"goldfinch" wrote in message ... "Nick Maclaren" wrote in message ... 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. --------------- OK. I have been wondering what you meant, Nick, and hoping that someone else would ask ;-) Then today on the news we hear that our insane government had plans to blow up the channel tunnel with a nuclear bomb if the Russians were to try and invade us. The resulting massive waves would devastate most of the S.E. coastal area. We only know this now because of the freedom of information act. No they didnt. Do you write newspaper headlines as well?Or just read the daily mail? (translating 'some officials considered a bomb but it was never implemented' into 'government had plans to swamp SE with massive waves'.) Not that there would have been any 'massive waves' anyway, maybe a small ripple. (raspberry?) -- Tumbleweed email replies not necessary but to contact use; tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com |
|
"goldfinch" wrote in message ... Not under our wonderful new legislation. No, it is much closer to home. Regards, Nick Maclaren. --------------- OK. I have been wondering what you meant, Nick, and hoping that someone else would ask ;-) Then today on the news we hear that our insane government had plans to blow up the channel tunnel with a nuclear bomb if the Russians were to try and invade us. The resulting massive waves would devastate most of the S.E. coastal area. We only know this now because of the freedom of information act. No they didnt. Do you write newspaper headlines as well?Or just read the daily mail? (translating 'some officials considered a bomb but it was never implemented' into 'government had plans to swamp SE with massive waves'.) Not that there would have been any 'massive waves' anyway, maybe a small ripple. (raspberry?) -- Tumbleweed ------------- I heard it on the BBC 1 news at 6 pm today. Obviously it was never implemented ;-) Probably more than a ripple though, being close enough to the shore even if it was in the middle of the channel. Not if it was going to make the tunnel unusable for only 3 years. And the middle of the channel is 10 miles from the shore. They had tests in the nevada desert *much* nearer than that from las vegas in the 50's, not even a tremor felt in LV. -- Tumbleweed email replies not necessary but to contact use; tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com |
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!) Charlie Pridham writes Lots of people have said that, but it seems unlikely. To create a tsunami requires a high energy shock wave, a bit of land falling in would, however large not be moving fast enough for the damage to be transmitted any distance, although there would certainly be a large wave locally much as when large icebergs break off. I think you confuse speed with energy. If you drop a very very large mass (say 5000 million tons) a few hundred feet (and I think in the case of the canaries it drops a long way down to the ocean floor) then the *energy* released is converted into a (relatively) smaller mass of water travelling *very* fast. I don't know what the conversion factor is but say 1% of the mass travelling at say 20 times the speed would still be quite significant. -- David |
|
|
On 5/1/05 5:08, in article , "goldfinch"
wrote: "Nick Maclaren" wrote in message ... 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. --------------- OK. I have been wondering what you meant, Nick, and hoping that someone else would ask ;-) Then today on the news we hear that our insane government had plans to blow up the channel tunnel with a nuclear bomb if the Russians were to try and invade us. The resulting massive waves would devastate most of the S.E. coastal area. We only know this now because of the freedom of information act. Is that what you meant, or is there something else that "they" are hiding. Best wishes for 2005 to all urglers, Marina E. Sx All they had to do was cancel lunch hours in France. The Russians would never have got through. ;-) -- Sacha www.hillhousenursery.co.uk South Devon (remove the weeds to email me) |
"Nick Maclaren" wrote in message ... 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. --------------- OK. I have been wondering what you meant, Nick, and hoping that someone else would ask ;-) Then today on the news we hear that our insane government had plans to blow up the channel tunnel with a nuclear bomb if the Russians were to try and invade us. The resulting massive waves would devastate most of the S.E. coastal area. We only know this now because of the freedom of information act. Is that what you meant, or is there something else that "they" are hiding. Best wishes for 2005 to all urglers, Marina E. Sx |
Not under our wonderful new legislation. No, it is much closer to home. Regards, Nick Maclaren. --------------- OK. I have been wondering what you meant, Nick, and hoping that someone else would ask ;-) Then today on the news we hear that our insane government had plans to blow up the channel tunnel with a nuclear bomb if the Russians were to try and invade us. The resulting massive waves would devastate most of the S.E. coastal area. We only know this now because of the freedom of information act. No they didnt. Do you write newspaper headlines as well?Or just read the daily mail? (translating 'some officials considered a bomb but it was never implemented' into 'government had plans to swamp SE with massive waves'.) Not that there would have been any 'massive waves' anyway, maybe a small ripple. (raspberry?) -- Tumbleweed ------------- I heard it on the BBC 1 news at 6 pm today. Obviously it was never implemented ;-) Probably more than a ripple though, being close enough to the shore even if it was in the middle of the channel. Marina E. Sx |
...
On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 00:17:15 +0000, Sacha wrote: All they had to do was cancel lunch hours in France. The Russians would never have got through. ;-) :-) Why were they preparing for a Russian invasion long after the cold war was over? -- Martin This was 1974. -- Tumbleweed email replies not necessary but to contact use; tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com wrote in message |
wrote in message ... On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 18:11:51 +0000, Dave wrote: Tim Challenger writes On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 11:47:10 -0000, BAC wrote: Perhaps the fact most English speakers are not Japanese speakers and are hence unlikely to be confused by possible quibbles regarding the literal meaning of the term is one reason many of us consider 'tsunami' a more apt term than 'tidal wave'. I'd have thought that as most English speakers speak English, they might be more likely to know what the work tidalwave means that tsunami. Well maybe the 100 or so Thai and other nationalities saved by an 11 year old girl shouting 'Tsunami' might disagree with you there. Had she not have just studied it at school and recognised the sudden drop in the shoreline water, they might all be dead. IMHO some of these catastrophes deserve an unusual and unique title recognised around the world. Words do change their meaning - tidal to me implies something predictable, and a tidal wave means maybe a severn bore or a predicted high water being pushed down the North Sea at a slow rate of knots, not an unexpected two or three metre wall of several cubic kilometres travelling at several hundred miles an hour. Maybe you should have done O level geography 50 years ago. Do you also get confused when talking about butterflies and slow worms? Whether or not he was one of the few lucky enough to have been selected to take 'O' level geography 50 years ago, I believe he's helped support my speculation that the term 'tidal wave' may be more likely to be misunderstood, these days, than 'tsunami'. |
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 18:08:45 -0000, BAC wrote:
The point is, a person who doesn't speak Japanese either knows what the term tsunami means, or does not, so no confusion, whereas an English speaker who does not know the accepted definition of 'tidal wave' might be tempted to derive a definition intuitively, hence the possibility of confusion. But they'd be pretty sure to guess it has something to do with a big wave, and let's face, that's what counts. Plus there's more chance that an English peaker would have heard it and actually know what it means. -- Tim C. |
|
On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 16:35:14 +0000 (UTC), Mike wrote:
I think you'd need a lot of expensive stuff to move 500,000,000,000 tons of rock in one go. Someone is bound to notice. -- Tim C. Can you please confirm that the scales you used to weigh this item have been checked and please post proof of the date and the certification certificate here via a link. (No binaries on this newsgroup) Er... bugger. :-)) Tons or Tonnes? Estimates from the volume of rock bounded by the cracks. The original article I quoted said "half a billion tonnes" (New Scientist uses American billions). Quite right to point that one out ;-) -- Tim C. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:21 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter