Images of Ocean Floor Show Effects of Tsunami

Iphtashu Fitz writes "This week the UK's Royal Navy presented images taken by the survey ship HMS Scott of the damage to the floor of the Indian Ocean that triggered the tsunami two months ago. The Scott has a high-resolution multi-beam sonar that let it generate highly detailed images of the sea floor, some 200m to 5000m below sea level. An image showing the scale of the damage, and the full presentation made by the Commanding Officer of HMS Scott (38MB PowerPoint) are available. The presentation contains a number of images that have more detail than those available on the websites."

Other Effects?

[StarWreck]

I wonder what kind of effect this damage has had on things like Coral Reefs and deep ocean habitats surrounding black smokers?

Fake?

[Pan T. Hose]

Are those images real or fake? Before anyone posts some proof I will remain skeptical. Slashdot is known for posting lies about tsunami [slashdot.org].

Sheer unbridled stupidity

[KrackHouse]

For god's sake did anybody running this site really think that a direct link to a 38 meg ppt wouldn't bring down that server?

Can someone please reply with sites that are like slashdot but not run by monkeys?

Re:Oh, they'll like that!

[FireFury03]

Does anyone ever have urgent business at a hydrographic office?

Yes actually. I use it frequently to get tide predictions so I know where's safe (or will have good conditions) to go windsurfing. Good job I'm not going sailing tomorrow or I'd be proper pissed at not being able to get that data.

Re:Short attention span

[gaintner]

Please. The American media may have plenty of problems, but its hardly to blame for the lack of attention being paid to Sudan. It's been going on a long time, and the media occasionally tries to bring it up again. The fact is we just don't care about what happens in Africa. Maybe if a few members of the British media (or someone else we actually relate to) wander in there and get massacred, we'll pay some attention. But the tsunami isn't to blame. If it wasn't the tsunami story that took precedense over the Sudan story, it would have been something else. Perhaps what Britney Spears had for breakfast, for example.

Re:Short attention span

[networkBoy]

Besides all the other posts, I seem to remember the US being told to "go home, we don't want you here" by some governmental agencies over there. Makes me wonder why we trippled our aid . . .
-nB

Re:Other Effects?

[Tongo]

I believe (couldn't RTFA, /.'d), that they were refereing to the section of ocean floor that actually moved, thereby triggering the tsunami. I could be wrong though.

Re:Short attention span

[Anonymous Coward]

How much have you PERSONALLY given to the cause?

I PERSONALLY gave hundreds of dollars UNWILLINGLY for the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Re:***ERROR! Ignorance tolerance overload!

[dillon_rinker]

Bravo, sir! You have amused me, as well as intelligently disagreeing with me. Truly is it said, "If I can't have a good friend, at least let me have a worthy opponent."

Now, to refute your refutation.

The car is a human artifact. It exists solely because human beings created it. It has a purpose to its existence. When any circumstance makes it less fit for its purpose, we call the result "damage." I don't think you can disagree that this is the generally accepted view of things.

On the other hand, if I take my dented car to an auto-body shop, an old-school one where they still fix things instead of ordering replacement panels, I will find that they dent the car further, and drill holes in it, and scrape it with abrasives. Are these damage? I would suggest not, since these, in the end, make the car more fit for its intended purpose.

(I think I have here the beginnings of a Theory of Intelligent Design for cars.)

"Damage to an ecosystem" must not be semantically entwined with "changes to the ecosystem." Human ecological catastrophes must not be confused with natural ecological changes. Otherwise you will get anti-environmentalists excusing human damage to ecosystems as one more example of nature red in claw and fang, humans as the ultimate predator and shaper of their environments. Beaver dams changing the course of a stream? Normal. Humans building a hydroelectric dam that floods hundreds of square miles? Hey, why not? Beavers do it, right?

Anyway - that's my point (one of them, at least). Start calling natural events damaging...and you've handed the anti-environmentalists a get-out-of-jail-free card. "Sure, we've eradicated 43 species this year - but giant meteors from space have historically done 1,000 times more damage! So it's OK!"