WaIIy wrote in
:

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 22:06:32 GMT, Skip VerDuin
wrote:

Today I hear the US
(maybe USGS or NOAA) says "there was nothing we could do even though we
knew for hours it was going to happen" so maybe these agencies need a
swift kick to change an attitude.

What would you have them do?

The infrastructure to warn the people it affected is not in place.

Here is a good article on the lack of infrastructure for the warning:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...ing_usat_x.htm

Fuzzy Logic wrote:

WaIIy wrote in
:



On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 22:06:32 GMT, Skip VerDuin
wrote:



Today I hear the US
(maybe USGS or NOAA) says "there was nothing we could do even though we
knew for hours it was going to happen" so maybe these agencies need a
swift kick to change an attitude.


What would you have them do?

The infrastructure to warn the people it affected is not in place.



Here is a good article on the lack of infrastructure for the warning:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...ing_usat_x.htm



Excellent reference Fuzzy, it turns "nothing we could do" into "did what
we could".
Even though a part of the world was looking at a "loaded gun".
Next I'll look at your other post which may be more on topic than this
thread is going.

Wally, if you are an insider and part of the system (at NOAA?), I leave
it to you to self measure your pre-event actions which is the only
ethics issue I care to have on the table. I'm in no rush to "hang the
guilty" which might be uniquely American perspective on problem
solving. Your umbrage to my statements in the other thread might or
might not stand.

Let's admit organizations have the unique opportunity to channel people
resources to do more than individuals might do separately in the same time.
Let's admit the bar (of acceptable outcome) is not set equally everywhere.
Let's admit people are at the core of the suffering here, and not
necessarily in control of events around them, yet only individual effort
can improve outcome.
Lastly let's admit that attitude affects choices in personal actions.

So every person in every organization (not just US you know) who is OK
with their own choices about being proactive in averting the
consequences of the "loaded gun" described by A****er of USGS (and their
actions when it went off) deserves to sleep the sleep of a contented
baby. It seems clear in the aftermath today that "it won't happen
here", "all this is in the hands of God, not mine", "nothing I can
do", and other attitudes you might think of, are not acceptable
approaches to improving the human condition. I'm delighted to see
efforts to now develop an Indian Ocean Tsunami Warning System, yet sad
it took such loss to get moving.

Having said all that, what will I do? Perhaps no more than to be
sensitive to where risk is present, and where pertinent information is
available. Maybe germinate awareness in others as I travel... I too am
an American and I need to maybe have broader shoulders without being the
Ugly American. I doubt I will make great difference, it's all I've got
in this moment... I just won't think highly of anyone who chooses
inaction in the face of opportunity. Now you get to choose whether you
give a damn...

Skip

Skip wrote in news:60KAd.4080$e77.3733
@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com:

Fuzzy Logic wrote:

WaIIy wrote in
m:

On Tue, 28 Dec 2004 22:06:32 GMT, Skip VerDuin
wrote:

Today I hear the US
(maybe USGS or NOAA) says "there was nothing we could do even though we
knew for hours it was going to happen" so maybe these agencies need a
swift kick to change an attitude.

What would you have them do?

The infrastructure to warn the people it affected is not in place.

Here is a good article on the lack of infrastructure for the warning:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...ing_usat_x.htm


Excellent reference Fuzzy, it turns "nothing we could do" into "did what
we could".
Even though a part of the world was looking at a "loaded gun".
Next I'll look at your other post which may be more on topic than this
thread is going.

Here is NOAA's statement on how events transpired:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2004/s2358.htm