> Possibly, but I'm wondering what would there be to be done even if they > are aware of it all? Tsunami can be dealt with pretty much on an immediate coastal basis in most cases. MUCH more so than eg earthquake itself. Once you decide there is a prospect you can easily [tm] minimum quake to Tsunami arrival times and can have a moderately good idea of maximum wave amplitude and "reach". If probabilities were high enough you can easily put in monitoring for an actual wave and alarms. Once people are convinced this is serious they tend to cooperate reasonably well. Satellite and other aerial before and after photos of Bunda Aceh (which are available)(I have some somewhere) and photos of Samoa (many available) help convey conviction. The large majority in most possibly affected areas need only move very short distances taking only short times to be out of tsunami risk in most cases. Photos of Bunda Aceh give and extremely good idea of what is and isn't liable to provide protection and how far inland things can happen in certain locations. A Tsunami is essentially a step change in incoming water velocity - NOT a normal wave. Once you see what they do and how they work you can have a fair idea what you need to do in a given case. Arrival time would need expert input. Open ocean velocities are v high (100-200 kph or even more) and amplitudes low, and speed drop and height rises as depth drops. There are std depth/height/speed formulae available. The Kaikoura trench is an anomaly. You have deep ocean depths in a slot with continental shelf either side. How that shapes and directs a wave and how fast/slow / high is utterly beyond me. 5 minutes warning should save most people affected. 2 minutes warning helps heaps if you are alert. In Samoa tens of seconds was enough for some. Russell On 6 March 2011 15:51, Oli Glaser wrote: > > On 06/03/2011 02:15, RussellMc wrote: > > Presumably the people who actually know something about this are well a= head > > of me on this, if there is any risk. > > Possibly, but I'm wondering what would there be to be done even if they > are aware of it all? > I don't really know anything about such things (fortunately in this > country we have little need to) but your analysis seems quite plausible > (to me at a quick read - not looked at any maps) > I understand there is some benefit in predicting these things, but I > imagine politics/economics will often be a large(r) factor in deciding > what to actually do about them. I guess if you are going to do something > like evacuate millions of people and give up (various levels of, > depending on area) lucrative land then some pretty concrete evidence > would be needed. > > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .