Do We Need A Warning About Warnings?

NBC News posted a story today which included the following:

Some residents along the East Coast received a false tsunami warning on Tuesday morning after a private company sent out an alert following a monthly test by the National Weather Service.

A tweet from the National Weather Service (NWS) in Charleston, South Carolina, said the alert was sent around 8:30 a.m. ET.

“We have been notified that some users received this test message as an actual Tsunami Warning,” the NWS tweeted, adding that a tsunami warning was “not in effect.”

…In a statement to NBC News, the NWS said that a routine test was sent out and that the agency is investigating why it was communicated as an actual tsunami.

“The test message was released by at least one private sector company as an official Tsunami Warning, resulting in widespread reports of tsunami warnings received via phones and other media across the East Coast, Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean. We’re currently looking into why the test message was communicated as an actual tsunami warning, and will provide more information as soon as we have it,” the NWS said.

The agency said their test message “was not disseminated to the public via any communications channels operated by the National Weather Service.”

The push notification sent to phones in South Carolina was reportedly sent by the AccuWeather app, according to The Post and Courier of Charleston.

AccuWeather also tweeted that the notification was a test, not an actual warning.

“The National Weather Service Tsunami Warning this morning was a TEST. No Tsunami warning is in effect for the East Coast of the U.S.,” the tweet said.

It was not immediately clear how many people received the warning.

Similar reports were also made in New York, Boston, Miami and Houston.

It seems as if some of our emergency notification systems need to be looked at and improved.


Facts Are Such Inconvenient Things

One of the highlights of the President’s State of the Union speech was his stating a plan to open 38 million acres for oil exploration in the Gulf of Mexico and a contest for natural gas technology.

Erik Milito, upstream director for the American Petroleum Institute (API), was not particularly impressed by the plan.

An article posted today at

Milito noted the lease sale outlined by the Obama administration was originally included in a program that became effective in 2007. Obama’s critics said the White House was in essence trying to generate political capital based on decisions made by the previous administration.

The API said Obama’s lease announcements left more than 85 percent of offshore areas off limits to energy explorers.

This is another reason voters have to pay close attention to anything said by any politician running for office this year. There will be a lot of misinformation floating out over the airwaves and in print in your local and national newspapers. It’s up to us to be our own fact-checkers!


Enhanced by Zemanta

One Explanation For The High Unemployment Numbers

States that border the Gulf of Mexico are show...

Image via Wikipedia

The Offshore Marine Service Association (OSMA) has posted a video at YouTube¬†explaining the impact of the ‘permatorium’ the Obama administration has on American drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

The Washington Examiner posted a short story on the impact of the ‘permatorium’ which included this statement:

But other than pointing to staggering unemployment figures and gas prices that remain nearly double what they were when the president took office in 2009, it’s difficult to convey the magnitude of the Obama energy crisis in the Gulf of Mexico. The consequences of this crisis far exceed in terms of human and economic losses those occasioned by the Deepwater Horizon disaster that was used to justify the Permatorium in the first place.

Lifting this ‘permatorium’ would help unemployment and also bring down the cost of gasoline which would help all Americans.


Enhanced by Zemanta