Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Dutch Central Bank Sale Announcement Imminent? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_urchin who wrote (22773)	3/29/2005 7:07:16 PM
From: sea_urchin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 81092

> The reason there was no tsunami this time ... was because they didn't put in the "water moving" ingredient. Stands to reason. cnn.netscape.cnn.com >>``I'm baffled an earthquake this size didn't trigger a tsunami near the epicenter,'' said Robert Cessaro, a geophysicist at the center, which is operated by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. It is responsible for monitoring seismic and ocean conditions in the Pacific and alerting Pacific Rim nations and U.S. agencies. Center Director Charles McCreery said earthquakes of at least 8.0 magnitude usually generate major tsunamis. ``We expected some destructive tsunami with some distant destructive effects. It was surprising,'' he said. The latest event also demonstrated ``there's a whole world of uncertainty about trying to judge a tsunami based on the earthquake data,'' he said.<< What do these guys know? Zilch. They should come to SI to read the REAL story.