[math-fun] That can't be right!
Approximately six days ago, news organizations began reporting that, according to the United Nations, "one-fifth" of Pakistan was under water. Since then, the one-fifth has appeared again and again with assorted modifiers: up to, about, at least, etc. Looking at the Earth Observatory pictures... http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=45200 ... I am having a hard time seeing the reality behind that fraction. I've been unable to find the original UN source of the stories and I don't see a lot of skepticism out there. Perhaps by the "country" of Pakistan is meant something other than geographical shape but that is never explicitly stated. Anybody care to wade in?
I have no data, but if they were weighting the country by population, not by land area, I would consider the usage reasonable. --Michael On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Hans Havermann <pxp@rogers.com> wrote:
Approximately six days ago, news organizations began reporting that, according to the United Nations, "one-fifth" of Pakistan was under water. Since then, the one-fifth has appeared again and again with assorted modifiers: up to, about, at least, etc. Looking at the Earth Observatory pictures...
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=45200
... I am having a hard time seeing the reality behind that fraction. I've been unable to find the original UN source of the stories and I don't see a lot of skepticism out there. Perhaps by the "country" of Pakistan is meant something other than geographical shape but that is never explicitly stated. Anybody care to wade in?
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
-- Forewarned is worth an octopus in the bush.
Michael Kleber:
I have no data, but if they were weighting the country by population, not by land area, I would consider the usage reasonable.
I have an August 15 statement by UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon saying: "Nearly one out of ten Pakistanis has been directly or indirectly affected -- possibly 20 million people. One-fifth of the country is ravaged by floods." Unfortunately that's already four days after the "one-fifth" meme started. But it does suggest that, by population, only 10% of the country was "affected". As to the one-fifth, "ravaged by floods" is not the same thing as "under water". There is a second meme circulating based on the fraction "one-quarter", apparently started with the estimate of flooding having "hit" one-quarter of the country. A couple of news organizations here in Canada have stated that one- quarter of Pakistan is/remains under water!
I googled "satellite maps of August 2010 Pakistan floods". Many relevant hits, here's one: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10986220 It depends on exactly what you count (and news reports are usually vague on this issue). But for a simple reconciliation of maps with approximate figures, much of Pakistan appears to be in the Indus valley.
-----Original Message----- From: math-fun-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:math-fun- bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Hans Havermann Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:06 PM To: math-fun Subject: Re: [math-fun] That can't be right!
Michael Kleber:
I have no data, but if they were weighting the country by population, not by land area, I would consider the usage reasonable.
I have an August 15 statement by UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon saying: "Nearly one out of ten Pakistanis has been directly or indirectly affected -- possibly 20 million people. One-fifth of the country is ravaged by floods."
Unfortunately that's already four days after the "one-fifth" meme started. But it does suggest that, by population, only 10% of the country was "affected". As to the one-fifth, "ravaged by floods" is not the same thing as "under water". There is a second meme circulating based on the fraction "one-quarter", apparently started with the estimate of flooding having "hit" one-quarter of the country. A couple of news organizations here in Canada have stated that one- quarter of Pakistan is/remains under water!
_______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun
Scott Huddleston:
I googled "satellite maps of August 2010 Pakistan floods". Many relevant hits, here's one:
Thank you for this. That map gives me a clearer understanding of how the numerical mismeasure (of how much of Pakistan is "under water") might have come about. A good analogy here would be American weather maps which give warnings by county: Even though a tornado warning (say) may affect only a tiny corner of a given county, the entire county gets flagged. (Here in Canada, where northern counties can be quite large and irregularly shaped, this occasionally makes for some inappropriate/misleading pictures of where active weather may be occurring.) The "affected districts" map of Pakistan is like that: Even though only a tiny portion of the district may actually be under water, the area of the entire district gets added to the tally. Inattention to detail in news reporting takes care of the rest.
I think that the reporter held up his bottle of whiskey & it shielded his eyes from Pakistan. Pakistan = One Fifth! At 10:39 AM 8/17/2010, Hans Havermann wrote:
Approximately six days ago, news organizations began reporting that, according to the United Nations, "one-fifth" of Pakistan was under water. Since then, the one-fifth has appeared again and again with assorted modifiers: up to, about, at least, etc. Looking at the Earth Observatory pictures...
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=45200
... I am having a hard time seeing the reality behind that fraction. I've been unable to find the original UN source of the stories and I don't see a lot of skepticism out there. Perhaps by the "country" of Pakistan is meant something other than geographical shape but that is never explicitly stated. Anybody care to wade in?
I was way off base with this posting. I did not mean to appear insensitive to the tremendous suffering in Pakistan. I just heard on NPR from a Pakistani official that an area _the size of England_ is under water. At 11:13 AM 8/17/2010, Henry Baker wrote:
I think that the reporter held up his bottle of whiskey & it shielded his eyes from Pakistan.
Pakistan = One Fifth!
At 10:39 AM 8/17/2010, Hans Havermann wrote:
Approximately six days ago, news organizations began reporting that, according to the United Nations, "one-fifth" of Pakistan was under water. Since then, the one-fifth has appeared again and again with assorted modifiers: up to, about, at least, etc. Looking at the Earth Observatory pictures...
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=45200
... I am having a hard time seeing the reality behind that fraction. I've been unable to find the original UN source of the stories and I don't see a lot of skepticism out there. Perhaps by the "country" of Pakistan is meant something other than geographical shape but that is never explicitly stated. Anybody care to wade in?
Henry Baker:
I just heard on NPR from a Pakistani official that an area _the size of England_ is under water.
The number generally seen in news reports (instead of - or in addition to - the "one-fifth of the country") is 160000 km^2, which is about right (Pakistan = 803940 km^2; England = 130395 km^2). I have convinced myself that this much of Pakistan is in fact not "under water" but has been "affected by" flooding. Perhaps the former is a natural conclusion drawn on the latter in many people's minds but in my mind, "under water" implies pooled/standing water while "affected by" flooding might include areas that experienced torrential downpours with limited supra-surface water retention and/or areas affected because of sundry familial/economic connections to actual underwater regions. So I think my objection ends up being rather more linguistic than arithmetical.
participants (4)
-
Hans Havermann -
Henry Baker -
Huddleston, Scott -
Michael Kleber