Declan Murphy wrote:

> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> > Declan Murphy wrote:
> >
> >>So what do you want them to do, start giving every earthquake a name.
> >
> > No. But if it is big like what happened in Shimane and Sendai recently, they will get
> > names anyway. Not so typhoons in Japan.
>
> Thats not true at all Eric.

So why do typhoons have numbers, and the same numbers every year, instead of "names"?

> For example around here people still talk
> about the 伊勢湾台風, and anybody who reads the newspaper automatically
> remembers the date 1959/09/26 and that more than 5000 people were
> killed. Even those who weren't here at the time (I wasn't even born)
> learn about it as we see references to it in the paper each year. Every
> bloody year as typhoons approach and I have to secure the company
> premises etc, I get bombarded with reminders of the 伊勢湾台風. Prior to
> it being *named* the 伊勢湾台風, it was just an ordinary garden variety
> typhoon numbered 台風１５号. Excuse my provincialism, but you can read
> about it at
>
> http://www.chunichi.co.jp/saigai/isewan/
>
> and I'm sure other regional newspapers (what is the standard deadtrees
> read in Fukuyama?)

The national papers, as there is no Fukuyama or Hiroshima paper. Maybe the regional paper.

> will have similar archives for whatever typhoons
> flattened their localities if they were so unlucky. The long and the
> short of it is, just as only big earthquakes get names, only unusually
> destructive typhoons get the same "privilege".

Which is exactly what we are talking about. The fact typhoons do not get names.

> >>Great Hanshin Earthquake, Not Quite Great Kanto Earthquake, Nearly a
> >>Great Kanto Earthquake, Storm in a teacup Kanto Earthquake etc? - Fact
> >>of the matter is that most earthquakes/typhoons etc aren't worthy of a name.
> >
> > Fact is, the cycle for earthquakes in the Kanto area is about once every 80 years, and
> > the last big one in Kobe was 400 years ago, so the fact they eventually come again
> > doesn't make them confusing to most people. Try that with say, 20 typhoons every single
> > year with a simple number.
>
> Sure, but 20 or so typhoons come and go each year, but very few kill
> even close to 5000 people or destroy extensive amounts of industrial and
> social capital. But when they do, they get a name Eric. They always do.
>
> > And when dealing with say, 20 a year that basically hit the same region, typhoons will
> > not be as distinguishable merely by "Typhoon Number Four" even if you limit yourself only
> > to those Typhoons "Number Four" that cause damage.
>
> See above - you were misinformed.

So what number was that typhoon, and is that what people know? And I am not talking about just
in the region.

> >>>>Similarly did typhoons 1-3 take my roof off?
> >>>>No. Did #4 in 2003 - Yes. I reckon in that case I'd remember #4 in 2003
> >>>>for quite some time.
> >>>
> >>>And how will other people remember "Typhoon 4" from uh, 2003? Hurricane Andrew (not
> >>>even necessary to remember date to recall or search) became famous throughout the
> >>>US, and internationally, despite having nothing to do with those people.
> >>
> >>You are missing the point - Hurricane Andrew was not famous because of
> >>its name -
> >
> > How strange, then, that we remember the name, not that it was Hurricane number three or
> > whatever, of the year.
>
> It is only remembered because it was big.

No, it was remembered by name, because it always had a name.

> Do you remember Hurricane
> Eric? Hurricane Declan? There have been hundreds of cyclones (dozens per
> year) in Australia for thousands of years. But if you asked Brett,
> Rodney or any other Austrian to name "one" cyclone that comes to mind -
> then I'd bet you every ramen shop in Osaka that almost without fail the
> reply would be "Cyclone Tracy, Christmas Day, 1975". We don't remember
> it because it was called Tracy,

So what number was it?

> we remember it because it wiped the city
> of Darwin out more effectively than the Imperial Japanese Navy managed
> to do.
>
> >>but its size. And the Japanese have usually been more than
> >>willing to give names to major natural disasters - after they happen.
> >
> > Do big typhoons get names?
>
> Yes dammit.
>
> >>Only if it is a big
> >>earthquake/typhoon/flood whatever should it get a name.
> >
> > What does "big" mean? Taking off your roof? Or does it have to kill a certain number of
> > people or cause a few trillion yen in damage?
>
> I don't think taking off your roof would be considered big. Given the
> standard of housing construction, a garden variety typhoon can often
> manage that.
>
> >>Until then, a number should suffice.
> >
> > Sure. Just let the rest of Japan try to tell Typhoons 1-20 of this year, apart from
> > Typhoons 1-20 of every other year. And let them be more confused when they realize people
> > in other countries in other languages use actual names. No matter how big they are or how
> > much damage they cause in Japan, English speakers will only remember they typhoon (if
> > even then) by its foreign given name, not Typhoon number 20 of 2003.
>
> The inability of English speaking foreigners

Only foreigners? Do Japanese know about Typhoon One last year?

> to differentiate between
> one minor typhoon and another minor typhoon is hardly a reason for the
> Japanese to change a Japanese system that has served Japan well enough.

Why is the issue not Japan following international standards that serve other countries well
enough?

--
"This is the best book I've ever read! Even though I've only read one, it is by far the best
in the world."

- A 12-year old reader from California, CA USA