Pathetic Earthlings

This is the sort of article that pops up after every major disaster. Could it happen here? The answer is, of course if could, but there’s no knowing when. Maybe tomorrow, maybe never.

By now everyone has read that the death toll from the Indian Ocean tsunami might have been lower had there been some kind of early warning system in place, as there is for Pacific Rim nations. Pacific nations are more attuned to the risk because 95% of the world’s earthquakes occur in the Pacific Basin, as these two neat USGS graphics illustrate. But actually, the devastating December 26 quake occurred on the western tip of that same fault line (the northern and eastern edges of the Australia plate) that appears to be the most seismically active in the world; it just happened on the other side of the mountain. In fact, the biggest quake in 2004 prior to the Sumatra quake occurred at the southern tip of the same fault line, just three days earlier. Though massively powerful (8.1 magnitude), it passed unremarked because it happened out in deep sea, far from population centers, and it was a “strike slip” quake, which produces much less water displacement than a subduction quake like Sumatra. Ergo, no tsunami. But the next largest did do some damage: a 7.5 quake killed 23 and left 8,000 homeless in Indonesia. Date: Nov 11, 2004.

So the three most powerful quakes of the year have occurred in the last 7 weeks, each (if I understand the Richter scale) about an order of magnitude larger than the last, all on a fault line that’s separated from the California coastline by several thousand miles of water. Exactly how does that early warning system work?

Kathy Kinsley is doing some work to the blog to deal with this insidious comment spam so comments are disabled until further notice.

The next time someone bitches about the large number of SUVs on the road, please point out that, in California, one cannot have three kids under the age of seven and not own an SUV, especially if you ever mean to run a carpool.

In 2003, the California legislature passed a new law that moved the child restraint requirement from 4 years / 40 pounds up to 6 years / 60 pounds, such that a kid that fell below either of those markers was required to wear some kind of supplemental restraint. Now the legislature, as of January 1, requires that no kid who falls under the 6 year / 60 pound mark, be put in the front seat of a car.

Now, I’m all for protecting the Little Earthling, but his car seat — properly installed — makes the rear seat of a 2001 Honda Accord his exclusive fiefdom. A second Little Earthling — should me and the Mrs. decide to go that way — would make the rear seat completely full. How anyone lacking an Swiss Army pseudopod could install a third car seat in a sedan is beyond me.

Yet here I am told — increasingly — that buying an SUV is some anti-human act of selfishness. That I don’t need a car that big. And, frankly, I don’t want one. I had a Ford Explorer for eight years and was happy to be rid of the thing.

Yet between the front passenger airbag that makes moving kids in the front seat actually dangerous, the fact that the legislature of California has just confiscated my front seat, and the fact that, given my children might have friends and certainly have cousins, I might want to transport three kids at once, the next car will be a hell of a lot bigger than the last one.

To my cobloggers, our blogger emeritus, and those who drop by to comment, may the season’s blessings be upon you all. May the coming year bring us healthy, happy families and progress towards lasting peace.

Pathetic Earthlings is now at www.patheticearthlings.com — it may take a bit to get all the archives up, but I hope you’ll switch on over to my new site while I try to work up some decent front legs.