Swedish paper reports tsunami warning halted out of concern for tourist industry

[Tombstone]

Last line is very telling to me.



The tourist industry would be immediately hurt. Our department would not be able to endure a lawsuit.”

Tsunami warning halted ‘for tourist industry’

This from the Swedish paper Expressen.

Just minutes after the earthquake in the Indian Ocean on Sunday morning, Thailand’s foremost meteorological experts were sitting together in a crisis meeting. But they decided not to warn about the tsunami “out of courtesy to the tourist industry,” writes the Thailand daily newspaper The Nation.

The experts got the news around 8:00 am on Sunday morning local time. An hour later, the first massive wave struck. But the experts started to discuss the economic impacts when they discussed if a tsunami warning should be issued.

The primary argument against such a warning was that there had not been any floods in 300 years. Also, the experts believed the Indonesian island Sumatra would be a “cushion” for the southern coast of Thailand. The experts also had bad information; they thought the tremor was 8.1. A similar earthquake occurred in the same area in 2002 with no flooding at all.

One expert The Nation spoke with also noted that the department had only four earthquake experts among their

900-strong meteorological department. A second told The Nation that a tsunami warning was discussed but that because of the risk, they opted not to issue a warning.

“We finally decided not to do anything because the tourist season was in full swing,” the source said. “The hotels were 100 percent booked. What if we issued a warning, which would have led to an evacuation, and nothing had happened. What would be the outcome? The tourist industry would be immediately hurt. Our department would not be able to endure a lawsuit.”

[Clint]

Tombstone wrote:

“We finally decided not to do anything because the tourist season was in full swing,” the source said. “The hotels were 100 percent booked. What if we issued a warning, which would have led to an evacuation, and nothing had happened. What would be the outcome? The tourist industry would be immediately hurt. Our department would not be able to endure a lawsuit.”
It sounds like a made up story but it’s exactly what happens. I was involved in a tsunami evacuation once and the decisions people were making would make you wonder how we survive day to day life. It turned out to be more of an ordeal than I want to discuss here. The good news is that the warning was real but the wave was very small and didn’t do any damage, even though we were told it would be 30 feet high.

Some people panicked and left immediately even thought some of them had major responsibilities that they should have stayed an taken care of. Other people refused to leave because they decided they would just die with their house, I guess. Some were in denial and made decisions for them and others based on denial. I will never forget people going to the ocean’s edge so they wouldn’t miss anything.

[Suresh Gupta]

So it is not Tsunami only which killed thousands of innocent people. Economics also played an important role. Business for whom, the people, who have died to save the business which could not be saved.

[Paula]

Lessons learned (the hard way). There should have been some type of alert. The wave was coming, end of story, but to not humanly alert is unspeakable. What a mess. We live in the 20Th Century, no-one was prepared? WOW...

[Clint]

To be fair to the decision makers without totally excusing their actions, there is a somewhat mitigating factor. The possibility of a tsunami occurs more often than most of us are aware. Anytime there is a significant quake and the ocean is involved the possibility of a tsunami has to be considered. The people making the decision had probably been faced with many false alarms and they were gambling that this was yet another instance where the ingredients were there but nothing would happen. The fact that they knew they would be disrupting the tourist industry would have been a factor that unduly clouded their judgment. Even with that considered, the fact that the quake was as large as it was makes me wonder why no action was taken.

The lesson learned should be the impetus for the development of technology and decision making processes that result in the ability to know for certain if a wave has been generated or not. Human emotion and fallible judgment should be such a small part of the process that the people involved won’t have to worry that they may be crying wolf.

[Paula]

Clint, what would you have done? I think an alert of some kind would have helped greatly? The information is open, that it was know a tidal wave was approaching? they would have been alerted if a jet was to crash there? i would assume so? Communication here, come on....

[Clint]

Paula wrote: Clint, what would you have done? I think an alert of some kind would have helped greatly? The information is open, that it was know a tidal wave was approaching? they would have been alerted if a jet was to crash there? i would assume so? Communication here, come on....
I know exactly what I would have done. I've had to do it once (thankfully, only once) before. I would sound the alarm just as I did in the face of opposition before. I know the pressure that is on you when you have to make that decision. That is why I say what I do. I speak from experience...not just as a Monday morning quarterback. I know how difficult it is for people and I can only imagine how bad those who made the wrong call must feel. I’m not making excuses for them but I think that those who are so willing to pass judgment should ask themselves if they would be just as willing sit in the hot seat, make the calls, then live with the result of their decision.

I made the decision to evacuate. The wave didn’t come. I paid a significant price but I would do it again.

[Paula]

Thats Okay, I forgive you -- you responded to my reply, kindly and to the point. I respect that. No-one has all the answers, we can at least try? Cheerio.

[Clint]

Paula wrote: Thats Okay, I forgive you -- you responded to my reply, kindly and to the point. I respect that. No-one has all the answers, we can at least try? Cheerio.
Paula,

I don't mean to sound rude or ungrateful but what are you forgiving me for? What did I say or do that needed to be forgiven?

[Clint]

Paula wrote: Thats Okay, I forgive you -- you responded to my reply, kindly and to the point. I respect that. No-one has all the answers, we can at least try? Cheerio.
Well, it looks like you either don't know the answer or you have chosen not to answer. That leaves me to my own conclusions. I conclude that you decided to forgive me so it would look like I had said something wrong when it wasn't me at all. Please correct me if I'm wrong.