Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is India underestimating its tsunami dead?
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/975541.cms ^

Posted on 12/30/2004 12:21:45 PM PST by smag499

NEW DELHI: After the storm comes the deluge of questions. What if the government is understating the scale of the tragedy? How is India going about the woeful task of counting the dead? In turn, how will this affect relief mobilisation and disbursal of financial aid?

Already there are indications that the number of dead projected by authorities is way below the reality. Senior officials in Delhi are already admitting that the task before them is very complicated.

Red Cross is estimating the toll could shoot up to 1,00,000 dead (from the present 80,000) in Asia once more information comes in from Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The Andamans are situated just north of Sumatra, the epicentre of Sunday's quake that set off the killer waves.

Residents in several affected areas are already claiming that the number of dead projected by authorities is far way below the reality.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: armagedon; bigots; castewarfare; deathtoll; sumatraquake
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-91 next last
So just how high will this go, and how credible will the numbers be?
1 posted on 12/30/2004 12:21:45 PM PST by smag499
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: smag499

Mind-numbing. 0_o


2 posted on 12/30/2004 12:23:14 PM PST by rightwinggoth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smag499

That number is 100,000 not 1,000,000


3 posted on 12/30/2004 12:23:57 PM PST by SF Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smag499

So many little Islands wiped out......


4 posted on 12/30/2004 12:24:06 PM PST by cmsgop (When The Cracker Gets Old, Get Off Your A$$ and Buy a New Box........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smag499

From article:

"The confusion over the number of dead is worst in the case of slums where a large number of people are also floating population in search of jobs. "

Worst...wording...ever


5 posted on 12/30/2004 12:24:45 PM PST by sbelew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smag499

From what Ive read,the death toll in India(including the Andaman & Nicobar island chain) is around 12,500 to 13,000.Aerial surveys of most islands in the chain have been conducted & damage in many islands has been found to be neglected.

This report honestly sounds disgusting as a number of volunteer organisations & NGOs are heading the relief operations,not the Govt.


6 posted on 12/30/2004 12:24:52 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #7 Removed by Moderator

To: smag499

That's one way to decrease demand on the supply of critical natural resources.


8 posted on 12/30/2004 12:25:17 PM PST by GraniteStateConservative (...He had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here...-- Worst.President.Ever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smag499
They will never come close to having an accurate count. They don't exactly have census takers going door-to-door over there. Those families have bunches of kids and no records are accurately kept in those villages. So, they are only making guesses based on best guesses.
9 posted on 12/30/2004 12:25:20 PM PST by RetiredArmy (DEMOCRATIC PARTY MOTO: If you can't win fair and square - cheat, steal and lie to do so!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smag499

I find a million to be rather high. But while that number would seem staggering now, it would be paltry if the bad guys ever detonate a nuke in LA or SF or NYC.


10 posted on 12/30/2004 12:25:50 PM PST by ProudVet77 (2004 is worn out, time to start 2005)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smag499

That's a difficult question. Since many of the areas affected appear to have been completely wiped out, the 1,000,000 figure is not beyond the range of possibility.

Many areas which were once populated have not even been entered yet. You may remember that, in Florida, some communities were completely shut off from communication for several days. It's much more primitive where this tsunami struck.

We'll never have a truly accurate count, because many bodies will never be found. In addition, records of the inhabitants of many of these regions are incomplete and are now missing, so we may not even know who lived there, or how many.

A million isn't beyond the realm of possibility.


11 posted on 12/30/2004 12:25:56 PM PST by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rightwinggoth

.


Praise GOD that...

LOVE is Only Reality and that...

GOD is LOVE.


.


12 posted on 12/30/2004 12:26:02 PM PST by ALOHA RONNIE ("ALOHA RONNIE" Guyer/Veteran-"WE WERE SOLDIERS" Battle of IA DRANG-1965 http://www.lzxray.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SF Republican

In proper context, it's one million. The article is referring to number of dead across ASIA, not just India. The KNOWN dead is already over 100,000.

I know it's a typo, but I think it's implying one million.


13 posted on 12/30/2004 12:26:36 PM PST by Rutles4Ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: smag499

The guess contained in the title of your thread does not appear in the source article. <


15 posted on 12/30/2004 12:26:56 PM PST by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SF Republican

How about that? In the article, its "1,00,000."


16 posted on 12/30/2004 12:27:40 PM PST by Tarpaulin (Look it up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever
I know it's a typo, but I think it's implying one million maybe, that a big jump from 80,000 to 1,000,000
17 posted on 12/30/2004 12:27:55 PM PST by SF Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: smag499

The article indicates that the number of dead may go up to 1,00,000. What does that mean? Is there an extra "," or is there a zero missing?


18 posted on 12/30/2004 12:27:58 PM PST by BikerNYC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky

Does on my computer...

"Red Cross is estimating the toll could shoot up to 1,00,000 dead (from the present 80,000)..."


19 posted on 12/30/2004 12:28:50 PM PST by sbelew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SF Republican

The previous sidebar article speaks of 400,000 dead in Indonesia. It's entirely possible, when all is said and done, this could net over 1,000,000.


20 posted on 12/30/2004 12:29:06 PM PST by Blogger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: sbelew

My bad - was looking at commas, not zeroes, I guess.


21 posted on 12/30/2004 12:29:48 PM PST by sbelew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SF Republican

I know what you're saying. But the article also says the current estimates are "way below reality", which doesn't sound like 20,000 either....

I guess it's pointless to speculate. It is what it is. It will probably be weeks before an accurate assessment is made....


22 posted on 12/30/2004 12:30:55 PM PST by Rutles4Ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: smag499
The coastal regions of these areas also have a high concentration of poor along the coast who were also the main victims of tsunami's fury.

I did not know that tsunamis discriminated against people according to income. And if they did, you would think it would be the rich who's homes and playgrounds line the shores, which they would target.

23 posted on 12/30/2004 12:30:56 PM PST by Between the Lines ("Christianity is not a religion; it is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever

Here's the title of the original article

'Is India underestimating its tsunami dead?'

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/975541.cms

It clearly mentions the number at being 100,000(not a million).It was filed at 11.45am Indian time(That's about last midnight for you folks) & those estimates have been surpassed now.A lot of aerial surveys of the Andamans have been done during this time frame-the death toll there seems to be around 5,500.

In short,the title of this thread has been spiced up.


24 posted on 12/30/2004 12:31:23 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

my God. a million people? Wow.


25 posted on 12/30/2004 12:32:32 PM PST by zipcode101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: BikerNYC

If you want a better understanding-go to the URL & check the time the report was filed.It was done before noon Indian time.That is late last night for Americans.The details in it correspond to the facts now(toll has crossed 100,000).


26 posted on 12/30/2004 12:33:24 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: smag499

100,000 or 1,000,000, it's still a frightful number. It seems only a few days ago the number was at 3,000. Only God will know the final toll.


27 posted on 12/30/2004 12:33:50 PM PST by lindor (If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of Progress?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zipcode101

refer my previous post.The title of this thread has been intentionally or accidently altered.


28 posted on 12/30/2004 12:34:26 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying that.


29 posted on 12/30/2004 12:35:22 PM PST by Rutles4Ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SF Republican

Actually I think the number is already over 100,000...at least according to Drudge.


30 posted on 12/30/2004 12:35:47 PM PST by dawn53
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: blahdeblah
Compare the number of casualties in Iraq to these numbers.

I'd like to know why it is that we come up with $35 million in aid but our troops go without necessary supplies?

Not that I ming helping in a crisis, mind you, I do think that any nation that can help should, but I'd still like to know why our trrops are going without.

31 posted on 12/30/2004 12:37:59 PM PST by Netizen (jmo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: smag499

some of the frightening pictures that are cropping up make this all too possible.


32 posted on 12/30/2004 12:38:06 PM PST by chilepepper (The map is not the territory -- Alfred Korzybski)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Actually, the article you posted still has a typo in it: "1,00,000"

So it doesn't exactly say 100,000 either. I would hazard to guess that it's easier to have one less zero in there than it is to add a comma where it doesn't belong...


33 posted on 12/30/2004 12:38:30 PM PST by Rutles4Ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: SF Republican

Even 100k is pretty bad. But the news bimbos on the MSM channels in their rush to gush rail to recognize that this no where near the worst natural disasters. In the 1970s alone
the worst was half a million.
500,000 1970 Typhoon / Flood Bangladesh

http://www.geocities.com/Axiom43/disasters.html


34 posted on 12/30/2004 12:39:19 PM PST by konaice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All

OK, Ok, Check my thread: I asked:

So just how high will this go, and how credible will the numbers be?

So is this article saying 100,000 or 1,000,000?

I should have left the 1,000,000 out even though I THINK that is what they meant.




35 posted on 12/30/2004 12:41:28 PM PST by smag499
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tarpaulin
How about that? In the article, its "1,00,000."

Probably supposed to be 100,000 since a million would be too large a jump.

36 posted on 12/30/2004 12:41:39 PM PST by Netizen (jmo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: smag499

Based on the Lancets estimate of 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths based on a sample of 63 confirmed deaths, the final estimate will be whatever number most fits the political objectives of the MSM.


37 posted on 12/30/2004 12:42:04 PM PST by FreedomSurge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rutles4Ever

Actually that's not an error.In India,we don't use hundred thousands or million,billion etc.100,000 is written as 1,00,000-this figure is called a lakh,which is a very common Indian unit,so it's use on an Indian website.
So the death toll now(around 125,000) would be written in Indian papers & websites as one lakh twenty five thousand.Hope I've clarified it.


38 posted on 12/30/2004 12:42:23 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GraniteStateConservative
That's one way to decrease demand on the supply of critical natural resources...

...or increase aid. Prayers for the affected.

39 posted on 12/30/2004 12:43:24 PM PST by Go Gordon (If at first you don't succeed...skydiving is not for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: smag499

It is Saying 1 LAKH which is the Indian unit for a 100,000.

There is no typo error in the article.It was published for Indian readers who are more familiar with hearing about lakhs & not hundred thousands.


40 posted on 12/30/2004 12:43:54 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: smag499

Title is not the original, one million does not appear in the article.


41 posted on 12/30/2004 12:45:25 PM PST by NautiNurse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Not a bit, but that's ok. :)


42 posted on 12/30/2004 12:45:46 PM PST by Netizen (jmo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Netizen

Ping to #38.

Hmmm. Well, there have it.


43 posted on 12/30/2004 12:46:03 PM PST by Tarpaulin (Look it up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: smag499

So id advise you to get admins to change the title of the thread.Anyway the article was put out in the morning & is dated.The hundred thousand figure(1 lakh) it predicted has already jumped to 125,000.


44 posted on 12/30/2004 12:46:49 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
It is Saying 1 LAKH which is the Indian unit for a 100,000.

More clear. As you pointed it out it was for an Indian audience. Had they sad Lakh, we'd have asked what that is and then been told 100,000. Then we'd know, but that 1,00,000 is confusing.

45 posted on 12/30/2004 12:48:29 PM PST by Netizen (jmo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: sbelew

This is certainly not a laughing matter, but I gotta admit, the wording you caught is jaw-droppingly hilarious.


46 posted on 12/30/2004 12:48:37 PM PST by RightOnTheLeftCoast (You're it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Netizen

It might be for you,but for the 350-400 odd million Indians who know or use English,it's perfectly clear!!!


47 posted on 12/30/2004 12:50:14 PM PST by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: smag499

Here is a link of various disasters in history, including natural....

http://www.geocities.com/dtmcbride/hist/disasters-war.html

Puts things in perspective.

War, terror, disasters...next come famine, plague, disease...and Bush doesn't respond quickly enough!


48 posted on 12/30/2004 12:51:21 PM PST by Prost1 (When mice nip at the ankles, change the mouse trap bait.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blahdeblah
God has trumped the terrorists in Iraq

I am gobsmacked by your naivety.

49 posted on 12/30/2004 12:52:32 PM PST by insider_uk (Tell me he is joking....please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Yep. The rest of the world will just brush over the number anyway.


50 posted on 12/30/2004 12:52:35 PM PST by Netizen (jmo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-91 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson