By John Q. Hosedrinker 
NOAA is ending a contract that enables the Alaska Earthquake Center to provide crucial seismic data used to monitor and warn against potential tsunamis in Alaska. This data, which is fed directly to NOAA’s National Tsunami Center, is essential for issuing timely warnings. The Alaska Earthquake Center was informed in late September that funding was unavailable, leading to the anticipated cessation of data feeds in mid-November. This loss of data poses significant risks, particularly from remote locations like the Aleutian Islands, as the data collection is vital for broader warning systems, as evidenced by the deadly 1946 tsunami that originated near the Aleutians.
Read the original article here
NOAA cancels funding for data collection crucial to tsunami warning systems, and it’s difficult not to see this as a seriously concerning decision. It feels like a move straight out of a disaster movie playbook – cutting off vital information streams right before a potential crisis. The reality of a tsunami might seem distant for some, but for those living along the coasts, especially in places like California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, and Alaska, it’s a real and present danger.
The parallels to past events are unsettling. Remember the pre-COVID pandemic situation? Cutting the pandemic detection team right before things went south feels like a similar story. Now, it’s the tsunami warning systems. It’s like a pattern: dismantle the early warning systems, and then what? The consequences of such actions are immediate – putting lives at risk. Data collection is the backbone of these systems. Without it, the ability to predict, detect, and warn people of an impending tsunami is severely compromised.
This raises the question: why is this happening? It’s not just about saving money. There are undertones of a deeper, troubling agenda. The idea of weakening essential government services, particularly those that protect the public, for political or even ideological reasons, is alarming. The implication is that certain groups are prioritized over others, and this type of decision seems like it’s done to weaken certain areas and communities. It’s like they’re happy to let the consequences play out, as long as it aligns with their broader goals. The impact is far-reaching, and the risks are real, especially considering the seismic activity and the potential for tsunamis.
It’s natural to feel a sense of unease when faced with these choices. It’s like the government doesn’t care if there’s no warning if a tsunami causes casualties. The potential for disaster is increased, and the people living in those zones will be impacted. The recent 8.8 magnitude earthquake off Russia’s Kamchatka Peninsula in July 2025, and the subsequent tsunami alerts across the Pacific Ocean, serves as a recent example. The fact that the NOAA’s tide gauge in Alaska first detected the wave and that the data helped save many lives, underscores the importance of the data. And the fact that this is exactly what’s being defunded shows you how important it is.
The question of where the money is going also arises. When these essential programs are cut, where does the money go? Are we seeing the funds redirected to other priorities, or is it simply a reduction in government spending? It is not surprising that the idea that the money might simply disappear in some black hole of corruption. But the fact that this question remains unanswered just fuels suspicion and distrust.
The potential for disaster is compounded by the political motivations behind these actions. It’s not just a matter of indifference to the people in those coastal communities. It’s also about the political leanings of those areas. The coastal regions most likely to be affected by tsunamis tend to be more liberal than their inland counterparts. This looks like a deliberate move. The consequences could be devastating, but the motivation could be revenge-based, and that makes it all the more chilling.
Ultimately, these types of decisions are short-sighted and dangerous. These are decisions are not driven by the well-being of the people, but rather, by personal vendettas and political gamesmanship. We need to be vigilant, to question these choices, and to demand transparency and accountability. The safety of the public should be the top priority, and that can only be done with open and honest information. Cutting funding for something that helps save lives is simply outrageous.