wrote in message ... 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? Martin You'd hope that the inhabitants will be able to plant some crops asap to relieve the food aid that I hope they will get...... Jenny |
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? Jenny I believe that Salicornia would be a suitable crop - we in East Anglia are fans of it. (Well, some of us are...) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Weather bosses decided that it needed a more up to date image and rebranding ............?? |
[quote=Mike]
They say when it goes, that will be the end of New York.[/i][/color] And for once it won't be Hollywood responsible, my my, what a novelty! |
Quote:
What you need is one giant elastic band, placed round the island to hold it together. Then you can start to superglue it. |
|
"Sacha" wrote in message k... 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!) As well as New York Franz |
wrote in message ... On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 14:36:18 +0000 (UTC), "Franz Heymann" wrote: 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? Sand and stroop all the way down to Oz. In fact we are 1 metre above sea level not 7. Oh dear Franz |
"Mike" wrote in message ... 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 ;-)) ? Now. {:-)) If I understand the situation correctly, there is a moderately high and rising probability per annum. Sorry, I don't know the actual number. 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!! It is the case. What would you recommend? Franz |
wrote in message ... On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 15:53:00 +0100, Tim Challenger wrote: 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. Don't let science ruin a good discussion, that's Franz's job. :-) {:-)) I would recommend that they start making plans for evacuating New York. They wil have around 10 hours warning. Perhaps theyhave already made plans, but can't make them public because of the grand panic which would follow immediately after the announcement. Franz |
I believe that if that is the case, 'something' would have been done by now if 'any time now' relates to this year!! It is the case. What would you recommend? Franz Making sure there are no people in the area. (I don't know the situation so do not know how habitated it is, if it is!!). Then get the Navy to pound it with smally shells to 'knock bits off', or even get a demolition team in if the situation permits. Rather difficult to offer suggestions without the 'local' knowledge, but if the situation is as grim as shown, and it is not just 'news hype', then fingers out should be the order of the day. Mike |
"Sacha" wrote in message k... 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!) ....and a more recent one I read said that studies of actual landslides in those islands showed it tended to fall off in relatively small chunks that wouldnt cause any significant damage at all. That of course gets much less headline space than an alarming report. Which is why everytime a new asteroid is spotted the first you hear about it is what the odds of it crashing into the earth and destroying all life (or an area the size of Wales) are. However I did manage to find the report (amongst the other 999,999 prophesying doom.).... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3963563.stm -- Tumbleweed email replies not necessary but to contact use; tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com |
Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 13:21:24 +0100, wrote: When did everybody start calling a tidal wave a tsunami and why? Why not use the Japanese word for earthquake too? AIUI, the term 'tidal wave' is strictly incorrect, as the wave has nothing to do with tides, unlike some other waves such as the Severn Bore. Tsunami is the 'correct' term (even though we all know what a tidal wave is). It apparently means 'harbour wave', which sounds just as inappropriate. That is correct. "Tidal wave" in English gives entirely the wrong impression. Just before a big tsunami strikes the sea drains away rapidly from the shoreline for a short while. Anyone living in a tsunami prone region should know that this means run for high ground. Tsunami is basically correct. They are an artefact of the deep water shockwave running into ever more shallow coastal waters, harbour and beach. Well out to sea in deep water the effect is much less. Japanese for earthquake is "jishin". By no means unpronouncable but the English language version is not misleading and so remains in use. Regards, Martin Brown |
On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 20:15:50 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote:
It apparently means 'harbour wave', which sounds just as inappropriate. Not really out in deep water tsunami are not great towering things, they may be hardly noticeable in the normal swell. They only get big as they come ashore. Normal waves are just surface features but a tsunami is the whole ocean depth rising and falling. -- Cheers Dave. pam is missing e-mail |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter