Off the coast of Okinawa, Japan, an earthquake with a magnitude of 6.3 happened yesterday. Not much damage was sustained due to the earthquake happening not directly in an inhabited area, and also Japan is not unaccustomed to earthquakes of this magnitude. However, since it happened in the water, the Japan Meteorological Society sent out a tsunami warning for areas near where the earthquake took place.
I think this prediction of tsunami is a perfect example of what we read in chapter five of the text book on warnings. Issuing warnings is tricky business because whether you issue a false warning or don't issue one at all when it is need, the public becomes mistrustful. So some places have levels of warnings such as was used in those areas of Japan. Had the JMS been more sure of a tsunami, they would have used the term "tsunami watch" rather than "tsunami warning" because the implications are stronger with the first term.
It turned out that the JMS believed the "tsunami" arrived without notice and only a minute change in water level occured. So they would have been fine not issuing a warning at all, but to be on the safe side they issued a less strong warning.
Also this goes along with what Professor Hupy said yesterday about the percieved hazard of tsunamis since the tsunami in 2004. People today see tsunamis as a bigger threat because a large, damaging tsunami happened recently, but the risk of getting hit by a tsunami has not changed. So in Japan, they put out a warning even though the risk was slight because people are more fearful that a tsunami will happen.
Links:
Fox News story on the earthquake in Okinawa and on the tsunami warning:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/10/04/earthquake-strikes-japan-okinawa-island/
No comments:
Post a Comment