Posts by merc
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
"The process we have is the process that was determined as being most appropriate."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5826034/Red-zone-challenge-proposal-scrapped -
Missed this prediction yesterday, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/christchurch/news/article.cfm?l_id=187&objectid=10759977
Statistical modelling as of last month presented by GNS Science showed that there was roughly a 14 per cent chance of another quake in the range of magnitude 6 over the following year.
It is the quakes over magnitude 6, such as that in February, have caused the death and widespread destruction in Christchurch.
"It's something we really shouldn't be living in fear of," said director of the Natural Hazards Division of GNS Science, Dr Terry Webb. -
It's taken Herald a wee while to announce this, http://www.interest.co.nz/bonds/56296/governments-debt-manager-raises-nz900-mln-bond-auction-ahead-possible-borrowing-programm
Linked to topic due to the borrowing announced as being in part for Christchurch. -
And aftershock risk compounded by already compromised buildings (from the previous shocks)?
-
Herald editorial today,
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/christchurch-earthquake/news/article.cfm?c_id=1502981&objectid=10760584
These questions need to be asked, who are these social scientists (sic) who predicted panic, and why were they the arbiter of the fate of so many? -
Saint Kentigern beat Kelston 38-17 in the Auckland schools final but was ineligible for the national tournament since the east Auckland school had opted for the co-ed competition.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/western-leader/5530293/Disciplined-rugby-sees-Kelston-home
I was really confused there for a bit, but I see now. This rugby thing can get very confusing at the off the field level. -
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch-earthquake-2011/5638243/City-Mall-to-open-without-bars
The rush to recreate the CBD seems a little premature, wonder if GNS is holding any information regarding any further probable tremors? I wonder. Ah,
At the inquiry on Tuesday, Ford had asked GNS Science natural hazards director Terry Webb if he thought the agency had provided ECan with sufficiently detailed information after September 4 to assess the risk of future quakes.Webb said GNS Science's Kelvin Berryman, the natural hazards research platform manager, had spent a lot of time post-September regularly briefing authorities on the likelihood and possible size of aftershocks.
Berryman told The Press yesterday the aftershock advice given to authorities after the September quake was not in the same format seen in the last few months.
"We were in discussions on a daily basis with the emergency operations centre, and they certainly had that information. Not in that breakdown into different magnitudes, but at that stage we were expecting it was going to be a very simple aftershock sequence," he said.
At the hearing yesterday GNS also faced questions from Marcus Elliot, the lawyer representing the families of quake victims, who suggested they should have done more to warn the public of the risk of further devastating quakes after September 4. Berryman replied that although a quake the size, location and proximity of the February 22 one was always a remote possibility, it would have been "alarmist" to raise it publicly after the September shake. It was considered "unhelpful" to speak about a more devastating shake.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch-earthquake-2011/5817670/First-quake-warranted-fault-search -
I was reminded of a certain person answering questions at the Erebus Commission of Inquiry (I sat in on two very poignant sessions), the same use of language later to be famously described as an...orchestrated litany of...
-
Southerly: Tower Insurance Have Some Bad…, in reply to Hebe,
Under scrutiny yesterday, Berryman admitted GNS Science was aware of the possibility of a more devastating tremor striking near central Christchurch after the magnitude-7.1 shake on September 4, 2010.
However, in the first few weeks after the September quake the possibility of more devastating aftershock was intentionally not discussed. It was considered that it would be unhelpful for a "traumatised" public.
"It's rather alarmist to say there could have been a bigger event."
This morning, Berryman again defended not publicising the possibility of a more damaging quake and labelled coverage of his comments in the New Zealand Herald newspaper "disappointing".
GNS had not withheld the information but did not publicise it simply because the possibility were so slim and so frightening.
"There is also the possibility of a meteorite strike," he said
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5821479/Canterbury-fault-research-funding-bid-failed -
Well perhaps the Commission will shed some light on events.