4 ms·

a tsunami of 0.09m tall hardly qualifies as a "disaster" surely? https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/hazel/view/hazards/tsunami/event-more-info/5861 https://www.ngdc.noa

• InsomniacL 4y ago
  I've searched but the only reference to this list being of 'disasters' is in this HackerNews subject. Many of the other items would not be considered disasters too.
• sjinta 4y ago
  but it still ended up killing 2 people. I have a hard time imagining how that works.
  • shortstuffsushi 4y ago
    According to the "quick bulletin" on the bottom, this seems to be a downstream effect of a magnitude 6.9 earthquake that occurred. I suppose that will generally be the case for a tsunami, something usually drives it. In this case, it appears they're assigning 0 deaths (or stats) to the tsunami, but 2 deaths for the "total effects."
  • antonymy 4y ago
    Even if the wave isn't very tall, if it is fast-moving it can knock you off balance. Once you're down, wave doesn't have to be very tall to drown you. There's also the fact that rip currents are commonplace phenomena on beaches all over the world, so you combine that with a single unexpectedly fast wave and it's easy to believe a few people would die.
    • sojournerc 4y ago
      but, is a rip current a natural disaster? Natural, sure, but to me it's a regular phenomenon, similar to a small tsunami
• svnpenn 4y ago
  yeah what the hell, that is like 4 inches
• jhardy54 4y ago
  Sorry, where do you see this called a “disaster”?
  • shortstuffsushi 4y ago
    The site linked in the post list these as natural disasters
    • bumby 4y ago
      It also lists Fukushima as a “natural” disaster so the usage is a bit liberal
    • teawrecks 4y ago
      Unless they changed it, I don't see the words "natural" or "disaster" on the page. It just says "days since incident".