It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

2010 Exercise Models New Madrid Casualties in Kentucky at 7,000+

page: 2
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
take into account the newer technology for an infrastructure that didnt exist back then none of which was designed to withstand any large magnitude earthquake.


What are you talking about? California has had major earthquakes in modern times, that have split interstates and all kinds of mess. They had a major one in the 1990s if I remember right that caused all kinds of damage, but relatively few casualties.

And do you know what happened to Japan lately? Yeah, the earthquake didn't hardly cause any casualties compared to the tsunami that it created.

Don't get me wrong, earthquakes cause damage, but people still get back up and dust themselves off and carry on. It's when you start stacking disasters on top of each other in vulnerability geographic areas that lots of people start dying, and even then, again look at Japan, they are definitely still there.

Kentucky is right next to a fault line, and may have areas vulnerable to flooding via the Mississippi/Ohio Rivers, but other than that, it's landlocked, it's mountainous, and in general I would feel safe living there, especially towards the Appalachian side.
edit on 18-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


i was talking about kentucky as someone pointed out to me to do.

referencing other areas whose building codes are totally different than kentucky is rather moot.
edit on 18-4-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 01:50 AM
link   
I agree with Neo96... Everything I've read about the New Madrid fault line and its destructive power...
7000 Causalities are very optimistic...

I'm from ole Kentucky...

California is used to EQ's
I knew a girl from Los Angeles a few years back, Was talking to her on the phone...
I heard her cuss and heard something break...
When I asked what happened
I got a reply of
"Just a f-ing ground gasm, now what were you saying about Skylar?"

If the ground shook here... even a minor shake... at this moment would probably kill me... I got some heavy things sitting on my computer desk... high above my head... speaking of which, note to self... move heavy things, ha ha...

I don't know how you would retrofit a barn to survive a 9.0 quake? or a house trailer for that fact? I like in a house trailer... and a lot of people here do...

Also the hills where I live... you have risk of rock slides... trees falling on you...

A lot of people live on hillsides... what if the quake disrupted the foundations and slid their homes off the hills... I know one place right that, a hill that is full of house trailers, sitting on concentrate blocks... I could probably knock a house trailer off the hill by hitting the concrete blocks with a sledge hammer...

I'm no expert...

-Evol Eric



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 02:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by zuul000
 


i have been on topic and borders mean nothing when talking about earthquakes


Borders do mean something if you're saying "we anticipate X casualties within these borders."

To recap:

1. State of Kentucky simulation uses figure of 7,000 casualties in State of Kentucky as a result of New Madrid fault quake.
2. You say "The New Madrid Fault encompasses 7 states - there will be more than 7,000 casualties!!!!!!!"
3. I say "State of Kentucky simulation uses figure of 7,000 casualties in State of Kentucky as a result of New Madrid fault quake."
4. You say "There are 15 million people who live in the 7 states that will be impacted! There will be more than 7,000 casualties! ZOMG!"
5. I say "State of Kentucky simulation uses figure of 7,000 casualties in State of Kentucky as a result of New Madrid fault quake."

Finally, it should be noted, this is not a Kentucky "prediction." These are figures used in a simulation.

I'm not trying to flame anyone, and I'm not speaking about the poster specifically, however, there are very serious issues related to basic literacy and reading comprehension among a large group of poster on ATS. I don't know why this is but it seems more pronounced and acute than most forums.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by zuul000
 


you have a population of over 5 million people

government services are a fraction of what would be needed to get out there are start finding people and rendering help.

time is a critical factor depending on the circumstances help would immediately be able to come from the surrounding areas personnel could be flown in that is is the airports arent damaged

heavy equipment needed would have to be driven in that is if the roads are not impassable.

your also forgetting the hundreds of thousands of people who travel through kentucky on the interstates at any given time.

there simulation is a fraud to put it kindly.

if you want to sit there and believe that rose colored simulation feel free but there are alot of things they are not taking into account.
edit on 18-4-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by EvolEric
7000 Causalities are very optimistic...


As the OP I would, again, like to note the documents are not a "prediction." This was a public safety planning exercise that used a 7,000 casualty figure as the scenario baseline.

If a police department is conducting routine hostage rescue training and conducts an exercise in which an ERT team has to recover 3 hostages from a barricaded building that doesn't mean the police department is predicting the next hostage incident will involve 3 hostages.

This was an interesting document to read and that's about it. It would be pleasurable to conduct a rational discussion but we seem to operate at two extremes:

(1) the first respondent replied to a simple, interesting document post that contained no editorial comment by trying to "debunk" something that hadn't been "bunked" in the first place
(2) the pendulum then swung to the opposite side of the nut-house and subsequent posters started screaming that Kentucky was being puerile and the NMF was going to kill us all

Is it possible that, on ATS, we can learn to simply take a post as a post? There aren't ulterior motives, there isn't an advocacy platform, there is no subtle point I was trying to make. I simply saw a document that was an interesting read due to the planning description and made a post about it.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by zuul000
 


you have a population of over 5 million people

government services are a fraction of what would be needed to get out there are start finding people and rendering help.

time is a critical factor depending on the circumstances help would immediately be able to come from the surround areas personnel could be flown in that is is the airports arent damaged

heavy equipment needed would have to be driven in that is if the roads are not impassable.

your also forgetting the hundreds of thousands of people who travel through kentucky on the interstates at any given time.

there simulation is a fraud to put it kindly.

if you want to sit there and believe that rose colored simulation feel free but there are alot of things they are not taking into account.


I neither believe it nor disbelieve it because there's nothing to "believe."

Again - you need some basic, remedial reading comprehension. This is a simulation, not a prediction. We're having a really difficult time in communicating with each other and will continue to do so until you are able to enhance your knowledge of the English language.

To analogize what is happening in a way you might better understand -

(1) I posted a recipe on funrecipes.com for egg salad that called for 1 carton of eggs
(2) you replied by saying my recipe did not account for the global egg shortage caused by the introduction of arsenic in the chicken feed supply

Please choose to step back, take a few deep breaths and make the choice to act in a lucid manner.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   
i say someone here needs to learn and comprehend ats etiquette.

like not making the poster the topic of discussion.



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
i say someone here needs to learn and comprehend ats etiquette.

like not making the poster the topic of discussion.



I'm hoping to cultivate a higher level of intellectual pedigree for a more robust and thoughtful discussion in this thread. Perhaps there is a different one that might better meet your requirements? Thanks -

edit on 18-4-2011 by zuul000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
you have a population of over 5 million people

government services are a fraction of what would be needed to get out there are start finding people and rendering help.

time is a critical factor depending on the circumstances help would immediately be able to come from the surrounding areas personnel could be flown in that is is the airports arent damaged

heavy equipment needed would have to be driven in that is if the roads are not impassable.

your also forgetting the hundreds of thousands of people who travel through kentucky on the interstates at any given time.

there simulation is a fraud to put it kindly.

if you want to sit there and believe that rose colored simulation feel free but there are alot of things they are not taking into account.



Why don't you apply your same worse-case-scenario reasoning to this earthquake and tell me why there wasn't more devastation?:



The Loma Prieta earthquake, also known as the Quake of '89 and the World Series Earthquake,[4] was a major earthquake that struck the San Francisco Bay Area of California on October 17, 1989, at 5:04 p.m. local time. Caused by a slip along the San Andreas Fault, the quake lasted 10–15 seconds[1] and measured 6.9 on the moment magnitude scale[5] (surface-wave magnitude 7.1) or 6.9 on the open-ended Richter Scale.[1] The quake killed 63[2] people throughout northern California, injured 3,757[3] and left some 3,000-12,000[1][6][7][8] people homeless.


en.wikipedia.org...


The population of Kentucky is about 4.5 million, and that's for the whole state.

The population of California is over 36 million, and over a million live in the San Francisco Bay Area, also over a million in 1989.

Were "government services...a fraction of what would be needed to get out there are start finding people and rendering help"?


Earthquakes aren't the end of the world.
edit on 18-4-2011 by bsbray11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by bsbray11
 


thats taking into account of alot of unknowns alot and the biggest one the magnitude of any given earthquake.

and california has earthquake building code standards kentucky does not.


This guy talks like a bot



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Okay, back to the OP, The title states 7000 casualties. This is very missleading as it makes one think there will be 7000 deaths. However, in the report it is broken down to 6,500 injured and 300 dead. I think that is a very realistic number for this particular area.

On a side note, the damage to the infrastructure and potential concequences to the Mississippi River could be devistating to not only the region but the country, if the quake is of significant magnitude.
edit on 4/18/2011 by amaster because: General edit



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by zuul000

Originally posted by schuyler
Computer predictions are fun, but, like spreadsheets, they give a false sense of accuracy. Just because something is "in a model" does not mean it's true.


OMG, great point. I'm really, really sorry I started this thread.

Mods - if possible can you please completely delete this thread? I feel just awful. Really terrible.

Thanks and my sincere apologies to the entire community. I hope, in time, you may all come to forgive me.


I wasn't suggesting your information was entirely wrong. Presumably you wanted to have a discussion about this issue. Or did you just want us to accept whatever you wrote at face value as completely valid in all respects? I don't think it is unreasonable to point out issues with a report. Your reaction here is, of course, as sarcastic as you can get it and you quite obviously have taken it personally. Why is a mystery becauise it's not your data. You're just reporting it.

Take a deep breath. Exhale. Now let's discuss computer models (but only if YOU want to) and how there are issues with garbage in, garbage out that need to be addressed. In other words, just what exactly led these researchers to come to the conclusions they did? What are their assumptions? How, precidely, did they figure out that if "X" happened there would be "Y" casualties?

Inquiring minds want to know. Given the paltry track record of computer models in the past, I would hope "denying ignorance" would include an examination of these assumptions.
edit on 4/18/2011 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 05:08 PM
link   
This is a realistic number for this area.

The hard hit places wil be in Missouri and Tennessee, specifically St. Louis and Memphis. Casualties in the event of a 7.0 are estimated to be at least around 80,000 in that area.

Keep in mind kids, this figure is for a 7.0.

Not a 9.0 like Japan.



posted on Apr, 24 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by zuul000

Originally posted by schuyler
Computer predictions are fun, but, like spreadsheets, they give a false sense of accuracy. Just because something is "in a model" does not mean it's true.


OMG, great point. I'm really, really sorry I started this thread.

Mods - if possible can you please completely delete this thread? I feel just awful. Really terrible.

Thanks and my sincere apologies to the entire community. I hope, in time, you may all come to forgive me.


I wasn't suggesting your information was entirely wrong. Presumably you wanted to have a discussion about this issue. Or did you just want us to accept whatever you wrote at face value as completely valid in all respects?


The information is neither wrong nor right as there is no information. I know the average ATS poster has just about a high school level education but this is really taking the cake.

Me: "I just deployed 10 armies on Western United States in the game of Risk I'm playing with my cousin."
You: "That information is inaccurate. The United States has not been invaded. You are wrong."
Me: "That's not what I'm saying, I'm saying that I just moved ten playing pieces representing armies into the section of the map marked "western United States" in a game of Risk."
You: "You're wrong. I'm watching the news right now and they have not reported the western U.S. has been invaded."

For the fourth time, this was not a "prediction" by the Commonwealth of Kentucky. It was a randomly generated number selected to facilitate an exercise. I have no interest or desire to discuss whether the number is accurate or not. My interest in the documents was in the conduct of the exercise, not whatever random number they pulled out of the air to use as a benchmark for simulation planning on this one random day in 2010.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1   >>

log in

join