Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> 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?

Japanese unilateralism in deciding its typhoon naming policy is a danger to
our planet. Get Kofi on the phone at once.

-- 
Kevin Gowen
"If it were before me today I would vote against it, because it doesn't
have environmental or labor standards in it."
- Sen. John Kerry, explaining to the AFL-CIO how he would vote on the
North American Free Trade Agreement. Senator Kerry voted to ratify
NAFTA in 1993.