Jump to content

Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Curps (talk | contribs) at 04:05, 31 December 2004 (alleged astrology-based prediction of earthquake by Indian scientists). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive Page 1
Article organization discussion
Material from the Wikipedia Commons
List of earthquake victims
Vandalism discussion

Magnitude clarification

Where it says "It was the largest earthquake" shouldn't we change it to "it was the STRONGEST earthquake" or may be combine the both... I understand it was large, but still, the correct classification when talking about the magnitute the word "strong" is more appropriate.

What magnitude scales are being used in the article? Particularly reffering to this paragraph:

"The quake was initially reported at magnitude 6.8 in the Richter scale but this was soon updated to 8.5 and then 8.9 on the moment magnitude scale. The largest recorded earthquake was the Great Chilean Earthquake of 1960, at magnitude 9.5."

It the 8.9 magnitude only for the moment magnitude scale? On all news sites that I've seen the scale used was the Richter scale. Is there a difference between 8.9 on the Richter scale and 8.9 on the moment magnitude scale? Also, which scale does the Chilean quake use?

The 9.5 on the Chilean quake is on the moment magnitude scale, as is the 8.9 for this one.
The Richter scale falls down for larger earthquakes, producing a number that does not relate well to the actual earthquake size. The moment scale does not have this flaw. Earthquake scales are scaled such that they correspond to the Richter scale in the Richter scale's accurate range.
The media is probably saying "Richter scale" because it's more widely known. The USGS Earthquake Magnitude Policy has some discussion of all of this. -- Cyrius|✎


-- I work for a large seismic network and our media always says we use the ricter scale even though our lab does not use it. For an earthquake this large the only Magnitude scale that will work is the Moment (Mw) Mag.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/recenteqsww/glossary.htm#magnitude --

The Magnitude refers to an amount of energy released by an earthquake and really has nothing to do with felt intensity, so if the scale is applicable to the situation which one you use should not matter. With all of this being said, the ricter scale equates energy released by using a table to look up ground displacemnt at a distance.

-- If the 9.0 Indian Ocean Earthquake "was the largest earthquake in the world since the 9.2-magnitude Good Friday Earthquake", have the authors confused Richter with Moment Mag in the same sentence? If so, this should be clarified.--Westendgirl 18:32, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The USGS says the 9.2 for the Good Friday Earthquake is moment magnitude. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:03, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. --24.64.223.203 05:27, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've seen some reports of 8.9 and 9.0 on the Richter scale elsewhere, and 9.0 on the moment magnitude scale here. This led me to conclude that it was actually 8.9 on the Richter scale and some people had confused the Richter and moment magnitude scales. There is no indication of what it is officially on the Richter scale in this article (only that it was initially 6.8). Brianjd 05:59, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

The Wikipedia articles on moment magnitude and Richter say that Richter saturates around 8.3 - 8.5, so a Richter magnitude for this quake sould not be meaningful. USGS says 9.0, and they do use moment magnitude for it, so that's what we should go with. -- Curps 06:02, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As far as I can see, moment magnitude is better. However, despite the fact that that Richter scale saturates around that point, we can still give a reading, can't we? The news always mentions the Richter scale; people are going to look for that information. Brianjd 09:52, 2004 Dec 29 (UTC)

You guys are confusing method with scale. There's only ever been one scale for expressing the magnitude of an earthquake and that's the original scale devised by Richter. It was only Richter's original methodology that was innaccurate for large quakes; all subsequent methods of calculating magnitude give a Richter scale value, including Moment Magnitude [1]. It's pedantic and confusing for Wikipedia to insist on Moment Magnitude as this only refers to the calculations employed, which mean nothing to most people. For a common sense view, see this article [2] by a USGS geophysicist [3]. 144.138.194.202 13:08, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What you said is in conflict with the Moment magnitude scale article. Reading that article (as well as the extrernal "common sense" view you give), I find the impression that while the moment magnitude method has been defined to align as well as possible with Richter, it does not align perfectly, even in the lower ranges. Further, the external article you reference has the sound of a scientist who is arguing against convention, which means it's probably inappropriate to make what he says the convention of an encyclopedia entry. --Zawersh 08:02, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good job

It's been ... at this point, almost exactly (if my time zone converstion is dead on) 26 hours since the earthquake struck, and we have a very nice article with local aspects, historical reference (The Bam earthquake, in particular) and already an illustration made by a user, not made by a news organization. I have got to say, I am god damned proud to be a wikipedian at this moment, if this is what y'all can come up with in 26 hours. --Golbez 03:07, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Bear in mind that somebody working for a newspaper would have to produce something like this - with photographs and interviews - in much less than twenty-six hours. -Ashley Pomeroy 10:46, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
While being paid for it, with professional tools at their disposal. --Golbez 11:02, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
And an Associated Press license. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:04, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, being an Indian and from the state of Tamil Nadu, the worst affected in mainland India, I feel really thankful to see how so many people are working to keep this article up-to-date and of good use to its readers. A good and useful article has been formed in just a couple of days. Thank you all once again for your care. Jam2k 19:51, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

As a German living in the U.S. to see the pulling together of care and interest from so many different people across the world to contribute to this article is amazing. I decided to become a contributor because I was so impressed and moved. Thanks to everybody who has contributed. Wikipedia appears to be just an amazing resource and not just mushy 'oh, isn't it awful what happened.' Way to go! oh, yeah, and well, journalists do this professionally, while, and I may be assuming much here, many of the contributors here may just be concerned cosmopolitans doing this on their own time... --HolyFool 22:49, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Aid call

Good work on that section. I remember reading somewhere that the government of Pakistan is sending Rupees 10 million in aid on Monday, mostly in the form of tents, medicines and the like.

Name?

The USGS seems to be calling this the "Nicobar Islands Earthquake of 2004". Should this be mentioned anywhere? --Golbez 04:37, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Do you have a link? The biggest aftershock (7.3) was in the Nicobar Islands, but not the big 9.0 quake itself. -- Curps 04:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
See this. The name "Nicobar Islands Earthquake of 16 December 2004" is on the map a little down the page. (I would not want to be on the island just south of the star.) Googling "Nicobar Islands Earthquake" turns up one page, to a 7.9 magnitude in 1881. No hits on Google News. I would wait to see if this becomes the "geologist name" for the earthquake or gets picked up by the media before putting it in the article. BanyanTree 05:00, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As a temporary measure, I created a redirect for "Nicobar Islands earthquake". Others may want to create redirects for other names/references. 30 Dec

It is amazing that you have so much about the earthquake and tsumanis on this site so quickly. I've been trying to find exactly where the epicentre was, and can't. (The Myanmar discussion is a bit pedantic, isn't it?)

BBC World has been calling it the Bay of Bengal earthquake. [maestro] 05:27, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's not pedantic to the people of Burma, let me assure you. When the regime there is overthrown they will remember who their friends were. And the epicentre was not in the Bay of Bengal. Adam 05:56, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I rather doubt that Wikipedia or any of its editors will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes, or that the use of "Myanmar" on a map of this disaster is anywhere near the top of the Burmese people's concerns right now. By all means, do advocate for regime change... but not here; Wikipedia is supposed to remain neutral. Tverbeek 14:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We can always move the page later once a name settles in. The other languages seem to be largely using similar names, and it seems to be well-linked from places where people would be looking for it. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:10, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The earthquake did originate in Indonesia, around the Sumatra islands to be precise... the Great Indonesian Quake, maybe? Jam2k 20:00, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

I think it's fine as it is, tbh. violet/riga (t) 20:13, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

-- Earhtquakes often get names on accident, such as what ever the media first calls it also the name often comes from a prelim location computed by a computer. Often the location of the quake changes slightly after more data comes in and it is reviewed by a seismologist.

I'm hearing it called "The Sumatra Earthquake [and Tsunami]" more frequently in various broadcasts. -- Zosodada

I would suggest "Indian Ocean Tsunami Disaster" as a new name, as I've seen this in use in the media quite a bit. However, the "Sumatra Earthquake" might be good alternative. -- Gavin

Indian Ocean tsunami disaster now redirects here. --David Iberri | Talk 23:33, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Sumatra moved 100 feet?

Drudge is reporting that the ENTIRE ISLAND of Sumatra has moved 100 feet to the southwest. www.drudgereport.com , can this be true. I can't find supporting documentation anywhere. Has anybody else found the documentation for this. if it's true that's an entire island a little larger than California moving 1/3 of a US football field, WOW!!!

Sounds like BS.
The US National Earthquake Information Center is cited by the NYT as saying that hundreds of miles of seabed shot 50 feet upward. This is the sort of motion that causes tsunami. This is also consistent with the subduction faults off Sumatra's west coast. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The shift was 15m (50ft). [4]. It would have been mostly vertical as the Indian Plate shifted down under the Burma Plate. 600 miles of fault line jumps 500ft, and all the water over hit starts flowing downhill... BanyanTree 10:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In today's The West Australian paper it had the story about Sumatra moving 30m to the southwest. - Mark 10:02, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the 100 ft. number originated with the LA Times and was immediately propagated by the Chicago Tribune, Xinhua, and countless other papers worldwide. I would be very surprised if this turned out to be accurate. ADH (t&m) 14:54, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I added info on movement to the "Quake characteristics" section last night but am leery of it. The numbers are based on a computer model of possible movement and I don't think anyone has actually taken a tape measure out to see yet. Since Sumatra is on two different plates I would be surprised if they had identical movement (though I'm not a geologist by any means). So there's also the issue of relative movement: was it 30m southwest versus a point on the India plate, which was going under the Burma Plate, so there's no relative movement between, for example, Jakarta and Banda Aceh? Or did the Burma plate move 30m southwest versus all the other plates in the world? BanyanTree 17:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New data will have to be collected and correlated to existing data. There hasn't been time for this. There has been, according to best theory and previous history, movement both upward and out, but the numbers we've seen are all theoretical (and often from unattributed sources). This paragraph that addresses the issue of earth's rotation has become overly geeky and in the process is confusing increasing and decreasing of the rotation. The cited article clearly states that the earth slows down over time, but the Wiki is now confused on this matter. -- Zosodada

Disasters in these places, when?

Would you collect the time (in UTC or local time) and height of tsunamis that hit these places?

  • India
    • Tamil Nadu
    • Chennai 0300 GMT (0830 local)
    • Pondichery
    • Kerala
    • Andhra Pradesh
    • Andaman and Nicobar Islands
  • Indonesia
    • Banda Aceh
  • Malaysia
    • Kedah
    • Perak
    • Selangor
    • Langkawi island
    • Penang 0330 UTC (1130 local), 0430 UTC (1230 local), 0615 UTC (1415 local), 2.4 - 3m reported. --Andylkl 10:29, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
  • Maldives 0630 GMT (1130 local)
    • Malé
  • Sri Lanka 0430 GMT (1030 local)
    • Trincomalee
  • Thailand
    • Phuket: 0130 GMT (0830 local)
  • Australia - I have seen no reports of the tsunami reaching the coast of WA, although since it is closer to the epicentre than Kenya it should have done. Adam 10:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) -You're forgetting about all the islands (Sumatra, Java, etc) between the epicenter and Australia. It's all ocean towards Africa so there was nothing to block the wave. BanyanTree 10:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC). Also the NOAA computer simulation graphic in the article seems to show that the wave intensities were much higher for the waves heading west. Shameer 00:49, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    The tsunami hit the coast of WA, Adam. Well, that's according to one of the news bulletins I watched tonight (Nine or Ten). Some cray boats broke their moorings, and there was some minor flooding. No significant damage. - Mark 13:22, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Bangladesh
  • Cocos (Keeling) Islands
  • Kenya
  • Myanmar
  • Oman
  • Réunion
  • Seychelles 2m
  • Singapore - No tsunami. Minor tremors reported. No injuries or deaths reported.
  • Somalia

The information collected could be used to develop more detailed maps. -- Toytoy 09:50, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Fyi, it's pretty hard to get an accurate account from so many places. Btw, Pulau Pinang is Penang. --Andylkl 10:28, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Andylkl. If you can get info for just the hardest hit areas it would be good. BanyanTree 10:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'll wait a couple of days when the order is restored and scientists are telling stories. Now is not the best time to gather accurate information. Thanks for all your help. -- Toytoy 12:35, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Word usage: Injured vs Wounded

I am wondering about the usage of the word Wounded and variations at multiple places in the article. Typical English usage for wounded refers to injuries inflicted by weapons or acts of militaristic aggression. I suggest a change to injure, injuries, injured, etc. (Note, it seems that American English dictionaries may be more ambivalent on this issue, which is why I am not making the edit directly myself.) Dictionary Defs gcom 18:15, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

American English usually makes the same distinction; injured is definitely more appropriate in this context. Tverbeek 18:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not "Tidal waves"

As with the case of "injured" vs "wounded" above, I note repeated use of the term "tidal wave" in the article. This wasn't a tidal wave. Quite the opposite - it was a tsunami. Tsunamis have nothing to do with tides. Grutness|hello? 23:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Some news sources are calling them "sea surges", perhaps this terminology could be used instead? -- Michael Warren | Talk 00:02, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Perhaps you might want to let Sky News know: they're still using "tidal wave": [5] -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:12, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
...and, of course, mass media use of language is always impeccable. The same mass media that report people being seriously ill after car crashes. Just because Sky News is wrong doesn't mean that we should be. Grutness|hello?
Er I think you misunderstand me. I wasn't making a snide remark or anything, if I thought you were wrong I'd tell you outright, I don't believe in beating about the bush. It was sarcasm. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 01:34, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sorry :). My reponse was a bit harsh too, probably. Still a bit shaken about this and my humour indicators are probably turned off (I live right next to a beach close to one of the world's most active faults, so I'm a little thoughtful about this, shall we say). Grutness|hello? 06:40, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No problem at all, we've been a little stressed too however fortunately my uncle and aunt contacted us from Phuket today and are on their way home tomorrow. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 02:02, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've gone through and reworded all the "tidal wave"s in the article. BanyanTree 01:14, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Is the use of Freak Wave correct at the end of the article? The linked page makes a clear distinction betwen freak wave and tsunami. --RayNixon 10:29, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It looked wrong so I went ahead and changed it to "ocean surge". Good catch. BanyanTree 10:48, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The use of freak wave was incorrect. Freak or rogue waves are a distinct phenomenon from tsunami. A freak wave can generate a huge wall of water even in the open ocean, whereas a tsunami will pass a ship miles from shore without it noticing. -- Cyrius|✎ 21:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

-- Also, freak waves are thought to be caused in an entirely different way then tsunamis.

Warning rejected to protect tourism

I have asked the same question in the Dutch wikipedia: Should a mention of this be made:

From the Nation Newspaper:

Warning rejected to protect tourism

Published on December 28, 2004

Minutes after the earthquake hit northern Sumatra at 7.58am on Sunday, officials of the Meteo-rological Department, who were at a seminar in Cha-am, convened an emergency meeting chaired by Supharerk Tansrirat-tanawong, director-general.

They had just learned that the Bangkok office had reported a quake measuring at 8.1 on the Richter scale, which was much lower than the

level officially recorded later.

“We didn’t think there would be subsequent seismic waves, because a similar quake of 7.6 on the Richter scale, which hit Sumatra on November 2, 2002, did not affect Thailand,” said a member of the department who asked not to be named.
........
“We hesitated for a while whether we should issue a warning or not. It was discussed but we didn’t have a chance to do it.”

Supharerk denied that tourism factored into the discussion at the 11th hour. “I think we have done our best,” he said.

Precisely at 9am that Sunday, waves as high as 3 to 10 metres hit the main southern coastal provinces of Phuket, Phang Nga, Krabi and Ranong.

Pravit Rojanaphruk

The Nation See: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2004/12/28/headlines/index.php?news=headlines_15908069.html

And another article with some background:

Waerth 02:25, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Number of Victims

Does it maybe make sense to distinguish between "expected" and actually confirmed dead? The numbers currently diverge greatly (about 23500 confirmed, 40,000+ feared dead...) Our number represents the later. It smells somewhat of sensationalism... -- Nils 02:31, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would stay with the confirmed. I've also been a little worried that, even in the first day, the Wikipedia number has consistently been a thousand or more than that given in the media. I would keep the intro to a vague "tens of thousands" and give the updated confirmed number under the casualties section so the numbers don't end up diverging. BanyanTree 02:57, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think it would be good to bring down the estimated to confirmed deaths, but also to leave the estimates in place. Comrade Tassadar 06:26, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've added a separate column for estimated casualties. I have used the respective government estimates, so that any media sensationalism is reduced. Modifications welcome.
I think our current table is great. I am trying to keep it reasonably up to date, the numbers seem to stabilize somewhat now. Juggling casualty numbers around like this is surreal. -- Nils 10:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Agreed - I felt numb myself at the numbers. But serious question - does the Indonesia estimate start to look like a gross overestimate? The total for the estimated dead comes to around 62,000 now. Sri Lanka, India and Thailand seem believable. Should we treat Indonesia as an overestimate and "tone it down" or should we strictly report the numbers alone?
I'd say report the numbers as they come in. That's why they are "estimated numbers"... I just gave up adding up the total in that column for now. Too much variance. Personally, I feel that Indonesia is an over-estimate, but what do I know? For the "confirmed" column, I am using the most recent number I can find that is reported as "officially confirmed". This is probably as well as we can do. -- Nils 11:10, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've added up the individual estimates, but I admit - that value of 62,000 makes me go into denial. I'll try to add as many references as I can. Personally I fear the total estimate may turn out to be true, especially when we look at the number of people still missing.
AP is reporting significant increase in "confirmed" casualties in Sri Lanka and Indonesia. Their number is just over 40,000; but they list India with 4400, where my number is >9000... I'll keep my number for India for now, until I can find a confirmation one way or another. -- Nils 11:47, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It is much worse than we thought.... we've exceeded 55,000 dead now according to the latest numbers.... -- 212.202.50.86 17:37, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
A note on the "1000 higher than other media" comment by BanyanTree: This seems to still be the case... I am simply taking figures from individual articles and lists that are reported as "officially confirmed". Could it simply be that we are, indeed, a few hours ahead of the major networks with our count? Was it not such a serious issue, the notion would amuse me terribly. Things being as they are, I'd rather be wrong. -- Nils 11:40, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The BBC are currently stating that approximately 50'000 have been confirmed dead now BBC News -- David, England 21:30, 28 Dec 2004 (GMT)

What happened to all the sources in the casualty figures? And did anyone notice that confirmed casualties in India is greater than estimated casualties? Please correct these if possible

More updates on the death toll. With the latest figure from Indonesia, we have exceeded 70,000. This is higher than mainstream media again, but they seem to include a much lower number for India in their totals. I am leaving our numbers as-is, as I have seen various reports of such high numbers. Looking for a figure for India now. -- Nils 13:06, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Indian tolls from Indian media are higher than international media and I would guess the local media are more up-to-date. Someone has added Netherlands. Shouldn't that be removed? I can't make out from the source cited whether the Netherlands actually has any island territories out there. Shameer 22:32, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I updated the numbers for the Maldives, ABC's source was the government and the government website [6] has new numbers. Sorry for the huge ammount of edits. Pawel Worach 21:53, 2004 Dec 30 (UTC)

Unreal

I've seen the first people talk about >100,000 dead.. [7], unfortunately it's German-only. Interestingly, news.yahoo.de seems much more up-to-date that news.yahoo.com. -- Nils 17:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Indonesian Local Media ( detik.com ) said, According to Indonesian Healthy Department ( Departemen Kesehatan ) The latest death toll from Aceh and North Sumatera tsunamis has increased to more than 32.800 and 1200 still missing, as relief workers and supplies begin to reach some of the most devastated areas such as Meulaboh.. This number can be increased... ( sorry my english not very good.. )

Estimates et al.

Okay please do not just make up numbers :-) "Estimate" does not simply mean current casualties multiplied by 2. How can there be an estimate of 80,000 dead in Indonesia when the confirmed detah toll is slightly less than 37,000 with another 1200 officially missing? At least, cite some sources please!

Also, please note that I have removed the total number for injured; there's really no numbers for injured people to be found in the news reports so the column is, at best, total guesswork.

Finally, I removed the border: collapse thing as it was causing problems for me, and the table looked quite odd (mozilla). -- Nils 14:36, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

+comment+

Its just very difficult to come to terms with the numbers. But i can tell you anecdotally that even 100k or 200k is conservative.

The damage is extremely bad within say 1,000 miles of the epicentre and tsunamis and it appears that in many cases, the worst case scenario has happened. With no surviving infrastructure and no survivors, to report accurate figures in a timely manner, whether dead or missing. In the case where all landing strips and roads are destroyed, investigation into numbers by 3rd parties are also impaired, and really is not a priority, unless there is reason to believe there are dead and wounded. Satellites seem to be the only source of info at the moment.

Diego Garcia and the Chagos Archipelago

I have been unable to find any information on damage to Diego Garcia and the Chagos Archipelago. Has anyone heard anything at all?

DG seems fine: [8]. Mark1 04:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Was just about to post that one myself. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:43, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

US Base had information about possible Tsunamis immedietly following the earthquake. [9]

The IACenter article sounds more like somebody's propaganda rant than a valid source. The ABC article was vague. If Diego Garcia actually was spared, it would seem especially fortunate. Diego Garcia is more or less directly south of the Maldives, and they were flattened.

Here's some more reliable information: http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=26265 http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=2736548 http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/story.jsp?story=596628 http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/12/28/news/warning.html

Uruguayan deaths

The article says two Uruguayans have been "confirmed dead" I'm from Uruguay and have not heard of this. The only news was of two Uruguayans missing for a while and then having sent an email to confirm that they are well. I had removed the reference but it has been reverted. Does anybody know the source of this? Thanks.

I cannot find a current citation on Uruguayan death confirmations. Move to remove this data. Zosodada

Ever expanding death toll

Hi. Has anyone noticed that the number of deaths has been doubling daily for the past couple of days? I know that this tragedy has certainly claimed many, many lives, but it seems to be a tendency in grave tragedies, such as this one, to exaggerate the figures, at least at first. If I remember correctly, in the days following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the world press "informed" that over 6 thousand people had died. It didn't take long for everybody to find out that the actual number was about half of that. Now, yesterday we had 23 thousand dead, today it's 51 thousand? I don't know, that may even turn out to be accurate, but I'm not quite confident in that. Maybe we should be more careful in reflecting those numbers? At the very least, we should make it clearer in the article that those figures are for now speculative, since the actual number is difficult to calculate given the mayhem caused by the disaster. Any thoughts? Regards, Redux 18:18, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That would be an opinion, IMO. If we can cite someone else as saying it, sure, but until then, we report what others report, not what we think. No original research. Johnleemk | Talk 18:25, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't see it as an opinion (although it is indeed my opinion that the figures are likely to be exaggerated) so much as it is a suggestion: that we are more careful with what we inform before the situation is completely resolved and final figures are divulged. It goes to credibility. I find it somewhat dangerous for us to adopt a position in the line of reporting what others are reporting. What if it turns out that others (some others, since nobody could possibly have consulted all sources available, and reports can sometimes vary considerably from one country to another, or from one newspaper to another, for that matter) had been reporting wrong? I cite again the September 11 death toll reports, a complete fiasco. Should that be the case, we come off looking like another of those internet websites, mindlessly repeating what has been fed to us. The "someone else" in question are the governments affected, of course, they are the ones who release the figures, and if it turns out that they have "killed" 20 thousand more people than those who actually died, they will claim that they never affirmed peremptorily that X people had died, or they will attribute the mistake to the mayhem that had set in. Given the present situation there, I find this to be almost inevitable. Besides, this is an encyclopedia, not a news site, theoretically, we shouldn't even be "reporting" anything, which means this page should not be here before the situation has resolved itself completely... but that is, again, my opinion. Anyways, all I meant is that we should alter the text, maybe only slightly, to reflect the fact that those figures are preliminary and thus subject to error (e.g.: "early reports" or "initial calculations...", something in that line). The present text says "was reported to be more than 59 thousand", but that is just not clear enough on the fact that the figure is an early estimate and is (considerably) subject to error. Regards, Redux 20:24, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Talking about expanding death tolls, I think there's an extra zero at the mention of the 1978 earthquake in Iran. It should be 25,000 instead of 250,000. See third paragraph on this page: http://earthquakeadvisor.com/articles/00067.html .

The "preliminary numbers" idea is a good one. Ideally, people are not just changing the grand total. I've been trying to find country-specific news articles to alter the country sections, and only occasionally moving the figure up to the table and calculating a new total. Numbers that aren't grounded in country sections info just should not be used. And the 9-11 analogy rings a little hollow as the death totals are moving in opposite directions. There was speculation of 60K dead early on 9-11, while in the first 24 hours of this article there was a line "If casualties reach 25,000..." And the fact that the reported Indonesian number is about half of what might be credibly extrapolated from the hard count in Banda Aceh makes me think that the numbers are not outrageous. BanyanTree 21:20, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the notion that numbers not based on country sections are to be avoided, that does reduce the odds of divulging a (too) wrong figure. I still stand by my 9-11 analogy. Like all analogies, one must bear in mind the mutatis mutandi rule. In this case, I believe the main aspect is the considerably larger area affected by the disaster. In New York (main site of 9-11), the area directly affected was the equivalent of a couple of city blocks (ground zero), whilst here thousands of kms of coastal line are involved. But even in that contained area in New York, and this I remember very well, the media first said the dead were about 4 thousand, then it was 4,5 thousand (hours later) and suddenly it was 6 thousand. Then the U.S. government finally made it clear that the actual number was a little more than 3 thousand (i.e., the media had "killed" over 2,5 thousand extra people). That seems to be exactly what we are seeing here: numbers going up exponentially while the dust hasn't even settled yet. Mutatis mutandi, since the area affected is much, much larger, comprising several countries and affecting a enormouly larger number of people. I believe it to be inevitable that eventually we will find out that the real numbers are smaller (and maybe much smaller) than those divulged in these few days immediatelly after the tragedy (which is what happened in 9-11). In fact, this could turn out to be a good section for this article, but it could only be developed later, when the final figures are in, and if they do in fact differ considerably from those being divulged now (like it happened in 9-11). Regards, Redux 22:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's possible you're right. I am certainly taking the numbers with a grain of salt, but it's hard to say what an appropriate solution would be. I have an different worry: since so many of the affected areas do not have accurate census numbers (especially the insurgent-affected areas of Sri Lanka and Indonesia, and regions in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands), we're never going to get hard total numbers like was possible with 9-11. The "missing" numbers we're reporting are never going to reach zero, and we're going to end up with a "Y confirmed and an additional Z suspected deceased". Though I do admit that a section on how the numbers changed would be interesting eventually. BanyanTree 23:30, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I hope it turns that you're right, Redux, and the numbers end up being lower than the figures we're currently seeing. However, I see the situation here as being significantly different than the figures that were reported in the aftermath of 9-11. There, the initial estimates were based largely on conjectures about how many people might have been in the buildings. As we learned more about how many people were there to begin with, and how many got out safely, the death toll estimates came down. In the current situation, the initial estimates were quite low, and have been increasing as confirmed deaths are reported from across the vast area affected by the tsunamis. I agree that there is often a tendency in the media to sensationalize figures, but I think here we are seeing almost the opposite - a conservative bias in the reporting that is causing the total numbers to increase as information slowly becomes available from ever-more-remote areas. Jpo 23:41, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)

That's another aspect of the issue. How reliable are those reports coming from remote areas? I mean, countries such as India and Sri Lanka already have dificient infrastructure in regular conditions (no offense). Now, after all that destruction, how can we expect reliable data in so little time? I've seen testimonials given by people who are there (usually via telephone), and everybody says that the tsunamis wreaked havoc all over Asia and the governments were unprepared to handle such a large-scale tragedy. So I gather governments are releasing figures based on speculation and assumption (to a certain extent), which the media retransmits with a coat of absolute certainty that I do not believe could exist in only two days (doesn't that resembles what Jpo said about early estimates in 9-11? Figures based on estimates, at least to a certain extent. Sure the body counting has already begun in Asia, and that didn't quite happen in New York - most of the bodies were not even found, as they were "cremated" in the building, but again, mutatis mutandi, given the very different sizes of the two tragedies. They can count the bodies in Asia, but the task is just overwhelming and could not be performed accurately in such little time). To complicate matters further, some of the affected areas are touristic resorts, and those always have a fluctuating population (tourists coming and going, and even locals who come in and out to render services or small jobs). Even with the manifests from the local hotels, it's just impossible to say how many people were actually at any given beach when the tsunamis came. In that scenario, I can't see how any of those countries could provide a reliable estimate of victims in a matter of hours. I don't agree that information is "slowly becoming available". If anything, I'd say it's becoming available a little too fast (and thus tends to be inaccurate) given the size of the affected area and the generally deficient local infrastructure. Regards, Redux 00:25, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know about the current numbers - I didn't do the last update - but I always made a point out of listing numbers reported as "confirmed". From what I read in the reports, this is based in most cases on actual bodies recovered/counted. That's why we have two columns, confirmed and estimated casualties. Of course the number of dead doubles every day - communications to many affected areas have broken down completely. The 9/11 case was exactly the opposite - there was a known number of people in the buildings, but due to tremendous luck the attack occured during an "off time", so to speak, and only much fewer people died.

Anyway, the point is: I think we are pretty safe with our numbers. If you want to do it better, by all means, go to South Asia and

America should do more

Great WIKI folks--very well maintained.

Though the 'discussion' is primarily about working on the page as apposed to the content of the page, I just HAD to voice my opinion somewhere. I'm quite sad that we spend hundreds of millions every day in Iraq, yet can only muster a measly $35 million to help those around the Indian Ocean.

We Americans should do more.

"Sorting countries alphabetically makes it easier to retrive data."?

Is that true? Don't all browsers have on-page search? Isn't it easier to spot vandalism of the numbers if they are somewhat ordered in ranking. Guestimating the sum quickly now becomes a little cumbersome.

Don't want to start a stupid revert war, so I'm throwing it up here. - Henk Poley 20:27, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ordering numerically, and then alphabetically, seems more logical in this case. BanyanTree 21:12, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Proposal for New "Lost Citizen (standalone) Page"

Just like the "Donation (standalone) Page", I guess we can separate the "Lost Citizen" list from this page (Lost Citizen List) into a standalone page.

This way we can help the the worrying families, and also consolidate the "Lost Citizen" info; since the original page (Countries affected), IMO, is kinda too broad.

By "too broad" I meant, that page is basically divided into 2 parts, the "Area Damaged/Affected" & "People Missing". I guess we should dedicate a standalone page just for "Missing People".

--Godric 21:54, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that there is need for a separate page. An external links section for finding the missing at the bottom of the main page, and linked to from the top, would seem adequate. The "lost citizens" idea sounds like either a wikimorial or duplication of sites for the missing that already exists, which I do not support. BanyanTree 22:19, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Agreed. I'll try adding those links. Also, will try to encourage people to add in external site links of the "Missing people sites" out there.

December 23 "Australian" quake

Not sure why the article repeatedly refers to a quake centred near New Zealand's Auckland Islands as an "Australian earthquake". The epicentre was reportedly 320 km from the Auckland Islands, NZ and 800 km from the NZ mainland - it was 480 km from Macquarie Island and 1200 km from the Aus. mainland. Grutness|hello?

BBC News 22.00 UTC 30 Dec

Reports of 'probably hundreds of thousands' dead in Sumatra alone, mainly on the west coast where several towns apparently totally destroyed. Not sure how to fit this into the article - MPF 22:13, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just wait for more solid information. This is Wikipedia, we can be a day late with information. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:51, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Economic Impact

Should we add something related to the economic impact that this disaster will have to the Region and to the world? Taking 100,000 people out of the economies, as well as displacing another 5,000,000 is likely to have a discernable affect.

I know it sounds very cold (and I don't mean it to be so), but long-term (and wikipedia is "long-term" a disaster of this magnitude may make substantial and permenent changes to the economic relationships of the affected countries.

Sounds like a mention of estimated cost under Damage would be appropriate and then detail under the intro paragraphs under Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. The insurance company estimate I heard was USD 12 billion property damage, not counting the lost future economic production of the dead. The name "humanitarian response" doesn't quite fit, but anything to keep the growth of this article under control. BanyanTree 22:55, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

-comment-

I understand the reinsurance impact is under 20 billion at present. But its probably far higher at the insurer and claimant level due to uninsured or unclaimable losses.

The economic impact will largely depend on whether the rating agencies downgrade the credit ratings of the affected countries and its neighbours and whether there is a selling wave by highly leveraged institutions like hedge funds short selling currencies and trying to flip them.

Also tourism is affected, probably to the extent of the SARS outbreak. And airline stocks like SIA already reflect this, although Singapore did not suffer any local casualties. This may lead to order cancellations and may affect BOEING particularly. (AIRBUS having fewer orders here)

Phukets prostitution industry, which is dependant on tourists, has suffered a major setback as streets are still hard to walk, and there are fewer travelers.

How much energy?

The article says "The total energy released by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake exceeds the total amount of energy consumed in the United States in one month, ... Using the mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc2, this amount of energy is equivalent to a mass of about 100 kg (220 lb) If a 1200km lift of fifteen metres of the sea floor from a depth of 36km isn't six to ten orders of magnitude greater than that, I'll eat my hat, especially if the equivalence to mass is 100kg. -- Centroyd

Um... that's a completely meaningless comparison. Quite frankly I'm having such a hard time comprehending why you made it that I can't form a more meaningful response. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:43, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The "one-month US energy" and the "Hurricane Isabel" both come straight from the footnote referenced. I also found another reference on a USGS FAQ page that says a 9.0 magnitude earthquake = 32,000 megatons of TNT [10]
I don't know about the 100 kg of mass, though. I tried to do a a quick E=mc² calculation to verify this 100 kg figure (which someone else added):
From the megaton page, this is 32 × 103 × 4.184 × 1015 joules = 133 × 1018 = 1.33 × 1020 joules. Since c = 299,792,458 m/s, c² = 8.98 × 1016 and by E=mc² we get m = E/c² = 1479 kg ?
Did I do the math right? Is it 100 kg of mass or 1500 kg? -- Curps 03:22, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


Furthermore, with 6 × 109 humans on Earth, and with the heat of vaporization of water being 2260 kJ/kg, and a liter of water weighing more or less exactly 1 kilogram, boiling one liter of water for every human on earth requires 6 × 109 × 2.26 × 106 joules = 1.356 × 1016 joules. So 1.33 × 1020 joules is enough to boil 104 liters of water for every person on Earth, or 10,000.
Again, did I do the math right? Is it 5000 liters as originally posted, or 10,000? -- Curps 03:38, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Boats?

What happened to the boats in the area? Did it only affect boats close to the coast or also boats in the open sea? 212.144.9.85 01:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Boats near the coast would have been swept inland, and back out again if they didn't get stuck. Boats in the open ocean wouldn't have even noticed. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:26, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)


What depth?

The article says that the quake occurred at a depth of 30 km (18.6 mi) below mean sea level, while the Mariana Trench, the deepest point in the oceans, has a maximum depth of 10,924 m (35,840 ft). -- Ducky

That's not the depth of the water over the earthquake's epicenter. It's the depth of the hypocenter below mean sea level. The hypocenter is almost always deep underground. So that 30km includes a couple of km of water, and a lot more of rock. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:48, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The depth is given here: http://earthquake.usgs.gov/recenteqsww/Quakes/usslav.htm
This page is often updated: the earthquake's time changed from 00:58:50 to 00:58:49 to 00:58:53; the magnitude changed from 8.1 to 8.5 to 8.9 to 9.0; and the depth changed from 10km to 30km. -- Curps 03:01, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Breaking out news articles

Is anyone interested in breaking out some of this article into some smaller, more focused Wikinews articles? We could really use some articles about the effects on individual countries, the "science" of tsunamis/earthquakes, the international Bank's pledge and other funding, and so on. See Wikinews:2004_Indian_Ocean_Tsunami project page. - Amgine 02:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

alleged astrology-based prediction of earthquake by Indian scientists

User:Wikinaut added material about this alleged prediction to both this page and the Earthquake prediction page. The only mention of this comes from an article in a single Indian newspaper [11]; unless we see this mentioned in other news media it is not credible, all the more so since the alleged prediction was based on alignments of Mercury and Venus, and there is no scientific consensus that astrology can be used to predict earthquakes. There is certainly no mention on the USGS website that they received such a prediction.

Nor is there any scientific consensus that the phase of the Moon can affect earthquakes, as in your original-research moon-earthquake theory. See http://earthquake.usgs.gov/faq/myths.html#5

Therefore I reverted these additions. -- Curps 04:05, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_and_tsunami&oldid=8969989"