"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

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 21:40:14 +0100, wrote:


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!)

What all of them? Even the high bits made of granite?

They're granite from top to bottom. The highest point, on St. Mary's,
is a bit over 30 metres above sea level.


--
Chris

E-mail: christopher[dot]hogg[at]virgin[dot]net

"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

In article ,
writes
I heard it on the BBC 1 news at 6 pm today. Obviously it was never
implemented ;-)

The only thing I could find on the BBC web site that is remotely
related is

"An 18-year dispute on toilet paper draws the attention of the
Guardian and the Telegraph, thanks to the new Act.

The row over whether to use soft or hard paper within the Civil
Service was sparked in 1963 and only resolved in 1981, the papers say.

Ouch! I remember hard toilet paper! I put it down to the civil service
of the time being largely male in the higher echelons. Women have a
greater need for soft paper.

The Telegraph says it started with an ambassador with a case of
haemorrhoids.

The Guardian points out that the soft variety won out as the harder
option was flushed down the U-bend of history."



--
Kay
"Do not insult the crocodile until you have crossed the river"

On 4/1/05 21:58, in article , "Tumbleweed"
wrote:


"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.

The idea of a nuclear explosion was considered but in the end it was decided
that a couple of valves to let in sea water would be cheaper and less
damaging to much of Kent..... That was in the Telegraph an the Mail and I
think the Times. Take your pick.
--

Sacha
(remove the weeds for email)

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, 04 Jan 2005 18:23:19 +0100, wrote:

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 12:45:46 +0100, Tim Challenger
wrote:

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 12:23:20 +0100, wrote:

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 12:00:27 +0100, Tim Challenger
wrote:

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

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

In message , Cerumen
writes

wrote in message
news:q19gt0dopgbdsqt1qss7po029m6iat05gi@4ax .com...
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?

Why not use the Japanese word for earthquake too?

I *think* there's a technical difference. A tsunami is caused by an
undersea earthquake, or seaquake I suppose. Whereas a tidal wave can be
caused by a "landbased" earthquake. A tidal wave can also be caused by
storms or be one of those "megawaves" that swamp ships occasionally.

It's not true the two terms are interchangeable.

Correct. They are different, but in this case they are more-or-less
interchangeable. Not in all cases.

I stick to tidal wave, but then I still say Peking, Madras and Bombay.

and Rhodesia? :-)

Of course. ;-) I'm still on Siam anyway, where is this Thailand place?
--
Tim C.

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 19:58:56 +0100, wrote:

On Tue, 4 Jan 2005 17:55:32 -0000, "BAC"
wrote:

The stuff that provides the motive power is totally free and ubiquitous,
i.e. gravity :-)

Bisto powered?

That's gravy powered, martin.
--
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.