In article ,
says...

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:01:29 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 23:58:16 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:24:52 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 18:11:51 -0400, wrote:

They have a similar scenario for New York City with Long
Island Sound acting the same way.
The History Channel even did a show on it.

The risk to NYC is much less because the vast majority of the land is
well above sea level, unlike New Orleans which is mostly below. About
once every ten years or so lower Manhattan near the Wall Street area
gets flooded by a combination of high tides and strong north easterly
winds but there is little long term impact. Probably the biggest
property risk to to the south shores of both Long Island and
Conecticut. They are highly developed with a lot of expensive real
estate.


That is not really true Wayne. Certainly the streets are above sea
level but there are several floors below sea level in most of the
buildings in Manhattan. Of course you also have the subway system and
all the utility tunnels that are not real tolerant of salt water and
link the city together
If water ever goes over the battery and gets into the subway in
quantities the pumps can't handle, the place is screwed. There are
lots of building with direct subway access, even if the water never
gets above the road in mid town it could still flood plenty of
buildings, wipe out underground utilities, flood the sewers and
contaminate the water supply.
These people are saying a 10-15 foot storm surge is not unreasonable
if a cat 3 hit in L.I. Sound. Basically a Katrina storm

Most of Manhattan has fairly good elevation except for the Wall Street
area. I worked on Wall Street for many years and saw a few floods
along the way. The subways are amazingly resilient once power is
restored and things get pumped out. Fresh water comes down from the
Catskill Mountains north of the city and is quite resistent to
contamination on Wall St.

The hurricane of 1938 was similar to the scenario you are describing.
It came into eastern LIS as a Cat 3 and did enormous damage throughout
Long Island and southern New England. The storm surge in NYC knocked
out power and subways, flooded a bunch of sub-basements, etc, but
things were running again in fairly short order. Not true further
east however; places like Block Island still have very few large trees
as a result of that storm, and many coastal towns have hurricane
barriers and gates as a result. There are pictures in the lobby of
Edgartown Yacht Club on Martha's Vineyard that show incredible
devastation to the town and harbor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Eng...ricane_of_1938

I am just going on what I have heard. They say New York is more
vulnerable than it was in 1938 and the hurricane could be more of a
direct hit.
You would certainly have a very low evacuation rate so there could be
10 million people trapped in the city.

Watch it, if you disagree with Plume, you'll be called names and
insulted! Remind you of anybody else here? That's right, I taught her
well.

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:32:40 -0400, wrote:

It really would depend on how much damage there was around the rest of
the region.
Perhaps you just don't understand how hard it is to keep a million
people in food and water.
That was the problem in New Orleans. How do you come up with a
millions bottles of water in a few hours and then do it again
tomorrow, and then the day after.

That is one of the major differences between NYC and New Orleans. The
flooded areas of NO were completely cut off. The approaches to the
north end of Manhattan are a minimum of 25 feet off the water (Harlem
River bridges), to several hundred feet (George Washington and Henry
Hudson bridges). The East River bridges to Brooklyn and Queens are a
minimum of 127 ft above sea level. In addition you have the tunnels
to New Jersey and Brooklyn, all of which have their own emergency
power and pumps. All of the land areas to the north have very high
elevation except for Long Island Sound and Hudson River shore
communities.

wrote in message
news
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:00:31 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

You would certainly have a very low evacuation rate so there could be
10 million people trapped in the city.

I have a feeling that those living in the low-lands of Wall Street are
probably going to get all the protection and help they can buy.

It really would depend on how much damage there was around the rest of
the region.
Perhaps you just don't understand how hard it is to keep a million
people in food and water.
That was the problem in New Orleans. How do you come up with a
millions bottles of water in a few hours and then do it again
tomorrow, and then the day after.

It's their fault if they run out. All those banker types need our help!!

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 11:32:40 -0400, wrote:

It really would depend on how much damage there was around the rest of
the region.
Perhaps you just don't understand how hard it is to keep a million
people in food and water.
That was the problem in New Orleans. How do you come up with a
millions bottles of water in a few hours and then do it again
tomorrow, and then the day after.

That is one of the major differences between NYC and New Orleans. The
flooded areas of NO were completely cut off. The approaches to the
north end of Manhattan are a minimum of 25 feet off the water (Harlem
River bridges), to several hundred feet (George Washington and Henry
Hudson bridges). The East River bridges to Brooklyn and Queens are a
minimum of 127 ft above sea level. In addition you have the tunnels
to New Jersey and Brooklyn, all of which have their own emergency
power and pumps. All of the land areas to the north have very high
elevation except for Long Island Sound and Hudson River shore
communities.


Thus it's the poor people's fault! LOL

"Secular Humanist" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:01:29 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 23:58:16 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:24:52 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 18:11:51 -0400, wrote:

They have a similar scenario for New York City with Long
Island Sound acting the same way.
The History Channel even did a show on it.

The risk to NYC is much less because the vast majority of the land is
well above sea level, unlike New Orleans which is mostly below. About
once every ten years or so lower Manhattan near the Wall Street area
gets flooded by a combination of high tides and strong north easterly
winds but there is little long term impact. Probably the biggest
property risk to to the south shores of both Long Island and
Conecticut. They are highly developed with a lot of expensive real
estate.


That is not really true Wayne. Certainly the streets are above sea
level but there are several floors below sea level in most of the
buildings in Manhattan. Of course you also have the subway system and
all the utility tunnels that are not real tolerant of salt water and
link the city together
If water ever goes over the battery and gets into the subway in
quantities the pumps can't handle, the place is screwed. There are
lots of building with direct subway access, even if the water never
gets above the road in mid town it could still flood plenty of
buildings, wipe out underground utilities, flood the sewers and
contaminate the water supply.
These people are saying a 10-15 foot storm surge is not unreasonable
if a cat 3 hit in L.I. Sound. Basically a Katrina storm

Most of Manhattan has fairly good elevation except for the Wall Street
area. I worked on Wall Street for many years and saw a few floods
along the way. The subways are amazingly resilient once power is
restored and things get pumped out. Fresh water comes down from the
Catskill Mountains north of the city and is quite resistent to
contamination on Wall St.

The hurricane of 1938 was similar to the scenario you are describing.
It came into eastern LIS as a Cat 3 and did enormous damage throughout
Long Island and southern New England. The storm surge in NYC knocked
out power and subways, flooded a bunch of sub-basements, etc, but
things were running again in fairly short order. Not true further
east however; places like Block Island still have very few large trees
as a result of that storm, and many coastal towns have hurricane
barriers and gates as a result. There are pictures in the lobby of
Edgartown Yacht Club on Martha's Vineyard that show incredible
devastation to the town and harbor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Eng...ricane_of_1938

I am just going on what I have heard. They say New York is more
vulnerable than it was in 1938 and the hurricane could be more of a
direct hit.
You would certainly have a very low evacuation rate so there could be
10 million people trapped in the city.

Watch it, if you disagree with Plume, you'll be called names and
insulted! Remind you of anybody else here? That's right, I taught her
well.

Watch it, if you're not a right-wing fascist, you can't join the moron club!

wrote in message
news
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 10:23:28 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
news
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:00:31 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

You would certainly have a very low evacuation rate so there could be
10 million people trapped in the city.

I have a feeling that those living in the low-lands of Wall Street are
probably going to get all the protection and help they can buy.

It really would depend on how much damage there was around the rest of
the region.
Perhaps you just don't understand how hard it is to keep a million
people in food and water.
That was the problem in New Orleans. How do you come up with a
millions bottles of water in a few hours and then do it again
tomorrow, and then the day after.

It's their fault if they run out. All those banker types need our help!!

I was really referring to the problem with supplying New Orleans after
the storm but I will accept your answer ;-)


LOL - I figured you would!

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 10:23:28 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
news
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 01:00:31 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

You would certainly have a very low evacuation rate so there could be
10 million people trapped in the city.

I have a feeling that those living in the low-lands of Wall Street are
probably going to get all the protection and help they can buy.

It really would depend on how much damage there was around the rest of
the region.
Perhaps you just don't understand how hard it is to keep a million
people in food and water.
That was the problem in New Orleans. How do you come up with a
millions bottles of water in a few hours and then do it again
tomorrow, and then the day after.

It's their fault if they run out. All those banker types need our help!!

I was really referring to the problem with supplying New Orleans after
the storm but I will accept your answer ;-)

Logistics, its all about logistics.

Do you get the winter clothing sent in May or September?

wrote in message
news
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:11:09 -0400, BAR wrote:

That was the problem in New Orleans. How do you come up with a
millions bottles of water in a few hours and then do it again
tomorrow, and then the day after.

It's their fault if they run out. All those banker types need our
help!!

I was really referring to the problem with supplying New Orleans after
the storm but I will accept your answer ;-)

Logistics, its all about logistics.

Do you get the winter clothing sent in May or September?

That is why they always say we better expect it to take a week before
we get any meaningful help from the outside world. You can't really
stockpile supplies locally because nobody knows where the storm will
hit until after it does. NOAA guesses are still only 5 days out max.
You also need to stockpile the supplies away from the areas that will
need them. You don't want your warehouse blown up in the storm. It
takes a while to mobilize the transport for this stuff.

And, all of this is the responsibility of the poor who are living
day-to-day. Basically, that's what you're saying.

On 8/25/10 5:11 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:

wrote in message
news
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 15:11:09 -0400, BAR wrote:

That was the problem in New Orleans. How do you come up with a
millions bottles of water in a few hours and then do it again
tomorrow, and then the day after.

It's their fault if they run out. All those banker types need our
help!!

I was really referring to the problem with supplying New Orleans after
the storm but I will accept your answer ;-)

Logistics, its all about logistics.

Do you get the winter clothing sent in May or September?

That is why they always say we better expect it to take a week before
we get any meaningful help from the outside world. You can't really
stockpile supplies locally because nobody knows where the storm will
hit until after it does. NOAA guesses are still only 5 days out max.
You also need to stockpile the supplies away from the areas that will
need them. You don't want your warehouse blown up in the storm. It
takes a while to mobilize the transport for this stuff.

And, all of this is the responsibility of the poor who are living
day-to-day. Basically, that's what you're saying.




Well, of course...they're poor. Jesus, after all, said it was ok to
treat the poor like ****.

Oh, wait...that wasn't Jesus...it was the conservatives...including, of
course, the christian conservatives.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 22:06:42 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:09:49 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


"Wayne.B" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 18:11:51 -0400, wrote:

They have a similar scenario for New York City with Long
Island Sound acting the same way.
The History Channel even did a show on it.

The risk to NYC is much less because the vast majority of the land is
well above sea level, unlike New Orleans which is mostly below. About
once every ten years or so lower Manhattan near the Wall Street area
gets flooded by a combination of high tides and strong north easterly
winds but there is little long term impact. Probably the biggest
property risk to to the south shores of both Long Island and
Conecticut. They are highly developed with a lot of expensive real
estate.


Maybe FEMA should force them to leave!

I bet you FEMA forces them to follow the datum plane rules.
These people also have easy evacuation routes to high ground and the
resources to rebuild their houses in a code conforming way.


Better yet, FEMA should move them to one of their
concentration/reeducation
camps.


You are just getting silly now.
BTW I understand you have a similar problem around Sacramento
with an ancient levee system that is likely to fail and flood a huge
area.

Sacramento is not the major levee threat. But politicians took some bribes,
oops campaign donations to change the flood plane around parts of Sacramento
to not be a flood plane and the developers build thousands of homes on those
no longer flood planes.