On 2004-12-31 15:03:03 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]> said:

    > Jeremy writes:
    >
    >> How many earthquakes this size have occurred in your lifetime?
    >
    > What do you mean by size? The surface area of the region affected? The
    > number of people killed or injured? The magnitude at the epicenter?
    > The number and size of tsunami generated?

Let's start with magnitude. (Note that this is independent of distance
from the epicenter - you may be getting confused with "intensity")

J;

--
Encrypted e-mail address. Click to mail me:
http://cerbermail.com/?nKYh3qN4YG

Miss L. Toe writes:

    > Hopefully it will get sufficient media attention in the USA to finally put
    > 11/9 into its proper perspective.

Don't hold your breath. In the few years since 9/11, earthquakes alone
have already killed 100 times as many people as died during that
terrorist attack.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

The Reids writes:

    > you think this is a small scale disaster?

No, but there are many large-scale disasters that receive relatively
less media attention.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

JohnT writes:

    > I can't receive CNN, but BBC News has been covering this extensively. The
    > predicted death toll is now 180,000 plus. There has been no natural
    > disaster in living memory which has caused such a death toll. And rather
    > than nit-picking and going through records to prove me wrong, just make a
    > contribution towards disaster relief.

I don't have much money right now. But even if I did, I'd try to spend
it equitably for charity, and not just go by whatever gets the most air
time on CNN.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Markku Grönroos writes:

    > In 1980's in Sudan, Eritrea and Ethiopia alone millions of people starved to
    > death due to persistent drought in the region. This way of dying is
    > naturally much more painful and horrendous than drowning which kills fast.

Fast deaths are better for the media, since they have to show everything
in about 30 seconds. It's hard to show amateur video of someone
starving over a period of six weeks between commercial breaks.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

JohnT writes:

    > I am aware of that and I did what little I could to help. The problem is
    > still there. But it wasn't a single natural disaster.

So?

    > And in Asia there
    > are millions who are homeless and have nothing because of what happened
    > on 26th December.

There were already millions who were homeless and had nothing _before_
December 26. What did you do to help them?

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

The Reids writes:

    > please list similar natural disasters that didn't get extensive
    > media coverage.

Just about every long-lasting disaster gets only light media coverage.
Famines and droughts and other long-term weather disasters are in this
category, and they kill millions.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

Jeremy writes:

    > Let's start with magnitude.

This earthquake has not often been matched for magnitude.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Miguel Cruz writes:
    >> Disasters that take 130,000 lives in the space of a few days are rarer
    >> than
    >> you seem to think.
    > I can think of two that took twice that number in the space of a few
    > days half a century ago.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not natural disasters. And even such dreadful
events as those were the catalyst for good coming out of evil. If you are
not aware of it, Google for "Leonard Cheshire".

JohnT

"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > JohnT writes:
    >> I can't receive CNN, but BBC News has been covering this extensively.
    >> The
    >> predicted death toll is now 180,000 plus. There has been no natural
    >> disaster in living memory which has caused such a death toll. And
    >> rather
    >> than nit-picking and going through records to prove me wrong, just
    >> make a
    >> contribution towards disaster relief.
    > I don't have much money right now. But even if I did, I'd try to spend
    > it equitably for charity, and not just go by whatever gets the most air
    > time on CNN.
So you are not giving anything at all to Charity? And you were the only
one who mentioned CNN. It seems to me that you are lacking more than
somewhat in basic humanity.

JohnT

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:27:03 +0100, Jeremy <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On 2004-12-31 12:36:14 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]> said:
    >> Derek McBryde writes:
    >>
    >>> If you are reading this and haven't donated, maybe you could
    >>> consider donating even a small amount before you switch off your
    >>> computer?
    >>
    >> What other earthquakes did you donate for?
    >How many earthquakes this size have occurred in your lifetime?

Last year's big earthquake killed 50,000.
--
Martin

"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Miss L. Toe writes:
    > > Does one person hurt any less just becuase there are more hurt people
around
    > > ?
    > No, but 100 dead is a hundred times more than one dead.

Actually less than 100 times in terms of suffering (of those left behind),
because loosing 3 friends or family members is not 3 times as bad as loosing
one.

"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > Markku Grönroos writes:
    >> In 1980's in Sudan, Eritrea and Ethiopia alone millions of people
    >> starved to
    >> death due to persistent drought in the region. This way of dying is
    >> naturally much more painful and horrendous than drowning which kills
    >> fast.
    > Fast deaths are better for the media, since they have to show
    > everything
    > in about 30 seconds. It's hard to show amateur video of someone
    > starving over a period of six weeks between commercial breaks.
BBC 10 O' Clock News devoted 26 minutes to this yesterday evening. Which
is much the same as happened on 26th, 27th, 28th and 29th December. The
are no commercial breaks on public service TV news programmes.

JohnT

JohnT writes:

    > Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not natural disasters.

True. They were deliberate murders. Does that make the deaths they
caused any less significant? How many people donated to help the
Japanese then?

    > And even such dreadful events as those were the catalyst for
    > good coming out of evil.

Well, a tsunami that scrapes the coast clean opens the way for
construction of modern new buildings, too.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

"Mxsmanic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > JohnT writes:
    >> I am aware of that and I did what little I could to help. The problem
    >> is
    >> still there. But it wasn't a single natural disaster.
    > So?
    >> And in Asia there
    >> are millions who are homeless and have nothing because of what
    >> happened
    >> on 26th December.
    > There were already millions who were homeless and had nothing _before_
    > December 26. What did you do to help them?
Apparently a lot more than you.

JohnT