Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Tsunami in the Pacific
Earlier this morning, CBC Morning broadcasted that an earthquake with a 7.8-8.1 magnitude struck off the northern coast of Japan. Scientists predicted that the earthquake would create a tsunami that would hit Japan's northern islands, and go as far east as Hawaii and Alaska. The CBC reported that the waves could be 1 to 2 metres high. A few hours later, on CBC's website, the waves that hit Japan turned out to be less than half a meter. With the predictions in mind, people on the islands were advised to seek higher ground.
What seems interesting is that with this tsunami and a large reading for an earthquake, the media seemed like it was bracing itself for a repeat of what happened in 2004 when a large tsunami devastated much of south east Asia. Preparation for the possibility of a 2 meter wave can be attributed to scientific instruments in the ocean off the coast of Japan. The CBC said either were not or very few of these in the last tsunami.
It seems that when we prepare ourselves for a huge disaster, it does produce itself in the way we anticipate. We did not anticipate the huge tsunami in 2004 and it caused large amounts of damage. Today, a large earthquake causes a tsunami but because we anticipated it, people survived, and even at that, it was not a devasting tsunami. The worst disasters come when we are not prepared for them: 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, the Tsunami of 2004, the bombings of the transit systems in London and in Spain. Even if we are prepared for the eventual disaster, we will grow comfortable with the new security, only for a new disaster to undermine it.
What seems interesting is that with this tsunami and a large reading for an earthquake, the media seemed like it was bracing itself for a repeat of what happened in 2004 when a large tsunami devastated much of south east Asia. Preparation for the possibility of a 2 meter wave can be attributed to scientific instruments in the ocean off the coast of Japan. The CBC said either were not or very few of these in the last tsunami.
It seems that when we prepare ourselves for a huge disaster, it does produce itself in the way we anticipate. We did not anticipate the huge tsunami in 2004 and it caused large amounts of damage. Today, a large earthquake causes a tsunami but because we anticipated it, people survived, and even at that, it was not a devasting tsunami. The worst disasters come when we are not prepared for them: 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, the Tsunami of 2004, the bombings of the transit systems in London and in Spain. Even if we are prepared for the eventual disaster, we will grow comfortable with the new security, only for a new disaster to undermine it.
Friday, November 10, 2006
California Train Derailment Kills 1, Leaves 1 Missing
This news report is fresh for November 10, 2006. A train in California derailed, spilling lots of hazardous materials into a forest. Only one person was killed, one is missing and the rest are suffering minor injuries. Like the last Fox News story, this one focuses more on statistics and data than it does on the human angle. Perhaps Fox News is publishing information that concerns the public who travels on the affected rail line for business or pleasure. The report does discuss how much of the hazardous fuels that were spilled into the forest. It does not give any details as to how or when the spill will be cleaned up. My impression of the article is that it presents the situation as it is, with no analysis or background information.
Typhoon Xangsane Kills 59, Submerges Thousands of Homes in Vietnam
This Fox News report concerns itself solely with statistical data about teh strom. It discuss how many people died in different areas. What I wonder is why the story is still easily accessed and not archieved. A story that is just under a month old could not have the same importance to be part of the headline package. Is this Fox News' way of making it seem like they're on top of stories by populating their headline package? Is there a fear factor being created by Fox News so that people will turn to the news agency for information and help because of the stats presented? Or does the story's presence go back to the Vietnam war -- as a Republican biased news agency, is it continuing the fight of the Vietnam war that ended 30-40 years ago (ie racism)?
