Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Six dead after tornadoes destroy Amazon warehouse near St Louis

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 367 posts

Re: Six dead after tornadoes destroy Amazon warehouse near St Louis

#181

Post by heavyset_go »

SECProto wrote: post #114
dylan604 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The fall of TV You mean in your daily in-take of media? Local TV stations are required to broadcast weather. It's actually part of their licensing. So if you're not in the habit of turning on the local station because of crappy programming (like me), then you should at least be willing to find a local station during weather. Even if regular programming is on, they will break in when requested by the NWS. Local radio…

> So if you're not in the habit of turning on the local station because of crappy programming (like me), then you should at least be willing to find a local station during weather. How would I even go about doing that? The only display devices I have are monitors. Even for radio, I would have to go to my car to listen.

> How would I even go about doing that? The only display devices I have are monitors.

Buy a $15 DTV tuner and antenna and hook them up to a monitor. You're being blasted with free HDTV over the air.

Re: Six dead after tornadoes destroy Amazon warehouse near St Louis

#183

Post by goseeastarwar »

syshum wrote: post #82
CamperBob2 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I lived in the Midwest for nearly 20 years as well. Tornado watches were common, warnings much less so... and if anyone saw a funnel cloud, it was time to panic, duck, and cover right freaking now .

years ago they would only call a warning when they had a confirmed visual on a touch down, I am not sure when they made the change but for at least the last few years (and probably longer) I have noticed them calling more and more warning based on radar signature alone

I'd venture a guess that's due to better radar and better spotting intelligence. When you can't physically see tornadoes when they're rain-wrapped, but have high confidence that they're there, you're putting lives at risk by not activating the sirens.

Re: Six dead after tornadoes destroy Amazon warehouse near St Louis

#184

Post by bcrosby95 »

timc3 wrote: post #79
athenot wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Twitter is a great source of information; when there's a tornado warning I keep a close eye on #gawx (substitute first 2 letters for your own state). That ends up producing a feed of info from meteorologists and amateur spotters with a mix of official reports, amateur info, photos, radar pics, etc. Often any photo or video will have comments from TV stations asking for permission to rebroadcast.

For me twitter is a terrible source of information because there is just too much noise. I rarely read anything on Twitter anymore

There's people who do this as a job/hobby. I don't mean following some random people. We live in SoCal and follow VCScanner, he has up to date info about fires, and is the whole reason we were already leaving our city when the firefighters were driving in to let people know to evacuate.

Re: Six dead after tornadoes destroy Amazon warehouse near St Louis

#185

Post by romwell »

bmitc wrote: post #161

I don’t understand a few things, as they aren’t covered in the article, that I saw. Were there no warnings for the severe weather storm that would have prevented people coming in to work or allowed them to leave work early? When I was working in the office, we were usually forced (literally security swept the building) to leave when severe winter weather was coming in a few times. Why doesn’t Amazon, in the middle of…

>Were there no warnings for the severe weather storm that would have prevented people coming in to work or allowed them to leave work early?

There were warnings. Warnings that skipping work would get one fired[1]. And since the warehouse was not closed that day, the warning was: clock in on time, or else, weather be damned.

>When I was working in the office...

Well there's a difference between how office employees are treated, and how warehouse employees are treated.

>Why doesn’t Amazon....

Because they can. And that, because their workforce isn't unionized and doesn't have the collective bargaining power to get what Amazon should give them.

[1]https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/24/technology/amazon-employe...

Re: Six dead after tornadoes destroy Amazon warehouse near St Louis

#186

Post by Turing_Machine »

baybal2 wrote: post #111
gerdesj wrote: post #70

"Six Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O) workers were confirmed dead on Saturday after a series of tornadoes roared through a warehouse near St Louis, ripping off its roof and causing 11-inch thick concrete walls longer than football fields to collapse on themselves." Horrific. A wall that size cannot possibly survive a big wind. Cannot.

> Horrific. > A wall that size cannot possibly survive a big wind. > Cannot. A reinforced concrete should've been easily capable of withstanding a hurricane. First thing I see is that roof was not attached to anything reinforcing in the wall, or columns. It seems it solely relied on its weight, which was easily overwhelmed by wind, to keep it in place.

Hurricanes and tornados are two different phenomena, entirely.

A Category 5 hurricane generally has wind speeds less than 200 mph.

EF5 tornadoes start at 200 mph, and can be well over 300 mph.

Could you design a warehouse (note: not a small storm shelter, but a warehouse, which by definition needs to have very large interior open spaces) that would withstand a 300 mph wind? Maybe.

The budget would be well beyond the reach of any non-military client, though.

Re: Six dead after tornadoes destroy Amazon warehouse near St Louis

#187

Post by cesarb »

w0mbat wrote: post #57

Mods - this truncated headline makes no sense, which is awful with such a serious story. It should be rephrased to: "6 Amazon workers killed after tornadoes destroy warehouse near St. Louis".

For future reference, the current headline is "Six Amazon workers killed after tornadoes reduce warehouse near St. Louis", which makes one wonder whether it was a tornado or some sort of shrink ray.

Re: Six dead after tornadoes destroy Amazon warehouse near St Louis

#188

Post by [deleted] »

emptybottle wrote: post #113
sillysaurusx wrote: post #3

I slept through three tornado sirens last night. It was pretty wild. The first one, I thought it was a test. (We have tests every month on the 1st.) But it wasn't until a few minutes in that I realized it was for real. Then apparently I just... went to sleep? That wasn't the smartest decision I've ever made. It went off a couple more times. One strange thing was the realization that I had no idea where to turn for in…

The most straightforward thing you can do is pick up a cheap TV antenna and a basic battery powered radio. Over the air TV is actually really good now. The switch to digital brought full HD over the air. And local FM/AM radio will broadcast info in an emergency. Can get a weather radio too if you want to.

[deleted]

Re: Six dead after tornadoes destroy Amazon warehouse near St Louis

#189

Post by mannykannot »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #3

I slept through three tornado sirens last night. It was pretty wild. The first one, I thought it was a test. (We have tests every month on the 1st.) But it wasn't until a few minutes in that I realized it was for real. Then apparently I just... went to sleep? That wasn't the smartest decision I've ever made. It went off a couple more times. One strange thing was the realization that I had no idea where to turn for in…

Do you think you would have reacted differently during tornado season? (I'm not sure when that is, but I am pretty sure December isn't in it, or at least was not before the storms of 2011.)

I think it is also worth pointing out that merely having sirens, and the information network capable (for the most part) of setting them off when and only when there is a significant risk, is well within about 90% of being as good as one should reasonably expect: if that is the most information you can get in the moment, how, rationally, should you respond, if not by seeking cover?

On the other hand, it is quickly counter-productive to set off the sirens for every mildly elevated risk, as it conditions everyone to be skeptical. Unfortunately, current social dynamics, which blame and punish anyone who makes a decision to not raise the alarm prior to something bad subsequently happening, is guaranteed to bring about this skepticism.

Post reply on HN