RULES WRITTEN IN BLOOD. Could the people of Thailand, Sri Lanka, and Somalia have been spared the mass drownings? A geology professor at the University of Wisconsin interviewed by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel says yes.

While deaths from the earthquake itself could probably not have been reduced, many of those caused by the tsunami could have. We know that earthquakes and tsunamis are related. It's a practical matter of setting up tsunami warning systems. Seismometers record the earthquake, and wave sensors will pick up traveling wave action. Think about it. These waves are traveling tens or hundreds of miles per hour and crossing distances of thousands of miles. You do the math. With a warning system, depending upon where you are located, you'd have anywhere between a few seconds and hours to prepare. It was a preventable disaster, and it was definitely unfortunate.

Sean at The American Mind disagrees.

I will grant Thai officials didn't have much to offer the effected areas. The best they could have done was inform beachfront resorts that a strong earthquake could produce tsunamis. There's no assumption any warning would have been heeded. Locals could have just brushed it off since tsunamis rarely happen in that area.

We have a classic inference problem. Suppose the null hypothesis is that the earthquake has generated a dangerous tsunami. The government still does not know what its magnitude will be. The beachgoers have no idea how accurate the government's projection is, if one is issued. If you reject the null hypothesis, and it is true, a Type I error, do you drown, or do you see three brief increases in the local surf?

Would your answer be any different if your beach front had a history of tsunamis?

Under what circumstances would you make additional investments in tsunami warning systems?

And people say statistics is dry. I commend this primer on the various sorts of errors in inference researchers may be subject to.