"Mike" wrote in message
...
What are the views of those on uk.rec.gardening if it happens, and
who will
it effect?

I am about 50 metres inland from the Cliff Walk between Sandown and
Shanklin
on the Isle of Wight and about 50 metres above sea level. But the
Island
could very well become 3 Islands again.

Unless I am mistaken, there is no plate boundary nearby, nor are there
any active submarine volcanoes around there, so you will probably be
OK. I think you will be reasonably shielded from that island in the
Canaries, part of which is expected to dslide off into the Atlantic at
any time now. They say when it goes, that will be the end of New
York.

Franz

"Brian Watson" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 02:39:19 +0000, (gp)
wrote:

wrote:


The main risk is the big piece of rock which is expected to fall
off
an island in the Canaries, generate a tidal wave that will wipe
out
the East Coast of the USA and not do a lot of good to the low
countries.

Atlantic City - no harm there
Philadelphia - ditto
New York - a tragedy

Good bye Florida and brother Bush?

Not all bad news then.

Would that we'd be so lucky!

Franz

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 11:57:00 +0000, June Hughes
wrote:

In message , Cerumen
writes

wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 16:09:33 -0000, "Bob Hobden"
wrote:

The main risk is the big piece of rock which is expected to fall
off
an island in the Canaries, generate a tidal wave that will wipe
out
the East Coats of the USA and not do a lot of good to the low
countries.

Apparently a tsunami hit the west coast of Ireland in 1775 ? after
a
seismic event near the Azores and Canaries causing some
considerable
damage..

I believe that was the earthquake and tsunami that wiped out
Lisbon.

When did everybody start calling a tidal wave a tsunami and why?

Not long ago, because it sounds so knowledgeable.

Why not use the Japanese word for earthquake too?
Perhaps becaise it might be unpronounceable?

Franz

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 17:16:35 +0100, "JennyC"
wrote:


"Mike" wrote in message
...
What are the views of those on uk.rec.gardening if it happens,
and who will
it effect?

I am about 50 metres inland from the Cliff Walk between Sandown
and Shanklin
on the Isle of Wight and about 50 metres above sea level. But the
Island
could very well become 3 Islands again.

Mike, on the Isle(s) of Wight?

I live 6 metres below sea level..................lets hope the
polar ice stays
where it is (and frozen!)

I'm 7 metres above :-)

How sound is the structure below you?

Franz

Unless I am mistaken, there is no plate boundary nearby, nor are there
any active submarine volcanoes around there, so you will probably be
OK.

So glad :-)) I have so much to do :-))

I think you will be reasonably shielded from that island in the
Canaries, part of which is expected to dslide off into the Atlantic at
any time now.

"At any time now" in relation to when ;-)) ?
Rather like the notice on the shut shop, "Back soon". Next October is 'soon'
with respect to Christmas 2025

They say when it goes, that will be the end of New
York.

I believe that if that is the case, 'something' would have been done by now
if 'any time now' relates to this year!!


Mike
not holding his breath ;-)

"mrmalins" wrote in message
...

"Charlie" wrote in message
...
Mike wrote:
Oh no! something else to be frightened about!




Where do you differentiate between "frightened of" and "aware of"
?



It's pretty old news regurgitated.

I wonder where you differentiate between being someone being
serious and
someone having a laugh :)


Charlie


--
www.peartreegreen.org


No point in bothering about the garden anymore then ? suppose we
could make
a water feature of it. john .m

A salt-water pond kitted up with seaweed?

Franz

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 14:40:51 +0000 (UTC), Mike wrote:

They say when it goes, that will be the end of New
York.

I believe that if that is the case, 'something' would have been done by now
if 'any time now' relates to this year!!

And what would you suggest that "they" do? Get a couple of big sticks and
prop it up? You'd need a lot of string and blu-tac to hold back 500 billion
tons of rock.

--
Tim C.

"Douglas" wrote in message
...

If a
tsunami gets us then there isn't going to be much left of Europe let
alone the UK.

.... At least the plants will get wattered ;-)

Yeah, but it's salt water. how will this affect growing crops in the near
futire?
Jenny


I'm getting back on topic again, I apologise.


--
Douglas

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 16:40:04 +0100, wrote:

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 16:27:03 +0100, "JennyC" wrote:


"Douglas" wrote in message
...

If a
tsunami gets us then there isn't going to be much left of Europe let
alone the UK.

.... At least the plants will get wattered ;-)

Yeah, but it's salt water. how will this affect growing crops in the near
futire?

Who said it's going to happen in the near future?
New Scientist October 7th, 2000:

"It is reassuring that the Cumbre Vieja isn't going to collapse
spontaneously," he[*] says. But it's also worrying. After all, the volcano
erupts once every few decades.
"It's unlikely that the volcano will collapse during the next eruption," he
says, and it may take many more before the fault finally gives. But when it
does give, watch out Florida.


and from NS 29 August 2001
"If the flank collapses, which Day expects to happen sometime in the next
few thousand years ...."

So, not any time soon. Unless we're really unlucky.


* Simon Day of the Benfield Greig Hazard Research Centre at University
College London, who discovered that a huge chunk of La Palma, the most
volcanically active island in the Canaries, is now unstable.
--
Tim C.

"Nick Maclaren" wrote ..
after "Bob Hobden"
The nearest tectonic plates to us are in the N.Atlantic and are divergent
boundaries causing the N.Atlantic Ridge, because these plates are pulling
apart there is little chance of a tsunami being caused. The plate
boundaries
in S E Asia are convergent which is why they suddenly moved 100 ft over
one
another, when they overcame the friction between themselves, causing the
waves.
I would be more worried about the effects of the change in the earths
rotation caused by this earthquake.

You may be right that divergent plates will cause less of a shock wave
than convergent ones, but I should be flabberghasted if they couldn't
cause enough of one to cause trouble, given the shallowing and focussing
of the Channel. Without doing some precise modelling, I can't say what
effects that would have on the UK, but it is relatively unlikely to be a
major event. Probably not more than 100,000 dead.

We are partly protected from the N. Atlantic by Ireland and the coast that
is exposed is high and used to big waves so I can't see serious problems
caused by tectonic plate movement there when it's so far below the surface.
Of course if it gets channelled up the Channel then the S. coast could
suffer badly all the way to the S. Downs but there are a lot of ifs and buts
for that to happen. The Seven Bore might be a little bigger than normal too!


However, it is NOT true that the UK is safe from earthquakes. There
have been some Richter 5+ events on the mainland (including one that
killed two people, our only deaths), but there has been a Richter 6.0
under the Dogger bank. If that occurred under London, the carnage
could be immense, and it is not completely impossible. But it is
pretty unlikely.

True, never said we were. However we don't normally get anything we notice
unless we are a scientist.


However, the most likely cause of water-borne carnage is a certainty
in the next century or so, but our wonderful government is attempting
(and failing) to hide it using terrorism legislation. Probably so
that they can say "But we couldn't POSSIBLY have known" and the
resulting enquiry will acquit them of all negligence.


Could you explain that Nick? Are we back to the Canaries again?

--
Regards
Bob
In Runnymede, 17 miles West of London

The IOW is slowly sinking, it's only a matter of time before the sea
bridges the gap between Yarmouth and Freshwater Bay.
--
Martin

The Car Park at Freshwater Bay is below sea level and it is only the sea
wall keeping Neptune out. At the other end in Sandown Bay, it is only the
Sea Wall near the Canoe Lake (as was) stopping the Island splitting again
round to Bembridge. 'That' wall is quite substantial and I don't think a
wave, or sets of waves as they had in Thailand would have breached it.

(Had a text from our daughter, on her way home from Thailand now. Gets to
Heathrow in the morning)

Mike

In article ,
Bob Hobden wrote:

However, the most likely cause of water-borne carnage is a certainty
in the next century or so, but our wonderful government is attempting
(and failing) to hide it using terrorism legislation. Probably so
that they can say "But we couldn't POSSIBLY have known" and the
resulting enquiry will acquit them of all negligence.

Could you explain that Nick? Are we back to the Canaries again?

Not under our wonderful new legislation. No, it is much closer to home.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 13:21:24 +0100, wrote:

When did everybody start calling a tidal wave a tsunami and why?

Presumably to make the distinction between tidal events, such as the
many river bores or storm surges enhanced by tidal action and nontidal
events due to big lumps of the earth moving rather suddenly.

--
Cheers
Dave. pam is missing e-mail

On 3/1/05 11:30, in article , "Cerumen"
wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 16:09:33 -0000, "Bob Hobden"
wrote:

The main risk is the big piece of rock which is expected to fall off
an island in the Canaries, generate a tidal wave that will wipe out
the East Coats of the USA and not do a lot of good to the low
countries.

Apparently a tsunami hit the west coast of Ireland in 1775 ? after a
seismic event near the Azores and Canaries causing some considerable
damage..

A recent article I read somewhere said that if the predicted bit of La Palma
falls off in one slab the resulting tsunami will lead to the disappearance
of the Isles of Scilly (among other damage!)
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

On 3/1/05 16:46, in article , "Nick
Maclaren" wrote:

In article ,
Bob Hobden wrote:

However, the most likely cause of water-borne carnage is a certainty
in the next century or so, but our wonderful government is attempting
(and failing) to hide it using terrorism legislation. Probably so
that they can say "But we couldn't POSSIBLY have known" and the
resulting enquiry will acquit them of all negligence.

Could you explain that Nick? Are we back to the Canaries again?

Not under our wonderful new legislation. No, it is much closer to home.


This would appear to be one of the reasons that many are strongly anti this
legislation - anything can be hidden from us or pushed through parliament
under the need for 'secrecy and security'. Pah!
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)