Comments on: 3 tsunami warning towers, 25 more to come (repeat story from 2006)

By: Rohan Samarajiva

Rohan Samarajiva — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:13:21 +0000

We have actually done field research on the pros and cons of different last-mile warning technologies. The reports may be of interest.

By: Chatura fernando

Chatura fernando — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 09:40:03 +0000

In a warning I believe it is the Medium which is important.Compare a Tsunami warning given by a Radio/Mobile to a Siren sound from a Tower. The tower definitely has more Impact.

with TV/Radio/Mobile the act of issuing the warning is a secondary service,also none are dedicated to this purpose. But in a disaster a dedicated warning mechanism in definitely needed.

So I believe Towers ARE needed BUT with many Design considerations in terms of Power and Communication.

By: Rohan Samarajiva

Rohan Samarajiva — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 08:54:21 +0000

Why are warning towers more effective than cell broadcasts that can reach 10 million plus phones with no congestion? Or even radio and TV broadcasts, which unlike cell broadcasts depend on the sets being switched on at the time of the warning?

The main point I was making was that these 25 towers have been promised since 2006 and not delivered. But the larger question is whether towers are needed at all.

By: Chatura fernando

Chatura fernando — Mon, 29 Dec 2008 08:20:28 +0000

The effectiveness of a Tsunami towers( a warning device to be activated in wake of a disaster) need not depend on the number. If the disaster is originated locally ten the effectiveness of the towers is questionable.

As to my understanding the connectivity mechanism between the Towers and the Command center should be redundant and separable from the common disaster effected domains.

As a initial step…….It is best to establish Few Tsunami towers with Reliable and Redundant communication links, in selected areas. then the message can be distributed using other mechanisms.