Brutal Cyclone kills 22,000 in Myanmar

Post by **clv101** » 13 May 2008, 13:23

biffvernon wrote:
clv101 wrote: Is it good that the number of years people live with chronic illness is now higher than it was 50 years ago?
You'd better ask old people that. I suspect that the answer will often be 'yes'.

Do you think modern medicine (taken in general across "the West" or at least the UK) goes too far towards "alive" no matter what, or not far enough? Exactly right is an infinitesimally small place we need not be concerned with.

Post by **clv101** » 14 May 2008, 23:25

Going back to Cyclone Nargis:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7389848.stm

Keela · Post by **Keela** » 14 May 2008, 23:39

.......latest Burmese official figures put the death toll at almost 38,500 with 27,838 more missing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 401572.stm

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 15 May 2008, 08:04

Those Modis satellite pics were discussed over on the Netweather Forum a few days ago. This from "Calrissian" on 6th May at http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.ph ... 4&start=34

The media is still not quite grasping what happened in Myanmar.

Before....

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subs ... .terra.721

After....

http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/subs ... .terra.721

*you can select a much more detailed 250m resolution at the top of each page.

Now, if you load up google earth, and have a perusal around that southern area, you'll notice pretty sizeable urban areas. Most notably the area just south of Pyapon and Bogale.

There is no land there now. Its water. Large chunks of the coastline are seemingly gone. A number of areas in the size of 20 x 15 miles are missing.

People are talking of 20,000 or so dead.

Stick a zero on that, and you'll get what is possibly even worse a nightmare than the 2004 Tsunami was.

I'm not sure that it is quite so easy to interpret the colours on sat pics without being more experienced that I am, but there's food for thought.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 16 May 2008, 07:36

People are talking of 20,000 or so dead.

Stick a zero on that, and you'll get what is possibly even worse a nightmare than the 2004 Tsunami was.

That was written on the 6th of May. Today, ten days on, the news reports are confiming that extra zero.

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 16 May 2008, 10:59

biffvernon wrote:
People are talking of 20,000 or so dead.

Stick a zero on that, and you'll get what is possibly even worse a nightmare than the 2004 Tsunami was.
That was written on the 6th of May. Today, ten days on, the news reports are confiming that extra zero.

Awkward. That represents about seven months of population growth, just erased.

PS_RalphW · Post by **PS_RalphW** » 16 May 2008, 11:10

MacG wrote: Awkward. That represents about seven months of population growth, just erased.

Err... world population is growing by 70M a year, 50,000 a day. So 200,000 is four days growth. There are still more people alive today than before this cyclone or the Chinese earthquake.

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 16 May 2008, 11:12

clv101 wrote:Do you think modern medicine (taken in general across "the West" or at least the UK) goes too far towards "alive" no matter what, or not far enough? Exactly right is an infinitesimally small place we need not be concerned with.

A true story: a young lad in our local once asked a fellah his age, and the man said "91".

The young lad replied, "I don't think I want to live to be 91". The man said, "You would if you were 90".

MacG · Post by **MacG** » 16 May 2008, 11:13

RalphW wrote:
MacG wrote: Awkward. That represents about seven months of population growth, just erased.
Err... world population is growing by 70M a year, 50,000 a day. So 200,000 is four days growth. There are still more people alive today than before this cyclone or the Chinese earthquake.

Sorry. Meant "Myanmar population growth".

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 16 May 2008, 22:11

clv101 wrote: This is evidenced by life expectancy increasing since WWII at a faster rate than years of "quality" life. Resulting in people living, on average, for more years suffering from chronic illnesses. Is it good that the number of years people live with chronic illness is now higher than it was 50 years ago? That's one "side effect" of modern medicine.

The concept of keeping people "alive" no matter what, is questionable.

A medical acquaintence of mine said that on average people go through 17 years of "medical attention" between leading a healthy life and passing away. I asked, yes but doesn't this just mean something like annual health checks and 1/2 an aspirin every day?... and was told that it was far more serious than that.

Added to that are the number of very-premature (i.e. under 24 weeks) babies "saved" every year. Most, to put it politely, have health problems that result in a very low quality of life.