ground zero
ken_takamino
attacks. Where does the phrase (especially 'zero') come from ?
thank you. kt
Spehro Pefhany
The M-W dictionary dates it from 1946. I believe it was used to help
describe the effects of the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki.
Ground zero is the point on the ground closest to where the blast
occurred, so specifying a distance from this point describes what the
radius is from the closest point to the explosion.
It's since been expanded as a metaphor for all kinds of things,
many of them non-destructive. "Milan is ground-zero for raised hemlines",
for example. It would probably be considered in bad taste to use it
in connection with anything associated with Japan.
Best regards,
--
Spehro Pefhany --"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
sp...@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
/.-.\
(( * ))
\\ // Please help if you can:
\\\ http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/
//\\\
/// \\\
\/ \/
R H Draney
<sp...@interlog.com> wrote:
>The renowned ken_takamino <ken_ta...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I often hear 'ground zero' mentioned with regard to WTC suicide
>> attacks. Where does the phrase (especially 'zero') come from ?
>> thank you. kt
>
>The M-W dictionary dates it from 1946. I believe it was used to help
>describe the effects of the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and
>Nagasaki.
>
>Ground zero is the point on the ground closest to where the blast
>occurred, so specifying a distance from this point describes what the
>radius is from the closest point to the explosion.
>
>It's since been expanded as a metaphor for all kinds of things,
>many of them non-destructive. "Milan is ground-zero for raised hemlines",
>for example. It would probably be considered in bad taste to use it
>in connection with anything associated with Japan.
One also hears (all too often) "back to ground zero" as a synonym for
"starting over from the beginning"...this is an abomination, and you
have my thanks if you both avoid using it yourself and correct anyone
you catch using the term in this way...the correct phrase is "back to
square one", a reference to board games of the "Chutes and Ladders"
variety....r
--
Reproduction of all or any part of this message
without the express written consent of Major League
Baseball is perfectly all right with me.
N.Mitchum
----
> I often hear 'ground zero' mentioned with regard to WTC suicide
> attacks. Where does the phrase (especially 'zero') come from ?
An Americanism dating from WWII: the land or water directly below
the detonation of a nuclear bomb. It's since been degraded into
an all-purpose metaphor, however, and has been applied to the most
inappropriate situations. I'm sure the government PR men used it
in connection with the suicide attacks to reinforce the notion
that this was an act of war.
----NM
Brian J Goggin
wrote:
>ken_takamino wrote:
>----
>> I often hear 'ground zero' mentioned with regard to WTC suicide
>> attacks. Where does the phrase (especially 'zero') come from ?
>>....
>
>An Americanism dating from WWII: the land or water directly below
>the detonation of a nuclear bomb.
[...]
ObAUE: were there nuclear, as opposed to atomic, bombs in WWII?
bjg
Richard Fontana
I'd say that "nuclear bomb" must be considered unidiomatic. Atomic bomb,
hydrogen bomb, A-bomb, H-bomb, but "nuclear weapon" (or, in some American
dialects, "nucular weapon", and in the Georgian dialect, "nukyah weapon").
Truly Donovan
<aj...@lafn.org> wrote:
I find the WTC situation entirely appropriate for its use;
the media were using the term for the WTC site long before
any government PR men got around to running it up the
flagpole to see who salutes. There was total destruction at
ground zero. A block or so away, buildings are still
standing, but may be so unstable as to have to be knocked
down. Beyond those, there are buildings in need of repair
before they can be retenanted. Several blocks away,
buildings (like the NYSE) are fully operational.
--
Truly Donovan
http://www.trulydonovan.com
Murray Arnow
>
>ObAUE: were there nuclear, as opposed to atomic, bombs in WWII?
>
Physicswise the bombs are nuclear. Atomic physics studies atomic and molecular
interactions. These interactions are almost entirely governed by atomic
electrons. Nuclear physics, for obvious reasons, is concerned with nuclear
interactions. Two such interactions are fission and fusion: the stuff bombs
are made from. There is a common confusion regarding atomic and nuclear
physics. Personally, it has caused me some inconvenience because I am
sometimes forced to give a physics mini-course when I'm asked what is my area
of expertise and I unthinkingly answer atomic physics.
Spehro Pefhany
> An Americanism dating from WWII: the land or water directly below
> the detonation of a nuclear bomb.
So, if it is an underground test in Nevada, ground zero would be in
China?
Michael J Hardy
> I'd say that "nuclear bomb" must be considered unidiomatic. Atomic bomb,
> hydrogen bomb, A-bomb, H-bomb, but "nuclear weapon" (or, in some American
> dialects, "nucular weapon", and in the Georgian dialect, "nukyah weapon").
Sometimes the word "thermonuclear" is used. A friend of mine who
got an MBA after getting an undergraduate degree in history worked for
an accounting firm where (he claims) his boss could not write or
understand complete sentences. When the firm signed up a new client
that dealt in _geothermal_ energy, my friend's boss kept calling that
client's business "thermonuclear energy."
Mike Hardy
Simon R. Hughes
I heard it tonight in a description of the Norwegian Labour Party: the
party conference is a disaster area, and the party finds itself at
ground zero. I found it in particular bad taste, considering the
things we have witnessed in the last week described similarly.
--
Simon R. Hughes -- http://www.geocities.com/a57998/subconscious/
Tony Cooper
>
> One also hears (all too often) "back to ground zero" as a synonym for
> "starting over from the beginning"...this is an abomination, and you
> have my thanks if you both avoid using it yourself and correct anyone
> you catch using the term in this way...
I will immediately go on alert to catch and correct sayers
of this phrase. I will make it a priority; even a crusade.
May I expect reciprocal assistance from you in getting men
(who are neither farmers nor firemen) from wearing
suspenders? Be especially alert for men that wear
suspenders with little ducks on them with striped shirts
with white collars. (It's the shirts that have the stripes
and white collars. Not the ducks) That, too, is an
abomination. Together, we will improve both English usage
and fashion.
Tony Cooper
>
> Personally, it has caused me some inconvenience because I am
> sometimes forced to give a physics mini-course when I'm asked what is my area
> of expertise and I unthinkingly answer atomic physics.
Somehow, I am discomforted by anyone messing about with
atomic things reacting unthinkingly.
howard richler
56 years after Hiroshima, we're still on ground zero.
Joe Fineman
> So, if it is an underground test in Nevada, ground zero would be in
> China?
For events that happen underground, I believe one properly refers to
the *epicenter* -- a term equally often abused.
--
--- Joe Fineman j...@TheWorld.com
||: Your god is a mixture of your parents and their god. :||
Joe Fineman
> ObAUE: were there nuclear, as opposed to atomic, bombs in WWII?
"Nuclear bomb", as others on this thread have noted, is technically
correct but unidiomatic. "Atomic bomb", with its seductive assonance,
was started by science-fiction writers in the 1930s and picked up by
the newspapers. In the years after the war "atomic" was the popular
word for "nuclear", and found its way into governmental usage, so we
still have the Atomic Energy Commission, etc.
"Nuclear" has made a lot of progress since then, and now seems to be
the ordinary word in serious use before "weapons", "reactor", "-tipped
missiles", "disarmament", "fission", etc. "Bomb" is the last holdout.
But I have seen "nuclear bomb" several times in print, and I suspect
that it also will become usual before long.
As an atomic physicist among us has pointed out, there are such people
as atomic physicists, and their profession deserves a name. Before
"physics" & "physicist", at any rate, everyone should be careful to
use the right word.
--
--- Joe Fineman j...@TheWorld.com
||: Mens sana qui mal y pense. :||
Michael J Hardy
> Brian J Goggin <b...@wordwrights.ie> writes:
>
> > ObAUE: were there nuclear, as opposed to atomic, bombs in WWII?
>
> "Nuclear bomb", as others on this thread have noted, is technically
> correct but unidiomatic. "Atomic bomb", with its seductive assonance,
> was started by science-fiction writers in the 1930s and picked up by
> the newspapers. In the years after the war "atomic" was the popular
> word for "nuclear", and found its way into governmental usage, so we
> still have the Atomic Energy Commission, etc.
>
> "Nuclear" has made a lot of progress since then, and now seems to be
> the ordinary word in serious use before "weapons", "reactor", "-tipped
> missiles", "disarmament", "fission", etc. "Bomb" is the last holdout.
> But I have seen "nuclear bomb" several times in print, and I suspect
> that it also will become usual before long.
I'm 45 years old, and I've always thought that location to
be quite usual and commonplace, even if less frequently used than
"atomic bomb." I'm surprised to see some people saying it's unidiomatic.
Mike Hardy
Evan Kirshenbaum
> "Spehro Pefhany" <sp...@interlog.com> writes:
>
> > So, if it is an underground test in Nevada, ground zero would be
> > in China?
No, that's so far below it's above.
> For events that happen underground, I believe one properly refers to
> the *epicenter* -- a term equally often abused.
MWCD/ol simply says "the point directly above, below, or at which a
nuclear explosion occurs". While this omits the point that it is
necessarily "at ground level", I think it captures the idea.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The body was wrapped in duct tape,
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |weighted down with concrete blocks
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |and a telephone cord was tied
|around the neck. Police suspect
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |foul play...
(650)857-7572
Spehro Pefhany
> Sometimes the word "thermonuclear" is used.
A thermonuclear bomb is a specific type of atomic bomb (often called
the "H" bomb or hydrogen bomb). It uses a fusion reaction (involving
light atoms like lithium) to greatly increase the yield. The largest
weapons produced (up to somewhere in the 50 megaton region) have
been thermonuclear.
At it's heart is a plain old fission atomic bomb (typically plutonium
for small size or enriched uranium) to get the fun going. There are
also "boosted" fission bombs that are not considered thermonuclear
but use a small amount of fusion material to accelerate the reaction.
And there are neutron bombs, designed to have low yield (like a
tactical nuke, in the kilotons) but greatly enhanced radiation. The
relatively small weapons used on WWII were pure fission devices, one
plutonium and one uranium.
I believe modern weapons are similar but use a different initiator
than the original crude implosion and gun type self-initiating bombs.
Michael J Hardy
> I'm 45 years old, and I've always thought that location to
> be quite usual and commonplace,
Sorry -- I meant "that locution." -- Mike Hardy
R H Draney
<tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>May I expect reciprocal assistance from you in getting men
>(who are neither farmers nor firemen) from wearing
>suspenders? Be especially alert for men that wear
>suspenders with little ducks on them with striped shirts
>with white collars. (It's the shirts that have the stripes
>and white collars. Not the ducks) That, too, is an
>abomination. Together, we will improve both English usage
>and fashion.
I'm with you in spirit, but I don't see a lot of suspenders
about...the few that *do* impinge upon my vision seem to belong to the
exempted "farmers and firemen" class, so there's not going to be a lot
of opportunity for me to contribute to the cause....
Not even sure if I should start down this path...I do have long
sideburns and wear a fedora, so perhaps I'm on the wrong end of your
fashion sense myself....r
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>I often hear 'ground zero' mentioned with regard to WTC suicide
>attacks. Where does the phrase (especially 'zero') come from ?
It is the point on the ground directly beneath the place (up in the air) where
a nuclear bomb explodes.
In this case, it is the point on the ground directly beneath the place where
the aeroplanes hit the buildings.
It's a sort of antonym of "epicentre", which is the point on the ground
directly above an earthquake.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/steve.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Richard Fontana
> Not even sure if I should start down this path...I do have long
> sideburns and wear a fedora, so perhaps I'm on the wrong end of your
> fashion sense myself....r
Whoa! For some reason I've been picturing you looking like one of the
guys from the Bay City Rollers. No, I can't explain it.
This is pretty much what I had in mind:
http://www.kissdominion.com/X.HTM
http://www.vidwizard.com/bcr/group/28g.jpg
http://www.idv8.com/feelgroovy/pinups/bcr/bcr-alan.jpg
Mike Oliver
> "Nuclear" has made a lot of progress since then, and now seems to be
> the ordinary word in serious use before "weapons", "reactor", "-tipped
> missiles", "disarmament", "fission", etc.
Don't forget "magnetic resonance". It turned out to be impossible to
explain to the public that "nuclear magnetic resonance" was not going
to make them glow in the dark, so they had to change the name.
Mike Oliver
> Physicswise the bombs are nuclear. Atomic physics studies atomic and molecular
> interactions. These interactions are almost entirely governed by atomic
> electrons. Nuclear physics, for obvious reasons, is concerned with nuclear
> interactions. Two such interactions are fission and fusion: the stuff bombs
> are made from. There is a common confusion regarding atomic and nuclear
> physics. Personally, it has caused me some inconvenience because I am
> sometimes forced to give a physics mini-course when I'm asked what is my area
> of expertise and I unthinkingly answer atomic physics.
Out of curiosity, what would be the difference between "atomic physics"
as you describe it, and "quantum chemistry"?
Greg Recco
> "Nuclear bomb", as others on this thread have noted, is technically
> correct but unidiomatic. "Atomic bomb", with its seductive assonance,
> was started by science-fiction writers in the 1930s and picked up by
> the newspapers. In the years after the war "atomic" was the popular
> word for "nuclear", and found its way into governmental usage, so we
> still have the Atomic Energy Commission, etc.
I think we now have the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
From <http://www.osti.gov/opennet/nsi_desc.html>:
"From its inception in 1947 until its abolition in 1975, the Atomic
Energy Commission (AEC) carried out a congressional mandate for a
large federal role in atomic energy development."
Murray Arnow
Same thing. Advanced chemistry is a subset of physics -- actually, all
chemistry is a subset of physics. And some chemists I met have an excellent
grasp of QM.
Mark Brader
> [Ground zero] is the point on the ground directly beneath the place
> (up in the air) where a nuclear bomb explodes.
> directly above an earthquake.
And in another sense it's a synonym, because both could be defined
mathematically as the result of projecting the original point onto
a reference surface.
So which is important, the fact that they're both the results of a
projection, or the fact that one is a projection upwards and one is
downwards? It seems to me that we need a *separate* term for this
"sort of antonym" -- a word whose definition is the same as the other,
except for the reversal of an important part. They often show up on
contronym lists, but they're not real contronyms either.
Anyone have a suitable prefix to propose applying to -onym for this?
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | "When I wanted to be a sigquote, that wasn't
m...@vex.net | the one I was thinking of." --Clive Feather
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Mark Barratt
<tony_co...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Damn! Back to the fashion store...
N.Mitchum
----
> >An Americanism dating from WWII: the land or water directly below
> >the detonation of a nuclear bomb.
>
If an A-bomb isn't nuclear, what is it?
----NM
N.Mitchum
----
> >An Americanism dating from WWII: the land or water directly below
> >the detonation of a nuclear bomb. It's since been degraded into
> >an all-purpose metaphor, however, and has been applied to the most
> >inappropriate situations. I'm sure the government PR men used it
> >in connection with the suicide attacks to reinforce the notion
> >that this was an act of war.
>
> There was total destruction at ground zero
Total destruction does not equate to "ground zero," not as far as
I'm concerned. Mt. St. Helen knocked down a lot of trees, but I
can't bring myself to describe it as being at ground zero. Some
California earthquakes wreak enormous damage, but we don't speak
of their having a ground zero. (For that, we have another
much-abused term, "epicenter.") Forest fires destroy millions of
acres of greenery but don't have a ground zero.
It was the collapse of the two towers that caused so much
destruction, and not the impact of the two planes. Had the
buildings remained standing even a few hours longer and everyone
had evacuated them, the country would be doing much less
hand-wringing and public moaning. No ground zero. No fluffy toy
bears left on the sidewalks, no crude poems hung on chain-link
fences, no colored ribbons tacked all over the place, no cheap
sentiments left for TV cameras to capture.
What's really inappropriate is to describe something as "the
ground zero of advances in the microchip industry" or as "ground
zero in comic-book innovation" or as "ground zero of marketing."
(You can replace all these with "epicenter" for equal
meaninglessness.)
----NM
Frances Kemmish
>
> Truly Donovan wrote:
> ----
> > >An Americanism dating from WWII: the land or water directly below
> > >the detonation of a nuclear bomb. It's since been degraded into
> > >an all-purpose metaphor, however, and has been applied to the most
> > >inappropriate situations. I'm sure the government PR men used it
> > >in connection with the suicide attacks to reinforce the notion
> > >that this was an act of war.
> >
> > I find the WTC situation entirely appropriate for its use; [...]
> > There was total destruction at ground zero
> >....
>
> Total destruction does not equate to "ground zero," not as far as
> I'm concerned. Mt. St. Helen knocked down a lot of trees, but I
> can't bring myself to describe it as being at ground zero. Some
> California earthquakes wreak enormous damage, but we don't speak
> of their having a ground zero. (For that, we have another
> much-abused term, "epicenter.") Forest fires destroy millions of
> acres of greenery but don't have a ground zero.
>
It was not the destruction which made "ground zero" an appropriate
designation, nor is that what Ms Donovan said. It is appropriate
because the event which caused the destruction happened many feet in
the air. Your references to forest fires and the eruption of Mt St
Helens are irrelevant.
> It was the collapse of the two towers that caused so much
> destruction, and not the impact of the two planes. Had the
> buildings remained standing even a few hours longer and everyone
> had evacuated them, the country would be doing much less
> hand-wringing and public moaning. No ground zero.
>
Even had the buildings stood many hours longer, there would still have
been great loss of life. Many people, after all, were evacuated, but
those above the sites of the plane crahses were either killed in the
initial explosions, or trapped by the ensuing fires.
>No fluffy toy
> bears left on the sidewalks, no crude poems hung on chain-link
> fences, no colored ribbons tacked all over the place, no cheap
> sentiments left for TV cameras to capture.
The sentiments may seem cheap to those of you living three thousand
miles away, but they seem more expensive to the bereaved around here.
Fran
Joe Fineman
> Don't forget "magnetic resonance". It turned out to be impossible
> to explain to the public that "nuclear magnetic resonance" was not
> going to make them glow in the dark, so they had to change the name.
Well, to be generous:
1. In "magnetic resonance imaging", "nuclear" would be otiose, since
the other kind of magnetic resonance (electron paramagnetic
resonance) is AFAIK not used for imaging.
2. "Nuclear" might make ignorant patients think, not merely of
glowing in the dark, but of radiation therapy -- not a mere
diagnostic tool, but a fairly desperate treatment for various
cancers. No point in giving people, even ignorant people, extra
worries.
--
--- Joe Fineman j...@TheWorld.com
||: Make it idiot-proof, and someone will make a better idiot. :||
Joe Fineman
Remarkably, I never knew this. I had heard of the NRC, but I thought
it existed in parallel with the AEC, the idea being to put development
& safety, which require conflicting enthusiasms, in the care of
different organizations. IMO, it would have been a good idea to do
that from the beginning.
Is there still a UKAEA?
--
--- Joe Fineman j...@TheWorld.com
||: Wave functions are the dreams that stuff is made on. :||
Joe Fineman
> Mike Oliver <oli...@math.ucla.edu> wrote:
> >Out of curiosity, what would be the difference between "atomic
> >physics" as you describe it, and "quantum chemistry"?
>
> Same thing.
I think you have to have at least two atoms to do chemistry. There
are people who study, say, the energy levels of atoms, their
excitation by bombardment with various particles, the emission of
x-rays, etc. They are atomic physicists, but surely not chemists.
> Advanced chemistry is a subset of physics -- actually, all chemistry
> is a subset of physics.
Well, sort of. There are still purely chemical concepts, notably the
chemical bond, whose reduction to Schrodinger's equation is not
straightforward, and that have to be learned by doing chemistry. For
a discussion of this point by Linus Pauling (who was all for putting
as much physics in chemistry as he could), see the end of Section 1-3
in _The Nature of the Chemical Bond_.
> And some chemists I met have an excellent grasp of QM.
I should hope so! And the same, no doubt, for electrical engineers.
But that doesn't make them physicists.
--
--- Joe Fineman j...@TheWorld.com
||: The end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we :||
||: started and know the place for the first time. :||
Evan Kirshenbaum
> "N.Mitchum" wrote:
> >
> > Truly Donovan wrote:
> >
> > > I find the WTC situation entirely appropriate for its use; [...]
> > > There was total destruction at ground zero
> >
> > Total destruction does not equate to "ground zero," not as far as
> > I'm concerned. Mt. St. Helen knocked down a lot of trees, but I
> > can't bring myself to describe it as being at ground zero. Some
> > California earthquakes wreak enormous damage, but we don't speak
> > of their having a ground zero. (For that, we have another
> > much-abused term, "epicenter.") Forest fires destroy millions of
> > acres of greenery but don't have a ground zero.
>
> It was not the destruction which made "ground zero" an appropriate
> designation, nor is that what Ms Donovan said. It is appropriate
> because the event which caused the destruction happened many feet in
> the air.
And also that the extent of damage to surrounding areas was roughly
proportional to the distance from the buildings (which is what Truly
said--total destruction at ground zero, significant destruction
nearby, then less, then finally none.)
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |The great thing about Microsoft
1501 Page Mill Road, Building 1U |dominating the world is that
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |there's no shortage of support
|opportunities.
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com | Sam Alvis
(650)857-7572
Spehro Pefhany
> And also that the extent of damage to surrounding areas was roughly
> proportional to the distance from the buildings (which is what Truly
> said--total destruction at ground zero, significant destruction
> nearby, then less, then finally none.)
A domed reinforced building in Hiroshima, only 160m from ground zero
remained standing and has been preserved as a memorial. A lot of the
buildings at the time were not very sturdy and caught fire easily.
Japanese sites (in English) seem to use the word 'hypocenter' rather
than 'ground zero'.
Truly Donovan
<aj...@lafn.org> wrote:
>Truly Donovan wrote:
>----
>> >An Americanism dating from WWII: the land or water directly below
>> >the detonation of a nuclear bomb. It's since been degraded into
>> >an all-purpose metaphor, however, and has been applied to the most
>> >inappropriate situations. I'm sure the government PR men used it
>> >in connection with the suicide attacks to reinforce the notion
>> >that this was an act of war.
>>
>> I find the WTC situation entirely appropriate for its use; [...]
>> There was total destruction at ground zero
>>....
>
>Total destruction does not equate to "ground zero," not as far as
>I'm concerned.
I didn't say that it did. I was describing why I thought the
term was appropriate.
>Forest fires destroy millions of
>acres of greenery but don't have a ground zero.
Actually, they do, but it's only a useful idea in arson
investigations.
>
>It was the collapse of the two towers that caused so much
>destruction, and not the impact of the two planes.
You mean the towers were going to fall down anyway?
>
>What's really inappropriate is to describe something as "the
>ground zero of advances in the microchip industry" or as "ground
>zero in comic-book innovation" or as "ground zero of marketing."
I said the term was appropriate for the WTC disaster. Did
you miss that?
--
Truly Donovan
http://www.trulydonovan.com
Murray Arnow
>ar...@iname.com (Murray Arnow) writes:
>
>> Mike Oliver <oli...@math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
>> >Out of curiosity, what would be the difference between "atomic
>> >physics" as you describe it, and "quantum chemistry"?
>>
>> Same thing.
>
>I think you have to have at least two atoms to do chemistry. There
>are people who study, say, the energy levels of atoms, their
>excitation by bombardment with various particles, the emission of
>x-rays, etc. They are atomic physicists, but surely not chemists.
>
>> Advanced chemistry is a subset of physics -- actually, all chemistry
>> is a subset of physics.
>
>Well, sort of. There are still purely chemical concepts, notably the
>chemical bond, whose reduction to Schrodinger's equation is not
>straightforward, and that have to be learned by doing chemistry. For
>a discussion of this point by Linus Pauling (who was all for putting
>as much physics in chemistry as he could), see the end of Section 1-3
>in _The Nature of the Chemical Bond_.
>
>> And some chemists I met have an excellent grasp of QM.
>
>I should hope so! And the same, no doubt, for electrical engineers.
>But that doesn't make them physicists.
After reading your reply, I'm not sure what you think a physicist is.
Michael J Hardy
> Don't forget "magnetic resonance". It turned out to be impossible to
> explain to the public that "nuclear magnetic resonance" was not going
> to make them glow in the dark, so they had to change the name.
But what about the "nuclear family"? Will that make me glow
in the dark? -- Mike Hardy
Steve Hayes
>What's really inappropriate is to describe something as "the
>ground zero of advances in the microchip industry" or as "ground
>zero in comic-book innovation" or as "ground zero of marketing."
>(You can replace all these with "epicenter" for equal
>meaninglessness.)
Not quite the same.
At least epicentre means you're on top of it, while ground zero implies that
you are under the circumstances.
After all, who doesn't aspire to be top dog under the circumstances?
Steve Hayes
>The renowned Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
>> And also that the extent of damage to surrounding areas was roughly
>> proportional to the distance from the buildings (which is what Truly
>> said--total destruction at ground zero, significant destruction
>> nearby, then less, then finally none.)
>
>A domed reinforced building in Hiroshima, only 160m from ground zero
>remained standing and has been preserved as a memorial. A lot of the
>buildings at the time were not very sturdy and caught fire easily.
>
>Japanese sites (in English) seem to use the word 'hypocenter' rather
>than 'ground zero'.
Same meaning, surely - the point on the ground directly beneath the impact,
explosion etc. One could also speak of "ground zero" beneath the point where
where two planes collided, even if there was no damage there.
Steve Hayes
>Steve Hayes writes:
>> [Ground zero] is the point on the ground directly beneath the place
>> (up in the air) where a nuclear bomb explodes.
>
>> It's a sort of antonym of "epicentre", which is the point on the ground
>> directly above an earthquake.
>
>And in another sense it's a synonym, because both could be defined
>mathematically as the result of projecting the original point onto
>a reference surface.
>
>So which is important, the fact that they're both the results of a
>projection, or the fact that one is a projection upwards and one is
>downwards? It seems to me that we need a *separate* term for this
>"sort of antonym" -- a word whose definition is the same as the other,
>except for the reversal of an important part. They often show up on
>contronym lists, but they're not real contronyms either.
>
>Anyone have a suitable prefix to propose applying to -onym for this?
Interesting point. It's a "sort of" antonym because up and down are usually
perceived as opposites. In another sense it bears no relation, because the
event takes place in a different medium. To illustrate this by making at least
some other things equal, let's postulate an explosion of a 100 megaton nuclear
bomb. In one instance it is 500 metres above the ground, and in another 500
metres below the ground. I fancy the effects at ground zero in the former case
and at the epicentre in the latter would be quite different, because the
explosion would be taking place in a different medium (or should I say media
now, since many claim that it has replaced medium?)
Skitt
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3bac376c...@news.saix.net...
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 23:27:59 GMT, "Spehro Pefhany" <sp...@interlog.com>
wrote:
>
> >The renowned Evan Kirshenbaum <kirsh...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
> >
> >> And also that the extent of damage to surrounding areas was roughly
> >> proportional to the distance from the buildings (which is what Truly
> >> said--total destruction at ground zero, significant destruction
> >> nearby, then less, then finally none.)
> >
> >A domed reinforced building in Hiroshima, only 160m from ground zero
> >remained standing and has been preserved as a memorial. A lot of the
> >buildings at the time were not very sturdy and caught fire easily.
> >
> >Japanese sites (in English) seem to use the word 'hypocenter' rather
> >than 'ground zero'.
>
> Same meaning, surely - the point on the ground directly beneath the
impact,
> explosion etc. One could also speak of "ground zero" beneath the point
where
> where two planes collided, even if there was no damage there.
It might be time to quote MWCD10:
Main Entry: ground zero
Function: noun
Date: 1946
1 : the point directly above, below, or at which a nuclear explosion occurs
2 : the center or origin of rapid, intense, or violent activity or change
3 : the very beginning : SQUARE ONE
--
Skitt (in SF Bay Area) http://www.geocities.com/opus731/
I speak English well -- I learn it from a book!
-- Manuel of "Fawlty Towers" (he's from Barcelona).
Truly Donovan
<fkem...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>It was not the destruction which made "ground zero" an appropriate
>designation, nor is that what Ms Donovan said. It is appropriate
>because the event which caused the destruction happened many feet in
>the air.
I don't agree that elevation is a necessary condition for
use of the metaphor.
Brian J Goggin
wrote:
>If an A-bomb isn't nuclear, what is it?
One before a B-bomb.
But from what I can gather, the term used at the time of H & N was
"atomic bomb" rather than "nuclear bomb".
bjg
Murray Arnow
>
>But from what I can gather, the term used at the time of H & N was
>"atomic bomb" rather than "nuclear bomb".
>
I don't believe any designation was given at that time other than a bomb of
great destructive force.
N.Mitchum
----
> >Total destruction does not equate to "ground zero," not as far as
> >I'm concerned.
>
> I didn't say that it did. I was describing why I thought the
> term was appropriate.
Which depended on the extent of destruction, no?
----
> >It was the collapse of the two towers that caused so much
> >destruction, and not the impact of the two planes.
>
> You mean the towers were going to fall down anyway?
>....
I mean that, had they stood awhile longer, there would have been
less loss of life and Americans would not be going on and on about
the "tragedy" or insisting that "the world has changed." Imagine
it had happened on a Sunday morning and the buildings had been
empty -- would we be describing it in the same apocalyptic terms?
----
> >What's really inappropriate is to describe something as "the
> >ground zero of advances in the microchip industry" or as "ground
> >zero in comic-book innovation" or as "ground zero of marketing."
>
> I said the term was appropriate for the WTC disaster. Did
> you miss that?
>....
The thread started out as a discussion of the appropriateness of
"ground zero," didn't it? (I'm not absolutely sure of this -- my
server keeps posts for only three days.) I was referring back to
what I believed was the original article.
----NM
Brian J Goggin
wrote:
There are some documents on
http://www.whistlestop.org/study_collections/bomb/large/bomb.htm
that suggest that the term "atomic bomb" was in use at the time. See
for instance
http://www.whistlestop.org/study_collections/bomb/small/mb11.htm
bjg
Murray Arnow
>On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 20:41:22 GMT, ar...@iname.com (Murray Arnow)
>wrote:
>
>>Brian J Goggin <b...@wordwrights.ie> wrote:
>
>>>But from what I can gather, the term used at the time of H & N was
>>>"atomic bomb" rather than "nuclear bomb".
>
>>I don't believe any designation was given at that time other than a bomb of
>>great destructive force.
>
>There are some documents on
>
>http://www.whistlestop.org/study_collections/bomb/large/bomb.htm
>
>that suggest that the term "atomic bomb" was in use at the time. See
>for instance
>
>http://www.whistlestop.org/study_collections/bomb/small/mb11.htm
>
You are right. The notes from The Interim Committe use "atomic bomb;" e.g.,
http://www.
whistlestop.org/study_collections/bomb/large/interim_committee/text/bmi4tx.htm
Spehro Pefhany
"Atomic Bomb" and, I think, "Atom Bomb" were used at the time.
A newspaper headline from the Dayton Daily News (August 6, 1945)
_Atomic Bomb, Most Destructive Force in History, Hits Japan_
_Stimson Sees War Shortened by Use of Deadly Missile_
Ref: http://www.mitchellarchives.com/wwii.html
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>Same meaning, surely - the point on the ground directly beneath the impact,
>explosion etc. One could also speak of "ground zero" beneath the point where
>where two planes collided, even if there was no damage there.
One could but one never does. Ground zero is under an explosion, not
just an impact. If two birds collide in the air -- which I've
occasionally seen -- one does not speak of a "ground zero". Your
batting average ain't too good today, young Steve.
Charles Riggs
Charles Riggs
Be gracious enough, Brian, to at least accord them the full names of
their cities; Truman shamelessly blew them up but not wholly to bits
and initials.
Charles Riggs
Stan Busby
The gazebo at the center of the pentagon's
circles of rings is often referred to by locals
as "ground zero".
Brian J Goggin
<chr...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
>Be gracious enough, Brian, to at least accord them the full names of
>their cities; Truman shamelessly blew them up but not wholly to bits
>and initials.
The expansion of the initials is left as an exercise for the reader.
Next time, I'll do h&n.
bjg
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 08:17:59 GMT, haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes)
Well one could quiblbe about the definition of an explosion, I suppose. But if
two planes collided in midair and one or both of them caught fire, cone could
describe the resulting fire as an explosion. If a plane his a building, as in
this case, a fire was caused. And the point beneath the impact is being
described, quite frequently, as "ground zero".
I think the reason for so describing it is that there is nothing now to be
seen at the point of impact. "Ground zero" accurately describes the damage
that is now directly below the point of impact.
Frances Kemmish
>
> The gazebo at the center of the pentagon's
> circles of rings is often referred to by locals
> as "ground zero".
There is a restaurant in South Norwalk call "Ground Zero". Friends of
mine ate lunch there last week, and asked one of the waiters whether
the name was going to be changed. Apparently not.
Fran
Frances Kemmish
>
> Truly Donovan wrote:
> ----
> > >Total destruction does not equate to "ground zero," not as far as
> > >I'm concerned.
> >
> > I didn't say that it did. I was describing why I thought the
> > term was appropriate.
> >....
>
> Which depended on the extent of destruction, no?
>
> ----
> > >It was the collapse of the two towers that caused so much
> > >destruction, and not the impact of the two planes.
> >
> > You mean the towers were going to fall down anyway?
> >....
>
> I mean that, had they stood awhile longer, there would have been
> less loss of life and Americans would not be going on and on about
> the "tragedy" or insisting that "the world has changed." Imagine
> it had happened on a Sunday morning and the buildings had been
> empty -- would we be describing it in the same apocalyptic terms?
>
The buildings were never empty; there would have been fewer people
there on a Sunday morning, certainly, but still a fair number; and the
planes would not have been empty.
I think the images of aeroplanes flying into the Twin Towers were so
horrifying that - even had the buildings not collapsed - it would
still seem "apocalyptic", and there would still have been thousands of
people killed: more than a thousand were trapped in the North
Tower above the fire from the first plane's impact[1]. Do you really
think that the crashing of even one commercial airliner into one of
the Twin Towers, and the loss of over a thousand people would not
have been a "tragedy"? Would you not think this a sign of the USA's
vulnerability to attack and a sign of the world having changed?
I was driving to work on that Tuesday morning, not long after the
second plane crashed, and stopped for gas. I had a conversation with
the gas station owner, who was as stunned as I by the events
unfolding, and said that he thought this was the end of the USA's
feeling of insulation from terrorist attack. This was before either
tower had collapsed.
The collapse of the Towers was certainly cataclysmic - my daughter
watched it from the beach fifty miles away. The collapse certainly
made the casualty toll very much higher, and the work of finding
bodies, and evidence of what happened much more difficult and
dangerous, but it would have been awful even without the collapse.
[1] From newspaper reports: 700 at Cantor, Fitzgerald; 100 at a
conference with Risk,Waters; more than 100 employees of Windows on the
World; 300 at Marsh, Mclennan, and so on.
N.Mitchum
----
> >If an A-bomb isn't nuclear, what is it?
>
> "atomic bomb" rather than "nuclear bomb".
I wasn't referring only to the A-bombs dropped in 1945. "Ground
zero" did apply originally to the first A-bomb blasts, but other
types of nuclear weapons followed and the term was extended to
them as well. By using "nuclear," I was hoping to say more while
writing less.
----NM
Charles Riggs
wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 02:50:11 +0100, Charles Riggs <chr...@gofree.indigo.ie>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 22 Sep 2001 08:17:59 GMT, haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes)
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Same meaning, surely - the point on the ground directly beneath the impact,
>>>explosion etc. One could also speak of "ground zero" beneath the point where
>>>where two planes collided, even if there was no damage there.
>>
>>One could but one never does. Ground zero is under an explosion, not
>>just an impact. If two birds collide in the air -- which I've
>>occasionally seen -- one does not speak of a "ground zero". Your
>>batting average ain't too good today, young Steve.
>
>Well one could quiblbe about the definition of an explosion, I suppose. But if
>two planes collided in midair and one or both of them caught fire, cone could
>describe the resulting fire as an explosion. If a plane his a building, as in
>this case, a fire was caused. And the point beneath the impact is being
>described, quite frequently, as "ground zero".
>
>I think the reason for so describing it is that there is nothing now to be
>seen at the point of impact. "Ground zero" accurately describes the damage
>that is now directly below the point of impact.
I see your point and it is true that some journalists are referring to
it as ground zero, though I think a bit inaccurately. I think of
ground zero as being the point under a nuclear explosion though I see
that while Oxford agrees, they say it could also be any type of bomb
explosion. An airplane loaded with fuel is somewhat like a bomb isn't
it?
Charles Riggs
Steve Hayes
As, I think, were the rest of us. "Nuclear" seems to cover A-bombs, H-bombs,
fission bombs, fusion bombs and other such bombs.
They are often set to explode in the air, and when they do, "ground zero" is
the place on the ground directly below the explosion. I don't see that the
particular type of bomb makes a difference.
Steve Hayes
wrote:
>On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 10:43:57 GMT, haye...@yahoo.com (Steve Hayes)
>wrote:
>>I think the reason for so describing it is that there is nothing now to be
>>seen at the point of impact. "Ground zero" accurately describes the damage
>>that is now directly below the point of impact.
>
>I see your point and it is true that some journalists are referring to
>it as ground zero, though I think a bit inaccurately. I think of
>ground zero as being the point under a nuclear explosion though I see
>that while Oxford agrees, they say it could also be any type of bomb
>explosion. An airplane loaded with fuel is somewhat like a bomb isn't
>it?
Yes, and my chemistry teacher at school said an explosion was rapid burning in
a confined space, so I suppose one could say that the planes "exploded".
As has been said elsewhere, the term "ground zero" originated with nuclear
weapons.
I'm not a weapons fundi, so if there are any here they can correct me, but I
understood that it was first used of nuclear weapons because nuclear bombs
exploded in the air *above* the target. Conventional high explosve bombs were
supposed to penetrate buildings and explode inside them to do the damage. An
atomic bomb could flatten buildings by exploding above them, with the greatest
damage taking place at ground zero.
In this case, the initial damage to the buildings was done by the planes at
the point of impact, but since they collapsed, there is nothing to see there.
So it is entirely appropriate to talk of "ground zero", since the analogy is
easy to understand.
Harro de Jong
>Yes, and my chemistry teacher at school said an explosion was rapid
>burning in a confined space, so I suppose one could say that the planes
>"exploded".
The difference between an explosion and a fire is that an explosion
propagates at a speed of Mach 1 or up. I don't think the plane crashes
resulted in explosions; the fireball was caused by the speed of the fuel
itself.
--
Harro de Jong
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> As, I think, were the rest of us. "Nuclear" seems to cover A-bombs, H-bombs,
> fission bombs, fusion bombs and other such bombs.
My recollection is that the fusion type are called "thermonuclear."
I don't know whether that's to differentiate them from the fission
variety, called "nuclear," or to designate them as a subset of
nuclear.
My mind's ear hears "thermonucular," of course.
> They are often set to explode in the air, and when they do, "ground zero" is
> the place on the ground directly below the explosion. I don't see that the
> particular type of bomb makes a difference.
Nor do I. And whether you regard the use of "ground zero" for the
site of the demolished Twin Towers as in conformity with the
traditional use of the term or as a metaphorical extension, I see
nothing wrong with using it. Indeed, I suspect that that will
become the principal use of the term, and people will be explaining
the etymology to their kids in years to come.