Tsunami Victims Sue USA

[Aardvark]

Could be interesting, but what would the actual debate be?

 

The premise that the USA was loved in 1990 and this caused the fall of the Berlin wall and averted war?

[Nevermore]

But, you digress...

[syntax252]

"Curious opinion you have there. Perhaps you'd like to start another thread to discuss it in?"

would you like me to post it as a debate challenge?

 

I have noticed that you never have the quoted post in a quote box. Why is that? Is it something about the browser that you are using?

 

It is a lot easier to follow what you are saying if you just click on the "quote" button on the bottom of the post that you wish to refer to.

[atinymonkey]

The NOAA has never made any claim at all to provide any Tsunami warning system in the Indian Ocean. Therefore it has no duty of care.

 

The NOAA has never offered any service concerning Tsunami warnings in the Indian Ocean. No service' date=' no offer, no obligation.[/quote']

 

Yes, they have. Simply saying that they have not is blatantly ignoring the reality of the NOAA operations : -

 

http://www.prh.noaa.gov/ptwc/

 

 

Overview of the Tsunami Warning System

The Tsunami Warning System (TWS) in the Pacific, [/b]comprised of 26 participating international Member States[/b], has the functions of monitoring seismological and tidal stations throughout the Pacific Basin to evaluate potentially tsunamigenic earthquakes and disseminating tsunami warning information. The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (PTWC) is the operational center of the Pacific TWS. Located near Honolulu, Hawaii, PTWC provides tsunami warning information to national authorities in the Pacific Basin.

From http://www.geophys.washington.edu/tsunami/general/warning/warning.html

The service provided is implicit, and so is the duty of care.

 

 

That comes across as cheap emotional blackmail.

 

Cheap? I rather think it's a expensive display of the NOAA's culpability, and the drastic results of failing their obligation. I'm sorry, but sometimes reality is uncomfortable.

 

 

There was no country responsible for issuing Tsunami warnings in the Indian Ocean. Taking your example, it is as if a Tsunami were to hit Florida and the USA were to blame an Switzerland for not providing any warning.

 

Again, NOAA's by it's own admission, has the responsibility of informing the member countries.

http://www.prh.noaa.gov/ptwc/aboutptwc.htm

 

 

If you like, justify your position.

[coquina]

http://www.prh.noaa.gov/itic/

 

"Monitors international tsunami warning activities in the

PACIFIC.

 

Assists Member States in establishing national warning systems, and makes information available on current technologies for tsunami warning systems.

"

 

What I remember hearing/reading right after the event was that NOAA knew there had been an earthquake - maybe they got that info from USGS, but their monitoring sensors are located in the Pacific, and this tsunami was located in the Indian Ocean.

 

They didn't have enough data to know whether a tsunami would be generated, or what areas of the Indian Ocean basin would be affected if there was one.

 

Here is a map of the area affected by the tsunami:

http://worldatlas.com/aatlas/infopage/tsunami.htm

 

Here is a list of the countries affiliated with the International Tsunami Warning Center:

http://www.prh.noaa.gov/itic/more_about/warning_systems.html

Australia

Canada

Chile

China

Colombia

Cook Islands

Costa Rica

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea

Ecuador

El Salvador

Fiji

France

Guatemala

Indonesia

Japan

Mexico

New Zealand

Nicaragua

Peru

Philippines

The Republic of Korea

Russian Federation

Republic of Singapore

Thailand

USA

 

Thailand and Indonesia are listed, and they would have been notified if a tsunami had been generated in the Pacific and was headed their way.

 

Also - when you look at the map it is easy to see that the earthquake and subsequent tsunami was very close to land. Since those waves travel at 600 mph there was very little time from generation to impact. Even with the best warning system possible, few people would have had time to flee to safety, and the roads would have been so choked, it might have made things worse, rather than better.

[Ophiolite]

ATinyMonkey, I still cannot find anything in the links you have provided that indicate the NOAA Tsunami Warning Centre

a) Had any responsibility extending beyond the Pacific Basin.

b) Received any funds from any of the affected nations.

Can you point us to the precise place in the links where these are addressed?

 

The interviews I have seen with scientists at the Pacific Tsunami warning centre indicate that a) they were not clear as to the magnitude of the event (intially it was thought to be much smaller than it was) b) they were not clear if any tsunami would be generated c) they did issue warnings.

[syntax252]

According to this CNN article writtin at the time, there was no tsunami warning system in the Indin ocean.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/12/29/asia.warning.brown/index.html

 

"Currently the Indian Ocean does not have a tsunami warning system, and of the 11 countries affected by the tsunamis, only Thailand belongs to an existing system working among the Pacific Rim countries."

 

Edited to add:

 

This site shows the location of the earthquake for a better understanding of the geography involved.

 

http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=tsunami+map&page=1&offset=1&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D68311dcd1e918e50%26clickedItemRank%3D1%26userQuery%3Dtsunami%2Bmap%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.usatoday.com%252Fnews%252Fgraphics%252Ftsnumai%252Fflash.htm%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSCPTop%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fgraphics%2Ftsnumai%2Fflash.htm

[Pangloss]

Interesting stuff, Tiny, thanks for digging it up. That's interesting that NOAA has international scope. That information does seem to suggest that that scope is limited to the Pacific, and not the Indian. Still, it's reasonable for experts to explore this further I suppose.

 

But in the end, surely we all know this is really about who has "deep pockets". Lawyers will try to convince laymen that NOAA had responsibility for the Indian ocean as well. The question will become whether or not it seems likely that they'll be able to convince a jury of that, and how much it will cost them if they do, and so whether or not a settlement will be better.

[Aardvark]

Yes' date=' they have. Simply saying that they have not is blatantly ignoring the reality of the NOAA operations : -

 

http://www.prh.noaa.gov/ptwc/

[/quote']

 

Your own source states that the NOAA provides a Pacific Tsunami warning system (as i repeatedly mentioned).

 

In case your geography is bad, the Tsunami happened in the Indian Ocean, not the Pacific.

 

The service provided is implicit' date=' and so is the duty of care.

[/quote']

 

Wrong. The NOAA provides a service in the Pacific Ocean. No servive, either explict or implict is offered or provided in the Indian Ocean, ergo, no duty of care.

 

 

Cheap? I rather think it's a expensive display of the NOAA's culpability' date=' and the drastic results of failing their obligation. I'm sorry, but sometimes reality is uncomfortable. [/quote']

 

As NOAA has no culpability for any events in the Indian Ocean and therefore has no obligation.

 

To imply as you did that not blaming NOAA for the Tsunami makes someone uncaring about the impact of the Tsunami is cheap emotional blackmail.

 

Again' date=' NOAA's by it's own admission, has the responsibility of informing the member countries.

http://www.prh.noaa.gov/ptwc/aboutptwc.htm

[/quote']

 

Please check your own sources. If you check your own link you will see that NOAA has responsibility for informing other member countries in the PACIFIC OCEAN.

 

Please note that the PACIFIC OCEAN is not the INDIAN OCEAN. Can you understand the difference?

 

If you like, justify your position.

 

Certainly, to recap. The NOAA provides a Tsunami warning service in the PACIFIC OCEAN. The Tsunami to hit Indonesia and Sri Lanki amongst others, happened in the INDIAN OCEAN.

 

Once you understand the difference between the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean you wil realise that the NOAA had no responsibility, either legal, moral, ethical, implied or explict.

 

One minute with a world atlas will help clear it up for you.

[Aardvark]

Indeed! Or if he would just access this link......

http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=tsunami+map&page=1&offset=1&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26requestId%3D68311dcd1e918e50%26clickedItemRank%3D1%26userQuery%3Dtsunami%2Bmap%26clickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.usatoday.com%252Fnews%252Fgraphics%252Ftsnumai%252Fflash.htm%26invocationType%3D-%26fromPage%3DNSCPTop%26amp%3BampTest%3D1&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fgraphics%2Ftsnumai%2Fflash.htm

 

Thank you, although i must admit a love of old fashioned paper and canvas maps. Something about the tactile sensation, colouring and attention to detail that is much more rewarding that the maps usually found from online sources.

[blike]

What a truck load of horse manure. Anyone claiming the US is responsible in any way shape or form has either lost the ability to reason or has deliberatly supressed their own intelligence in favor of dishing out America hate. Here are the facts.

 

"NOAA issued a bulletin indicating no threat of a tsunami to Hawaii, the West Coast of North America or to other coasts in the Pacific Basin—the area served by the existing tsunami warning system established by the Pacific rim countries and operated by NOAA in Hawaii.

 

NOAA scientists then began an effort to notify countries about the possibility that a tsunami may have been triggered by the massive 9.0 undersea earthquake. The Pacific Basin tsunami warning system did not detect a tsunami in the Indian Ocean since there are no buoys in place there. Even without a way to detect whether a tsunami had formed in the Indian Ocean, NOAA officials tried to get the message out to other nations not a part of its Pacific warning system to alert them of the possibility of a tsunami. However, the tsunami raced across the ocean at speeds up to 500 mph. Below is the timeline of agency's actions once the undersea earthquake was detected by the NOAA Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii. "

 

2:59 p.m. The rupture of the great earthquake begins in the Indian Ocean off NW Sumatra, Indonesia.

 

3:07 p.m. Initial seismic signals from the earthquake trigger alarms at the NOAA Pacific Tsunami Warning Center (PTWC) in Hawaii.

 

3:10 p.m. PTWC issues a message to other observatories in the Pacific with preliminary earthquake parameters. Several geophysical observatories, including PTWC, initially under-estimated the size as around a magnitude 8.0.

 

3:14 p.m. PTWC issues a Tsunami Information Bulletin providing information on the earthquake and stating there is no tsunami threat to Pacific coasts. It is a text message distributed by multiple means to participants of the Tsunami Warning System in the Pacific. PTWC also advises the following offices by telephone as part of its standard operating procedure: 1) Hawaii Civil Defense, 2) Pacific Command (PACOM) of U.S. Military Forces, 3) U.S. Navy-Hawaii Region, and 4) International Tsunami Information Center.

 

[3:15 p.m.] Tsunami waves begin striking the coasts of northern Sumatra and the Nicobar Islands.

 

4:04 p.m. PTWC issues a second Tsunami Information Bulletin to the Pacific revising the earthquake magnitude to 8.5 based on later seismic energy. The bulletin again indicates no tsunami threat to the Pacific, but language is added to advise the possibility of a tsunami near the epicenter.

 

[4:30 p.m.] PTWC attempts to contact the Australian Bureau of Meteorology to verify they received the bulletin. As their main line was busy, they called Emergency Management Australia instead. EMA indicated Australia was aware of the earthquake.

 

[4:45 p.m.] Tsunami waves begin striking the coasts of Sri Lanka, India and Thailand.

 

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2004/s2358.htm

[coquina]

ATinyMonkey' date=' I still cannot find anything in the links you have provided that indicate the NOAA Tsunami Warning Centre

 

QUOTE']

 

I tried to add to the reply I send you earlier and got a message that your box is full. Maybe you need to do a little housecleaning???

[Guest pragmaticlib]

atinymonkey's comments are so misinformed and inaccurate, I don't know where to begin.

 

The NOAA is a U.S. Government agency in the Dept. of Commerce. Their core activities include not just the Fisheries Service and atmospheric/earth-science research that s/he mentioned, but also the Coast and Geodetic Survey and (more familiar to most of us) the National Weather Service, of which the "NOAA Pacific Tsunami Warning Center" is a part.

 

The National Weather Service's mission statement:

"The National Weather Service (NWS) provides weather, hydrologic, and climate forecasts and warnings for the United States, its territories, adjacent waters and ocean areas, for the protection of life and property and the enhancement of the national economy. NWS data and products form a national information database and infrastructure which can be used by other governmental agencies, the private sector, the public, and the global community. "

 

I think it's safe to say that the Indian Ocean falls outside the charter of the NWS and the PACIFIC Tsunami Warning Center.

 

I would be VERY surprised if the NWS or PTWC receives funding from outside the U.S. government; in fact, I think it is generally illegal for them (as would be for any U.S. gov't agency) to accept any outside funding directly for services or to direct activities (except in cases like fees that the FDA charges to big pharma to put drugs on fast track).

 

That said, everything I read or watched indicates that the PTWC did everything they could to alert the nations/people in the path of the tsunami waves, once they realized that the magnitude of the triggering earthquake was 4-5 times bigger than they initially thought. To suggest otherwise, i.e. that they were somehow negligent, inept, or irresponsible is libel/slander, imho.

 

The problem was that there was (and still is) no multi-national tsunami warning or notification system set up for the Indian Ocean, as there is for the Pacific. (As for any localized warning systems which you seem to think were replaced by the PWTC, atinymonkey, can you cite some examples of such? Don't think so...)

The Pacific TWC scientists didn't know who in the Indian Ocean nations to call to sound the alert; in the end, they got the message out to our State Dept., who was able to contact the right people.... and at least in Kenya, the alert did go out in time to save lives.

 

The "duty of care" argument is silly.... the <I>PACIFIC </I> Tsunami Warning Center has made no claims that would make it responsible to the nations or people of the Indian Ocean, or even the nations of the Pacific Rim for that matter. It's a U.S. agency, responsible to the American people... and even if a tsunami hit Seattle tomorrow, I don't know that a lawsuit against them would have much merit.

 

atinymonkey

>If someone offers a service, and people take up and

>depend on that service, then that places a legal

>obligation to provide the service that was promised. It

>doesn't matter about the financial details of the

>obligation, just the obligation itself.

 

So by that logic.... Iraqi's tortured by Saddam's regime could win a lawsuit against Amnesty International because they were unable to prevent the abuses? Or if the free mail service offered by Yahoo! or Google allows a virus to infect your PC, those companies are liable? You live in an interesting world, my friend....

 

As for the lawsuit being filed to benefit the millions left destitute and the hundreds of thousands dead.... it's not. It was filed by survivors of European visitors/residents of the affected areas... interesting, no? It's supposedly not for compensation but to "find the truth" -- yeah, right... If those litigants truly had empathy for the victims, they'd find a more productive way to help them (other than going to those poor countries for the cheap vacations and lifestyle).

 

 

atinymonkey

>Lets face it. If the Tsunami had hit Florida, and the

>Tsunami Warning Center was not American, the country

>responsible would have been invaded and destroyed by

>now.

 

Well, a tsunami hitting Florida isn't all that far-fetched... there's an active volcano in the Canary Islands that could trigger a tsunami big enough to flood our Eastern shores. But to suggest that we'd invade/destroy a country because of a NATURAL disaster is patently offensive... and this comes from someone who opposed Bush's invasion of Iraq from the beginning!

[Guest pragmaticlib]

I confess to having had an interest in the legal concept of "duty of care" for some time now, but wasn't aware of it's application to governments, only to the health care industry and also in the context of products like PCs, cell-phones, and tires that are difficult to safely dispose in the environment.

 

Google'd and found this interesting article:

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/legal/index.cfm?name=lis_duty_of_care

 

The general principles for duty of care were highlighted in this case (Scottish case of Donoghue v Stevenson 1932 SC (HL) 31.) as:

 

Does a duty of care exist?

This depends on the relationship between the parties, as a duty of care is not owed to the world at large, but only to those who have a sufficiently proximate relationship. The courts have found that there is no liability if the relationship between the parties is too remote.

 

Hmmm.... Scottish case, not U.S. law. Still, much of our law comes from British law, so....

 

But I'd argue that there is no duty of care between the NOAA Pacific Tsunami Warning Center and the European victims of the disaster (and litigants). DoC is not owed to the world at large.

 

Is there a breach of that duty?

Liability will only arise if the action breaches the duty of care and causes a loss or harm to the individual which would have been reasonably foreseeable in all the facts and circumstances of the case.

 

Given that the true magnitude of the triggering earthquake wasn't known BEFORE the tsunami hit Indonesia, and possibly even Sri Lanka (initial estimates by just about everyone were too low), and given that they issued alerts as information came in or analysis was being developed, I don't think the PWTC breached its duty, even IF a duty to the litigants existed.

[Pangloss]

Funny this comes up again, as I just saw a PBS Nova on HDTV about this last night. (Boy, PBS' HDTV quality is really low compared with Mark Cuban's HDNet -- which ironically also ran a news report last night about Phuket that was just shot a couple of weeks ago, basically focusing on how they need tourists to return to the island and spend money so they can recover). Anyway, they did a number of interviews with NOAA employees, looking at the timeline and what they did and when. Obviously not an objective investigation, but it did sound like they tried their best.

[Oceansman]

I am not entirely sure from reading these posts how many of you know how NOAA goes about collecting the data that is transmitted to the Tsunami Warning Center in Honolulu. The data is collected from a series of relatively large buoys that are deployed around the N. Pacific. The buoys communicate with satellites to transmit the data they have back to Honolulu and the data is collected either by measuring the depth of the water underneath them and detecting when a potential Tsunami passes underneath or,(I am not sure which is accurate) the buoy and satellite know the distance between each at any given time and when a wave (potential tsunami) passes underneath the distance between the satellite and buoy decreases enough to set off the alert. This system cannot work quickly or accurately enough when an earthquake occurs outside of the area covered by the buoys, which is a reason why the SE Asian countries are going to be setting up a warning system themselves. I know most of this information through what I gleaned while working aboard a NOAA research vessel a couple of years ago as well as through my classes, reading the newstories that came out after the 12/26 and from reading the NOAA webpage whenever I remember to check the site for job possibilities.

 

NOAA probably is at fault on one level, since they are the only current warning system for the Pacific region, but there is no way with current government budgetary restraints that NOAA could accurately predict tsunamis outside of their intended region.

 

I do not work for NOAA currently and all of this information is from my memory, I will try and find sources to document it further.

 

Jeremy