Big Chilean Earthquake

There was a massive earthquake this morning in Chile.  Preliminary information is reporting it as an 8.8 magnitude (Mw), which is pretty big.  Damage reports are still coming in, and so the death and injury toll will definitely rise, and it's not going to be good.  There is hope, however, that it won't have been as destructive as the January 12, 2010 Haitian earthquake (at least 300,000 dead), despite the fact that the Haitian earthquake (7.0 Mw) was 700-800 times less powerful.

So why the (hoped-for) difference in destruction?  The magnitude of an earthquake is only one measure of the intensity and destruction of the earthquake.  Depending on ground material (waterlogged sand versus granite bedrock), the shaking--which is the cause of building collapse--can be intense and long-lasting (in the case of the sand), or brief and sharp (likely to damage structures but not make them fall immediately, in the case of the bedrock).  Destruction is also dependent on building type.  Some buildings (unreinforced masonry, adobe mud/brick/straw, cinderblock, etc) are extremely vulnerable to collapse after shaking.  It appears that many of the building in the Haitian capital of Port-au-Prince were made from these types of materials.

Chile, on the other hand, has a history of massive earthquakes and related-tsunamis.  Typically, most of their modern buildings are built to withstand at least moderate earthquakes, because they are so common.  Building location is also important, and traditionally cities and villages are built above the shoreline, away from most tsunami waves.

Chile holds the (dubious) honor of having the largest earthquake ever recorded, the 9.5 Mw May 22, 1960 Valdiva Earthquake.  The earthquake this morning is considered the largest in five years (since the 9.1 or 9.3 Mw Indian Ocean Earthquake on December 26, 2004).  So why does Chile have such big earthquakes? 

Here's the short answer:  Chile in on a subduction zone, where dense oceanic crust (Nazca plate) is being dragged under the lighter and thicker continental crust (South American plate).  That's why you get the high Andean Mountains--all that pushing and shoving "wrinkles" the continent's edge into mountains, complete with spectacular volcanoes.  It isn't easy to push crust down into the dense mantle of the earth, so tremendous force can build up and then--when the rocks can't take it anymore--SNAP!  The pressure is released in a giant wave of energy we call an earthquake. 

This built-up pressure happens in all tectonic zones, whether the movement is extensional (pulling apart), strike-slip (rubbing past each other), or convergent (pushing together, as in Chile).  The largest amount of pressure happens in convergent zones, because of the directions of the forces.

(Wow, I really miss teaching geology.  You can't tell, can you?)

Ultrasounding

(Scroll down to vote!)

For my first three babies, I was excited to the point of sleeplessness about the mid-pregnancy ultrasound.  See the baby!  Count the fingers and toes!  Is it a boy or a girl?  Is the due date right?  Yay babies!!

At Gee's ultrasound, however, we were first made aware of his spina bifida.  It was a Friday morning, and my friend was taking care of the older two kids.  Bradley took the morning off work.  We were, obviously, not expecting anything out of the ordinary.

I don't remember the exact moment of revelation--it was gradual, with the ultrasound technician getting quieter and quieter, and making more and more measurements and images.  He didn't make us wait to talk to the doctor, though; he told us he suspected that the baby had spina bifida, club feet, and the Arnold-Chairi II malformation of the brain.  He told us the baby was a boy, that his heart and lungs were great, and that the OB would see us in just a few minutes.

We waited in the waiting room until the doctor had a free moment, clutching our roll of ultrasound photos.  I called my friend and told her about the delay, barely holding back the tears of uncertainty and fear.  The doctor was gentle and soothing, telling us a little about spina bifida, telling us we had an appointment at the Maternal-Fetal Medicine at the hospital the following Monday...it was overwhelming.  The next couple of weeks were a blur, having to tell grandparents and siblings and friends.  Gradually we got used to the idea, taught ourselves as much as we could, and coped.  There were a lot of prayers and tears.

And then our Gee was born.  And he immediately became a real person, not a scary abstract.  Life is wonderful and not nearly so hard as we imagined during the 20 weeks between discovery and delivery.

But I've been scarred concerning the whole ultrasound experience.  I alternate between sheer terror and pleasant anticipation.  (At least this time around I haven't burst into tears when asked about finding out the sex of the baby, as I did a week before Hebs' ultrasound.)

Ralph/ette's ultrasound is Monday morning at 11am.  Everything is going to be fine, whatever may be.

AND your momma dresses you funny...

 

It was Mismatched Day today at Zee's elementary school.  He was quite proud of the outfit we created for him.  Although you can't see it, his socks AND shoes are mismatched, too.

More Memories; or I was SUCH a pudgy child

I'm the one in yellow.

I'm the one on the far right.  There's an awesome stories behind the pretty pink matching dresses; I'll have to write about it sometime soon.

You'll notice I am wearing the biggest pink dress now--LaDale, my oldest sister, is wearing it in the previous picture.  And nice socks, huh?

Speaking of wearing the same dresses, Mema is wearing the same dress in two of the pictures, spanning several years. I was teasing her about it, and then realized that I have been wearing the same black velvet dress in just about all my children's blessing pictures. So...there you go. Not a lot of time or money for buying new clothes when you have a growing family.

Yes, I had a bowling ball head

Me, LaDale, Jenafer

Late 1977/Early 1978

In addition to my bowling ball head, I had sticky-outy ears, too.  Just like my Hebs:

Dental contrasts

First of all, I wish my dentist could be a pediatric dentist.  Baby teeth fillings are just so...zippy!  And cheap!  And there is a train that roams around the office, and the patients get little tokens for toys or a ride on a mechanical horse...what's not to love?

'Tis the season for dental checks, at least in our family, as we try to spend the remainder of last year's FSA money by March 15.  (Don't get me started on how stupid it is that money doesn't carry over from year to year.  GRRRRRR!!!)  Because my children are genetically related to me, they have bad teeth.  So, both Zee and Em needed fillings and caps.

Zee's appointment was last Thursday.  It was agony.  The laughing gas didn't make much a difference in his general mood of terror, the numbing goop made him gag, the shots made him scream and writhe and cry.  It was really, really terrible.  He hated the whirl of the drill (I know that feeling exactly), the pushing and prodding...the entire appointment lasted all of twenty-five minutes, and he was miserable the entire time.  (And thus, so was I.)

Today was Em's appointment.  Now, this is her first time needing more than a cleaning at the dentist, so she didn't know what to expect.  She was pleased when I told her where we were going, thrilled to go into the waiting area, actually skipped behind the dental assistant into the exam room.  She giggled and laughed.  The laughing gas really affected her.  She was even (if possible) giddier, and then got a little sleepy, then giddy, then sleepy.  She barely murmured when they gave her the shots.  She was a model patient.

Why were they so different?  Was it because Zee had certain expectations--having been to the dentist several times before?  Was it because the laughing gas has more of an effect on Em?  Was it just because they are very different kids?  One of the reasons I am uncomfortable at the dentist has to do with claustrophobia--I really hate having the dentist's hands and face in my face, although I appreciate there is no other way for him to work.  Maybe Zee inherited that particular discomfort, and Em didn't.

Who knows?  All I know is that I'm not dreading Em's next appointment the same way I dread Zee's.

So it's a race, but it's judged. Got it?

I thought I'd start out this post with the question:  "What is the most absurd Winter Olympic sport?"  Then I realized the answer is, of course, "curling".  In fact, "curling" not only answers the question, but brings the conversation to a complete stop.  There is no more absurd Winter Olympic sport than curling.

So, instead of asking that question, I'll ask another question:  "Why are so many Winter Olympic sports absurd?"

Of course, the question could be asked, in some respects, of all sports.  Football?  Heavily padded grown men fighting over an oddly shaped ball, in distances measured by feet (and sometimes inches).  Golf?  Smacking a little white ball hundreds of yards around.  Sprinting?  What lion is chasing you around the savannah, bud?  Cross-country?  Haven't you heard of cars?  (I had to include cross-country, it's my sport.  Or was, in high school.)

But at least those sports have the aura of familiarity--they may be weird, but they are normal weird. 

Some of the Winter Sports are pretty normal-ish:  figure skating, the skiing races, the skating races.  (Although I have never laughed so hard at a race as when I watched a short track relay race.  They don't seem to pass a baton, as in track relays.  They push each other's butts.  It is hilarious to watch.)  Then you have bobsled, skeleton, luge:  I've heard people argue that it's just glorified sledding--any child can sled!  Well, lots of kids can bike, too, and they have cycling races in the Summer Olympics.  Speed makes a difference.  Even snowboarding makes some sense to me.

But the moguls?  That has to be the oddest sport combination ever.  Okay, let's ski down a steep (between 25-39 degrees) slope, and let's put a bunch of weird little hills on it (moguls).  How fast can you go?  Oh, I almost forgot.  We'll put two little ramps and force you to a fancy backflip or double axle twist (like you are a gymnast or figure skater), which we will then judge you on.  So it's a race, but it's also judged.  Got it?

Who thought that up?  I think I admire his/her sick, twisted mind.

Breaking News: The Arizona Legislature Hates Kids

(Part III of a series talking about the considered amendment to the Utah Child Restraint Laws. Part I, Part II)

It turns out that in Arizona, children only have to be in a child safety seat until they are five years old. Do they make sturdier kids in Arizona? (I am willing to entertain this notion, especially when I consider my four nephews who live in Page.) Does the Utah Legislature care more about safety than the Arizona Legislature does? (Doubt it.) I had a conversation about this with my Arizona-dwelling best friend:

Me: There's no way for us to fit FIVE carseats in our van.
Her: Yeah, there comes a point when it is a little overboard. I think you should be safe and careful, but do you really need a motion detector in a healthy infant's bed? Or knee pads?
Me: Exactly.
Her: Or an underarm extender for a child learning how to walk so you can grab them and they don't fall down?
Me: A helmet for playing with siblings in your bedroom.
Her: Yep, I hope you have these things on your wish list for this baby. I don't know how the others have stayed alive.
Me: Exactly! It's a miracle. Right now Hebs is sporting a lovely purple bruise, just below his eyebrow. It's because i didn't have him in his bubble. And because he's trying to pull himself up and around and doing baby stuff.
Her: For shame!!
Me: Exactly! Just call CPCS. Maybe I could get a nap.
Her: What if he gets dirty?
Me: Or grumpy? Or snotty? Or has chocolate smeared across his face? (He has the latter two right now!)
Her: Is he in an ivy league preschool yet?
Me: (I'm so ashamed.)

The Actual Proposed Amendment

(Part II of a series talking about the considered amendment to the Utah Child Restraint Laws. Part I here)

The Utah Legislature is considering amending the current child safety seat law (right now, all children under the age of eight must be in a child safety seat/booster). To which I say: "YAY!" Until I read the actual amendment. Then I scratched my head (in a most lady-like manner, I assure you), and said, "Huh?"

Let me summarize the amendment (the actual wording of the proposed amendment as of 2/10/10 can be found here):
There is an exception for children five years old and older. These children can use a regular seat belt under certain, very limited circumstances:

• The trip must be either to or from the vehicle operator's home AND
• The trip must be either to or from a school where one of the passengers is enrolled, a church sponsored activity, or an organized recreational activity AND
• The distance is four miles or less AND
• The posted speed limit does not exceed 45 miles per hour AND
• All available child restraint devices in the vehicle are being occupied.

Got that?

Let's try to figure out a situation where I could actually use this amendment.

Carpooling to school: Not unless you live within easy walking distance of every child's home. Because all trips have to be DIRECTLY to or from the driver's home, there can be no stops to pick up/drop off children at their individual homes. So, currently and under the proposed new law, I am illegal because I will sometimes pick J. up from school with Zee, and drop J. off at his home. J. is seven, and we don't have an extra car seat for him.

Carpooling to soccer/choir/Primary activity: Ditto above. Unless all the children meet at your house and pile into your car, and then all the children come back to your house, it is still illegal.

Driving my nieces/nephew to their house after playing at my house: Nope, because although we are coming directly to or from my house, we are not going to the school, a church activity, or an organized recreational activity (I doubt a "playdate" counts as an organized recreational activity).

Having Zee's friend J. come home from school with us to play: Yay, we have a winner! This one actually seems to work. We would be driving directly home from school, with no stops. Of course, I couldn't stop and pick up his little sister T. so she could play with Em, because that would be a non-direct trip. But I could bring a little friend home from school.

Running an at-home daycare: I imagine, that as long as you weren't a state licensed daycare, that this amendment would work to your advantage. You could take your charges to and from school without car seats (as long as the other parameters were met).

Now that we found a scenario or two were the amendment actually applies, let's look at the rest of it: the speed limit and mileage restriction, specifically. The speed limit restriction actually makes perfect sense to me. High speed crashes are more dangerous, and there is less reaction time to avoid problems at high speeds. To be honest, I'm surprised (but pleased) they have the limit as high as 45 miles per hour.

The mileage restriction is less understandable to me, though. Why should the streets around my mother-in-law's house be considered more dangerous to my children than the streets around my house? And how in the world would a police officer know that I was more than exactly 4 miles away from my house?

In my opinion, this law is badly written. How in the world will it be enforced?

Child Safety Seats and Utah House Bill 113

Dear Representative *** and Senator ***,

I have noticed with interest HB113, “Child Restraint Device Amendments”. I believe that the current child restraint device laws are too restrictive, and I am pleased the legislature is considering amending them.

In the book “SuperFreakonomics” by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, the authors discuss a study indicating that perfectly installed and fitted car seats for 3- and 6-year-olds are no more effective in a crash in protecting children than the poorly fitting built-in seat belt. (A brief summary of their findings can be found here and here at the Freakonomics Blog at the New York Times website.) While I am not claiming that this is a definitive study on the subject, I am interested in learning what studies and reports the Utah State Legislature is using while considering amending the law. I am especially interested in any recent studies about older children (ages 5-8) and booster seats being considered during the deliberative process.

As much as I applaud the direction of the amending (loosening the requirements on older children), I have serious concerns about the language of the amendment. As written, I do not see how this law could be enforced. How would a police officer know if I was driving directly to or from my home? That I was driving to the school or an authorized activity? That I don’t have a booster seat in the trunk in case I have to drive 5 miles away from the house?

As a parent of four children under the age of seven (with a fifth child on the way), I am directly affected by these laws, and will be for a good many years to come. I would very much appreciate hearing from you on your opinion as to these amendments, on how the law would be enforced, and what scientific studies are being used to inform the Legislature on this subject.

Thank you for your service and your help in this request.
_______________________________

I sent this letter to my state reps yesterday. As I said in the first paragraph, I think the current Utah law is overly restrictive. There are two reasons I believe this:

First, the SuperFreakonomics research is very intriguing, from a safety/risk perspective. Yes, it would be safer to have my children wear helmets all the time, to never ride in a car, and (heavens forbid) never play competitive sports. But are the risks so much greater than the benefits of, say, spontaneous play, transportation, and team spirit? I think not. I'm not against safety (and it seems that no one is arguing that very young children (less than five years old) should be put in child seats), but we really have to weigh the actual risk versus the possible gain. I want to know that our legislature is well informed in making this decision.

Second: Have you ever tried to fit three car seats/booster seat/any combination thereof on one row of seats? It can't be done in a standard minivan or a standard sedan. (Actually, you can, barely, in a standard sedan. If you don't mind having to force the door closed every time, and warping the plastic of both the car seat and the inside door handle.) So this July I am in the unenviable position of a) breaking the law by letting my six-almost-seven-year-old not use a booster; b) buying a full-size van or SUV; or c) not driving anywhere with my five children. Considering I currently drive a 7-person vehicle, this is an unacceptable situation.

Next post: the actual language of the law and the ridiculousness thereof.

A Photoshop That Possibly Only Amuses Me

And maybe my little sister.

Mr. Piano Man

Scattered Sunshine

Yesterday was a sort of warmish day (so is today, for that matter), and the sun was shining in the afternoon. So when we picked up Zee and his friend J. from school, we stayed at the school playground and played for about thirty minutes. Despite a chill in the air (we're expecting snow this weekend), it was beautiful. My sister and her kids were going to join us, but her two-year-old woke up from his nap with a fever, so instead, I swung by her house and picked up her three-year-old, Kay.

I sat on the bench, soaking up the sunshine and smelling the fresh scent of new wood chip. Watching the kids run and yell and slide and climb and play:

• Kay literally jumped up and down, clapping, saying "I did it!" every time she went down the slide.
• Zee and J. made a "clubhouse" under the slides. They thrilled Gee by inviting him in. From inside, he called to me and proudly informed me of his good fortune. "I in the club, Momma!!!!"
• There is a tall spiral slide at the playground. I stood in a good spot, and as Gee came down, I shouted "Boo!" He laughed that sweet, hilarious, infectious belly laugh that toddlers are so good at.
• Zee and J. pulled Hebs (in his stroller) into the "clubhouse", and took turns playing with him.
• Kay was a little scared of the big slide, but Em patiently encouraged her until she made it down for the first time. After that, Kay was all over that slide.
• Em and Kay were playing some sort of chasing game, and while Kay ran past me chasing Em, she shouted out to me, "This is silly, AunRin!"
• I took Heb out of the stroller and put him on the ground. He started tripoding around the wood chips, and then pulled himself up to stand at the "clubhouse". He then spent at least seven minutes bending down to pick up and then throw wood chips through the "window". He looked very proud of himself the whole time.

Of course, by the time we needed to go, Gee was cranky and grumpy, Zee and J. were so hyped up they were hurting each others' feelings and not listening to me, and I was trembling with tiredness. But that is the way of kids, right?

As exhausting as these small people are, they are wonderful and marvelous and fun and exciting to be around. Hopefully I can remember the good time we had for the first 25 minutes, and not the cranky time during the last five. Otherwise, we might not ever go to a park again, and that would be a real shame.

Because it was beautiful.

Happy Groundhog's Day

Happy Groundhog's Day

All the Earth's a Garden Sweet...

My ever-helpful younger brother Samuel has asked me if the elephant picture means I'm feeling big as an elephant. No, Samuel, I am not. During the first half of pregnancy, I lose weight because of the nausea. For this pregnancy, I am down 13 pounds so far. (With Hebs, I don't believe I gained more than 5 lbs total. And, yes, it was a perfectly healthy pregnancy.)

(TMI: Pregnancy is the only time that you can pause in the middle of a meal, vomit, and then return to your meal and finish it. Unless you have an eating disorder, I guess.)

I actually like the song "Love at Home", but it is undeniably sappy. "Sweeter sings the brooklet by/Brighter beams the azure sky"? Treacly. But my favorite line is "Roses bloom beneath our feet." Don't you think that would hurt?

My children--all four--love to sing in church. Zee tries to read the words, but gets so caught up in the reading that he forgets to listen to the rhythm and ends up a half a beat behind (or ahead) of everyone else. It's completely adorable. Em loves it when you whisper the words in her ear ahead of time. She actually has a pretty good ear for tune. Gee just sings whatever words he feels like. And Hebs--well, you can't actually call it singing, but more like joyful hollering.

We are not the quietest pew in the chapel.

I have my first OB appointment on Wednesday; nothing exciting, only bloodwork and paperwork. But next Monday I have my first official appointment, and apparently they will do a quick ultrasound to check dates. (My doctor combined with another practice since my last pregnancy, so this will be the first time I've had an early ultrasound.) I'll be 15.5 weeks, think I can convince them to look for a healthy spine? Sex of the baby?