is part of the Pacific Circle of Fire.<br /><br />That said, the deaths were predominantly due to falling masonry from heritage buildings, perhaps a more vigorous pre-emptive demolition program could have been effected - that was certainly discussed locally without widespread support. <br /><br />The loss of heritage buildings was considered too big a 'social' cost compared with their risk. Of course now the risk is further reduced there is now talk of ripping it all down :-(<br /><br />The other big killer was the collapse of CTV and PGG, both of which were judged to be safe. Perhaps there will be an enquiry to figure out what went wrong there. I'm sure that it will find that no reasonable person seriously expected them to fall in another quake.<br /><br />Following the jist of your article I pose the following question - the experts know there will be a big one in Wellington, they know it is imminent in geological terms, but can't predict exactly when - why isn't Wellington being relocated somewhere 'safer'?<br /><br />On a separate note most think that (I refuse to mention his name) is bonkers and think it is irresponsible to give him and his 'predictions' the oxygen of publicity. For many people these are desperate times and he is 'preying' on their fears, scaring the shit out of them.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05932206525640900791noreply@blogger.com