On 05/10/2012 15:05, d wrote:
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 14:58:37 +0100
Phil Cook wrote:
Wanting to find a reason for an accident is a result of an inquiring
mind and a desire to prevent further occurrences, it's not about
apportioning blame and suing somebody's arse off. "It just happened" is
the position of a fatalist who just accepts whatever happens.

And the person who thinks there's always some sort of hidden human cause
behind everything is usually known as a conspiracy theories at best but
generally just a delusional nutter.

Perhaps you should invest in a tin foil hat?

Just out of interest - who's fault was the 2004 tsunami?

After the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami it was determined that many lives
could have been saved had there been an effective warning system in
place, the earthquake that caused it was of course recorded and there
would have been time to issue warnings before the wave hit the shore.

The Japanese tsunami was caused by an earthquake much closer to shore
and the warning was only in the region of 30-35 minutes before the wave
for the closest coastal regions. The height of the wave was also
under-predicted, indeed it was so high it over-topped the defences that
were in place particularly at the Fukushima nuclear power plant where
the diesel generators that provided backup power for the cooling systems
were inundated despite the tsunami protection in place.
--
Phil Cook

On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 15:16:48 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:05:45 on Fri, 5 Oct
2012, d remarked:

Just out of interest - who's fault was the 2004 tsunami?

Tsunamis aren't anyone's fault, but failing to have an adequate warning
system, or coastal properties built to withstand the inevitable, is.

Oh right, so how exactly do you build a seafront hotel or a fishermans hut to
withstand a 20 foot wall of water moving at 30mph?

B2003

On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 15:41:07 +0100
Phil Cook wrote:
After the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami it was determined that many lives
could have been saved had there been an effective warning system in
place, the earthquake that caused it was of course recorded and there
would have been time to issue warnings before the wave hit the shore.

Yes, probably many lives could also have been saved if there'd been a warp
drive equiped space ship hovering in orbit above with teleporters on standby
too.

B2003

On 05/10/2012 15:49, d wrote:
On Fri, 05 Oct 2012 15:41:07 +0100
Phil Cook wrote:
After the 2004 Boxing Day tsunami it was determined that many lives
could have been saved had there been an effective warning system in
place, the earthquake that caused it was of course recorded and there
would have been time to issue warnings before the wave hit the shore.

Yes, probably many lives could also have been saved if there'd been a warp
drive equiped space ship hovering in orbit above with teleporters on standby
too.

There is now a warning system in place, though it requires further
action by governments to make it as effective as the system in the Pacific.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_...Warning_System

We will have to wait for your flights of fancy and since they are a
fiction we could be waiting some time.
--
Phil Cook

On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 14:48:24 +0000 (UTC), d
wrote:

On Fri, 5 Oct 2012 15:16:48 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:05:45 on Fri, 5 Oct
2012, d remarked:

Just out of interest - who's fault was the 2004 tsunami?

Tsunamis aren't anyone's fault, but failing to have an adequate warning
system, or coastal properties built to withstand the inevitable, is.

Oh right, so how exactly do you build a seafront hotel or a fishermans hut to
withstand a 20 foot wall of water moving at 30mph?

If it is a likely event then you don't build them in the expectation
of surviving the event. OTOH different rules apply to nuclear power
stations.

In message , Charles Ellson
writes
If it is a likely event then you don't build them in the expectation
of surviving the event. OTOH different rules apply to nuclear power
stations.
Wasn't the main failure identified years before when the French had a
nasty incident, caused by the cooling pumps being on the ground floor
and overrun with water. Swiftly corrected by putting the pumps of all
their nuclear sites on the top floor. If the Japanese had learnt from
this, then the outcome might have been very different.
--
Clive

On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 01:43:58 +0100, Clive
wrote:

In message , Charles Ellson
writes
If it is a likely event then you don't build them in the expectation
of surviving the event. OTOH different rules apply to nuclear power
stations.
Wasn't the main failure identified years before when the French had a
nasty incident, caused by the cooling pumps being on the ground floor
and overrun with water. Swiftly corrected by putting the pumps of all
their nuclear sites on the top floor. If the Japanese had learnt from
this, then the outcome might have been very different.

Even then I suspect the proximity of the site to the sea might still
invite less direct hazards that would not be available 50yds uphill on
solid ground such as that involving floodwater creeping up on a
main/large substation in England this/last year.

In message , at 13:29:45 on Fri, 5 Oct
2012, d remarked:
Tyre manufacturing fault. Faults don't just happen. Caused.
Debris blown on the road. Debris left lying about. Caused.
Recent pothole. It would have to be pretty big to cause a blowout, so
unreported, unseen or uninspected. Caused.

Accidents don't just happen.

And obviously, for a driver to fail to neutralise all those risks, makes
him stupid. It would take Boltar only a few minutes of his valuable
time.

Go on, explain how you'd do it. Are you going to inspect your tyres yourself
with an x-ray scanner? Perhaps you'll never drive when its windy so there's
no chance of say a tree branch blowing down on your car. And if you can see
a pothole on an A road doing 60 at night with enough time to swerve and not
crash then you've got better eyesight than I have.

Your sarcasm detector seems to be broken.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 14:48:24 on Fri, 5 Oct
2012, d remarked:
Just out of interest - who's fault was the 2004 tsunami?

Tsunamis aren't anyone's fault, but failing to have an adequate warning
system, or coastal properties built to withstand the inevitable, is.

Oh right, so how exactly do you build a seafront hotel or a fishermans hut to
withstand a 20 foot wall of water moving at 30mph?

You seem to have missed the "or".
--
Roland Perry