| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
OT La Migra redux
wrote in message ... On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 11:23:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: People with resources are always shocked by those without them. People who think ahead have the resources. If you can't have a week's worth of food, basic rations, not gourmet meals, you don't think much of your life. This is food you can still eat in November if you don't have a storm so you are not wasting any money. Basically, you're blaming the working poor who have kids, parents, and relatives they're taking care of and have minimal disposable income. You're also blaming all the people in the hospitals who were bedridden, those without cars, and those living from day to day. The ones below sea level should have been evacuated well before the storm but they wouldn't go. BS. Most of them tried to leave, but were unable to. Many ended up in the stadium because that's where they were taken or told to go. They did not try to leave until AFTER the storm. There were school busses lined up to take them out of the area but they refused to go, assuming things would be OK as they had been for the last 40 years. If you don't evacuate you better have the plan in place of how you will survive the worst case scenario. Completely false. Most did want to go and tried. They ended up in the stadium. That was AFTER the storm started. You evacuate before the storm, preferably a day before the storm. They the whole school bus fleet staged to take people inland and few people came. Once high winds closed that bridge out to the north across lake Ponchartrain they were not going anywhere. Most people in states in the area don't evacuate, esp. given that they've been through storms like these before. You're just blaming the victims. In this case, a flood was the LIKELY scenario. We were hearing about that probability for New Orleans 1000 miles away. I am sure they were told there. That's also not true. They had the walls that were protecting the city. Those walls failed. Levees not walls and saying the were "protected" is simply wishful thinking. And, for all those with college educations, perhaps that would be obvious (perhaps not), but claiming that people understand this is not looking at the facts on the ground. That place was and is still a death trap. Nobody should be allowed to live there until they get it above sea level. Feel free to try and change that. Don't give me **** about Holland. When was the last Category 3 hurricane there? They also do not live, sandwiched, between a huge salt water lake and the sea. ?? You brought it up. The technology exists and environmental processes can exist to make it a safer place. This gets back to my original statement. we have generations of people who have never had anything bad happen to them so they assume things will turn out OK. So, being poor, with lousy if any health care coverage, with barely enough to eat equates in your mind to people who've never had anything bad happen to them? Good grief! You are talking like Bob now. I am talking about 3 generations of Americans in all social strata. Really? Most of the people who were trapped were poor not rich. Some were in the middle somewhere. We assume no matter what happens, the government will swoop in and save us. That is just a post WWII feeling in the US. Most of the world and anyone alive in the 30s, still knows bad things happen and the government is not always going to save them. Firstly, very few people believe that NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS, the gov't will "swoop in." What people do believe is that gov't is supposed to help! Why do we have a gov't? It seems to me that effective gov't is what we need. We sure didn't get that then. Using words like no matter what and always is a quick indication of lack of substance in an argument. Things are rarely always. We have more of this coming in the future, not less. And, your fix? Of course you also have the criminal negligence of FEMA for even letting them live there and particularly letting them build it back below sea level. ? FEMA was certainly at fault for not getting their act together, but that's got nothing to do with post-Katrina. We have been told for years that you CAN NOT expect any help for days, up to a week. FEMA can not move enough supplies to keep a half a million people alive overnight, particularly when roads and bridges are out. The real FEMA problem was allowing the situation to exist in the first place. We are in no better shape today than we were in 2005 in that regard. I guarantee you that if a CAT 3 hits New Orleans this month, the result will be largely the same, particularly if it also hit several other areas like Katrina did. Who is "we"? Those who watch TV and the news on a regular basis, but not those who are living hand to mouth. You're continuing to blame the poor for a failure of government. If another storm hits, it's likely the pumps will fail, so I suppose you're going to blame the poor again and not the people who put in the flawed pumping equipment. "WE" in this case is anyone who lives in the southeast near the coast. We get lots of information about what to expect during and after a hurricane and they always say you need 3 days to a week of supplies if you don't get out and if you go to a shelter you better bring those supplies with you. They may not have them there either. Other than the reported violence, the Superdome was a typical storm shelter. Around here it will be a school gym as a general rule and we are warned not to expect anything to be there except, hopefully, a building that will not blow over. During Wilma, they didn't even get that in Arcadia. They lost the roof on shelter. You watch the news. You're informed. Many people are just trying to get by. Other that the minor amount of violence, the Superdome was a disgrace. No one came to help. People were shipped there and abandoned. I am 9 feet above sea level, 5 miles from the coast and if my house was 50% damaged, I could not build it back without raising it 5 feet. They should have scraped the flooded parts of New Orleans clean, barged in 10-15 feet of dirt and then built all the new houses on pilings above the FEMA elevation that the rest of the country has to abide by. And, this rant has what to do with people who are poor before Katrina? They would have been living ABOVE sea level; and they would not have flooded. Storm surge comes in and goes out within hours. It is not a flood that lasts months like they had in that fetid bowl. There really was not that much surge in New Orleans, it was totally a failure of the levees. So, what is your point? You're blaming the poor for living in New Orleans? Perhaps they should have moved to Chicago? Perhaps, or at least Baton Rouge but surviving hurricanes is for people who can and will prepare not people who do nothing and assume someone will be there to help right away. More bs. Lots of people are unable to do much for themselves. They have family members who they support and who can't leave easily. I'm not going to list all the reasons why some couldn't leave. Look it up. If you are the government and you put the poorest people in the most vulnerable spot, the crime is not the speed of the response, it is putting them there in the first place. That is why I said we should have bulldozed that place, barged in 20 feet of dirt and built it back on high ground. I know in 100 years it might sink back down a couple of feet but it will still be above sea level. It would have been a bargain compared to what we will spend next time ... and there will be a next time. What?? The gov't put poor people in NOLA? Who is "we" in we should have bulldozed the place? Sounds like a lot of gov't intervention to me! |
OT La Migra redux
wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:37:50 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Sun, 22 Aug 2010 11:23:46 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Completely false. Most did want to go and tried. They ended up in the stadium. That was AFTER the storm started. You evacuate before the storm, preferably a day before the storm. They the whole school bus fleet staged to take people inland and few people came. Once high winds closed that bridge out to the north across lake Ponchartrain they were not going anywhere. Most people in states in the area don't evacuate, esp. given that they've been through storms like these before. You're just blaming the victims. Virtually ALL of them DO NOT live below sea level. In this case, a flood was the LIKELY scenario. We were hearing about that probability for New Orleans 1000 miles away. I am sure they were told there. That's also not true. They had the walls that were protecting the city. Those walls failed. Levees not walls and saying the were "protected" is simply wishful thinking. And, for all those with college educations, perhaps that would be obvious (perhaps not), but claiming that people understand this is not looking at the facts on the ground. Now you are saying the victims do not understand water flows downhill I'm saying that they're living day-to-day, and were not sophisticated enough to understand the real dangers. They do now, and the last time there was an evacuation, people did leave in greater numbers. That place was and is still a death trap. Nobody should be allowed to live there until they get it above sea level. Feel free to try and change that. I suggested the solution but it is not my idea, it is FEDERAL LAW. No place else in the country will allow you to rebuild a house below sea level. If you do any kind of addition or repair that exceeds 50% of the value of your home you need a FEMA certificate from an engineering company saying your finished floor is a specified distance above the local datum plane. The neighbor 3 doors up from me had to have his whole house raised 4 feet to build on an addition. Most of the homes were there for decades. At some point, if you try to enforce that law, you'll be requiring people to relocate. Is the gov't going to pay for that? Don't give me **** about Holland. When was the last Category 3 hurricane there? They also do not live, sandwiched, between a huge salt water lake and the sea. ?? You brought it up. The technology exists and environmental processes can exist to make it a safer place. That is not a dike or a levee, it is elevation according to FEMA. Huh? It's about restoring the surrounding wetlands. This gets back to my original statement. we have generations of people who have never had anything bad happen to them so they assume things will turn out OK. So, being poor, with lousy if any health care coverage, with barely enough to eat equates in your mind to people who've never had anything bad happen to them? Good grief! You are talking like Bob now. I am talking about 3 generations of Americans in all social strata. Really? Most of the people who were trapped were poor not rich. Some were in the middle somewhere. The reason you heard about the poor was because they did not have the resources to survive, they still don't. Why did we let them move back into that death trap? We? Who's we? Oh that pesky gov't again. The ones the Teabaggers hate so much. I get it. Most people impacted by hurricanes are rich, simply because that is usually who can afford water front property. New Orleans is such a contrast to that, we should have taken extraordinary measures to remove the risk. The fix was DIRT, lots of it as required by federal law. Who supplies the dirt, money, etc.? The community Judy built required over 4 feet of dirt to be brought in over the whole development, just for the road surface height and the houses were 3 feet above that on a stem wall. The rich (certainly better off) community... We assume no matter what happens, the government will swoop in and save us. That is just a post WWII feeling in the US. Most of the world and anyone alive in the 30s, still knows bad things happen and the government is not always going to save them. Firstly, very few people believe that NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS, the gov't will "swoop in." What people do believe is that gov't is supposed to help! Why do we have a gov't? It seems to me that effective gov't is what we need. We sure didn't get that then. Using words like no matter what and always is a quick indication of lack of substance in an argument. Things are rarely always. We have more of this coming in the future, not less. And, your fix? People better learn a little more about self preservation like their grandparents knew. Like being able to survive on a minimal amount of money? Ah for those good old days when disease was rampant, sweatshops abounded, and the gov't did nothing. Our government is broke. And, your fix? If you think this little correction we are in is anything like the depression you are deluded and I really believe we ain't seen nothing yet. 10 years from now we may be calling these the good old days. ?? Total non sequitur. For the people currently unemployed and losing their homes/life savings, it's pretty much a depression. Of course you also have the criminal negligence of FEMA for even letting them live there and particularly letting them build it back below sea level. ? FEMA was certainly at fault for not getting their act together, but that's got nothing to do with post-Katrina. We have been told for years that you CAN NOT expect any help for days, up to a week. FEMA can not move enough supplies to keep a half a million people alive overnight, particularly when roads and bridges are out. The real FEMA problem was allowing the situation to exist in the first place. We are in no better shape today than we were in 2005 in that regard. I guarantee you that if a CAT 3 hits New Orleans this month, the result will be largely the same, particularly if it also hit several other areas like Katrina did. Who is "we"? Those who watch TV and the news on a regular basis, but not those who are living hand to mouth. You're continuing to blame the poor for a failure of government. If another storm hits, it's likely the pumps will fail, so I suppose you're going to blame the poor again and not the people who put in the flawed pumping equipment. "WE" in this case is anyone who lives in the southeast near the coast. We get lots of information about what to expect during and after a hurricane and they always say you need 3 days to a week of supplies if you don't get out and if you go to a shelter you better bring those supplies with you. They may not have them there either. Other than the reported violence, the Superdome was a typical storm shelter. Around here it will be a school gym as a general rule and we are warned not to expect anything to be there except, hopefully, a building that will not blow over. During Wilma, they didn't even get that in Arcadia. They lost the roof on shelter. You watch the news. You're informed. Many people are just trying to get by. Other that the minor amount of violence, the Superdome was a disgrace. No one came to help. People were shipped there and abandoned. I am 9 feet above sea level, 5 miles from the coast and if my house was 50% damaged, I could not build it back without raising it 5 feet. They should have scraped the flooded parts of New Orleans clean, barged in 10-15 feet of dirt and then built all the new houses on pilings above the FEMA elevation that the rest of the country has to abide by. And, this rant has what to do with people who are poor before Katrina? They would have been living ABOVE sea level; and they would not have flooded. Storm surge comes in and goes out within hours. It is not a flood that lasts months like they had in that fetid bowl. There really was not that much surge in New Orleans, it was totally a failure of the levees. So, what is your point? You're blaming the poor for living in New Orleans? Perhaps they should have moved to Chicago? Perhaps, or at least Baton Rouge but surviving hurricanes is for people who can and will prepare not people who do nothing and assume someone will be there to help right away. More bs. Lots of people are unable to do much for themselves. They have family members who they support and who can't leave easily. I'm not going to list all the reasons why some couldn't leave. Look it up. So you are saying it is the right thing to do to leave people in a death trap. Who's going to remove them? Which branch of gov't? If you are the government and you put the poorest people in the most vulnerable spot, the crime is not the speed of the response, it is putting them there in the first place. That is why I said we should have bulldozed that place, barged in 20 feet of dirt and built it back on high ground. I know in 100 years it might sink back down a couple of feet but it will still be above sea level. It would have been a bargain compared to what we will spend next time ... and there will be a next time. What?? The gov't put poor people in NOLA? Who is "we" in we should have bulldozed the place? Sounds like a lot of gov't intervention to me! Yes it was a Jim Crow government that put them there. WHAT?? When? In the 1800s, 1900s? Families have lived in NOLA for generations. The government allowed these people to live in a death trap and then people were surprised when they died. It was bad enough that it happened the first time but the crime was letting them do it again. There is a federal law that requires these houses should have been condemned and rebuilt above the datum plane. That was ignored. When? Before which event? Come on. You're just upset because gov't is either too big or not big enough. |
OT La Migra redux
wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:40:32 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:37:50 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: I suggested the solution but it is not my idea, it is FEDERAL LAW. No place else in the country will allow you to rebuild a house below sea level. If you do any kind of addition or repair that exceeds 50% of the value of your home you need a FEMA certificate from an engineering company saying your finished floor is a specified distance above the local datum plane. The neighbor 3 doors up from me had to have his whole house raised 4 feet to build on an addition. Most of the homes were there for decades. At some point, if you try to enforce that law, you'll be requiring people to relocate. Is the gov't going to pay for that? The government is paying a lot to let them stay there. I am saying it would have been cheaper to elevate the lots before they rebuilt the houses. That is the law everywhere else. Don't give me **** about Holland. When was the last Category 3 hurricane there? They also do not live, sandwiched, between a huge salt water lake and the sea. ?? You brought it up. The technology exists and environmental processes can exist to make it a safer place. That is not a dike or a levee, it is elevation according to FEMA. Huh? It's about restoring the surrounding wetlands. The wetlands had absolutely NOTHING to do with it. The water came from Lake Pontchartrain, a direct connection to the Gulf. Those were the levees that failed. Have you ever been to New Orleans or seen a map of the area. The places that flooded were on the lake and the industrial canal. It's a pretty well-known fact that the wetlands surrounding the entire area have been degraded to the point that they're no long viable to dampen storm surge. Sure. The water came from the lake. Where do you think the water in the lake came from on that fateful occasion? This gets back to my original statement. we have generations of people who have never had anything bad happen to them so they assume things will turn out OK. So, being poor, with lousy if any health care coverage, with barely enough to eat equates in your mind to people who've never had anything bad happen to them? Good grief! You are talking like Bob now. I am talking about 3 generations of Americans in all social strata. Really? Most of the people who were trapped were poor not rich. Some were in the middle somewhere. The reason you heard about the poor was because they did not have the resources to survive, they still don't. Why did we let them move back into that death trap? We? Who's we? Oh that pesky gov't again. The ones the Teabaggers hate so much. I get it. The same government that makes me wear a seatbelt before I can move my car and requires that I have a dead man's switch on my lawnmower CAN enforce a federal law can't it? Not if the right-wingers have their way. We'll be able to build bombs aplenty, but GOD FORBID we have any regulations with teeth. Too bad about your lawnmower. I'm sure that's a hardship. Most people impacted by hurricanes are rich, simply because that is usually who can afford water front property. New Orleans is such a contrast to that, we should have taken extraordinary measures to remove the risk. The fix was DIRT, lots of it as required by federal law. Who supplies the dirt, money, etc.? The same people who underwrite their flood insurance You and Me BTW nobody would supply my dirt if I had to rebuild my house under the same circumstances and I would be doing it at the point of a government gun. The gun is owned by you and I. If you don't like it, vote for another Congressman or Senator. The community Judy built required over 4 feet of dirt to be brought in over the whole development, just for the road surface height and the houses were 3 feet above that on a stem wall. The rich (certainly better off) community... If you were poor you would have to follow the same laws, everywhere but NOLA You know that's not the case. There are almost always differences in regs and enforcement, depending upon the situation/location. We assume no matter what happens, the government will swoop in and save us. That is just a post WWII feeling in the US. Most of the world and anyone alive in the 30s, still knows bad things happen and the government is not always going to save them. Firstly, very few people believe that NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS, the gov't will "swoop in." What people do believe is that gov't is supposed to help! Why do we have a gov't? It seems to me that effective gov't is what we need. We sure didn't get that then. Using words like no matter what and always is a quick indication of lack of substance in an argument. Things are rarely always. We have more of this coming in the future, not less. And, your fix? People better learn a little more about self preservation like their grandparents knew. Like being able to survive on a minimal amount of money? Ah for those good old days when disease was rampant, sweatshops abounded, and the gov't did nothing. Our government is broke. And, your fix? If you think this little correction we are in is anything like the depression you are deluded and I really believe we ain't seen nothing yet. 10 years from now we may be calling these the good old days. ?? Total non sequitur. For the people currently unemployed and losing their homes/life savings, it's pretty much a depression. Of course you also have the criminal negligence of FEMA for even letting them live there and particularly letting them build it back below sea level. ? FEMA was certainly at fault for not getting their act together, but that's got nothing to do with post-Katrina. We have been told for years that you CAN NOT expect any help for days, up to a week. FEMA can not move enough supplies to keep a half a million people alive overnight, particularly when roads and bridges are out. The real FEMA problem was allowing the situation to exist in the first place. We are in no better shape today than we were in 2005 in that regard. I guarantee you that if a CAT 3 hits New Orleans this month, the result will be largely the same, particularly if it also hit several other areas like Katrina did. Who is "we"? Those who watch TV and the news on a regular basis, but not those who are living hand to mouth. You're continuing to blame the poor for a failure of government. If another storm hits, it's likely the pumps will fail, so I suppose you're going to blame the poor again and not the people who put in the flawed pumping equipment. "WE" in this case is anyone who lives in the southeast near the coast. We get lots of information about what to expect during and after a hurricane and they always say you need 3 days to a week of supplies if you don't get out and if you go to a shelter you better bring those supplies with you. They may not have them there either. Other than the reported violence, the Superdome was a typical storm shelter. Around here it will be a school gym as a general rule and we are warned not to expect anything to be there except, hopefully, a building that will not blow over. During Wilma, they didn't even get that in Arcadia. They lost the roof on shelter. You watch the news. You're informed. Many people are just trying to get by. Other that the minor amount of violence, the Superdome was a disgrace. No one came to help. People were shipped there and abandoned. I am 9 feet above sea level, 5 miles from the coast and if my house was 50% damaged, I could not build it back without raising it 5 feet. They should have scraped the flooded parts of New Orleans clean, barged in 10-15 feet of dirt and then built all the new houses on pilings above the FEMA elevation that the rest of the country has to abide by. And, this rant has what to do with people who are poor before Katrina? They would have been living ABOVE sea level; and they would not have flooded. Storm surge comes in and goes out within hours. It is not a flood that lasts months like they had in that fetid bowl. There really was not that much surge in New Orleans, it was totally a failure of the levees. So, what is your point? You're blaming the poor for living in New Orleans? Perhaps they should have moved to Chicago? Perhaps, or at least Baton Rouge but surviving hurricanes is for people who can and will prepare not people who do nothing and assume someone will be there to help right away. More bs. Lots of people are unable to do much for themselves. They have family members who they support and who can't leave easily. I'm not going to list all the reasons why some couldn't leave. Look it up. So you are saying it is the right thing to do to leave people in a death trap. Who's going to remove them? Which branch of gov't? FEMA orders it, the local cops enforce it. It happened here after Wilma. If you are the government and you put the poorest people in the most vulnerable spot, the crime is not the speed of the response, it is putting them there in the first place. That is why I said we should have bulldozed that place, barged in 20 feet of dirt and built it back on high ground. I know in 100 years it might sink back down a couple of feet but it will still be above sea level. It would have been a bargain compared to what we will spend next time ... and there will be a next time. What?? The gov't put poor people in NOLA? Who is "we" in we should have bulldozed the place? Sounds like a lot of gov't intervention to me! Yes it was a Jim Crow government that put them there. WHAT?? When? In the 1800s, 1900s? Families have lived in NOLA for generations. Did you watch the CNN show about rebuilding Ponchartrain Park? It is probably still running. The area hardest hit was developed in the 40s and 50s ... under Jim Crow. The government allowed these people to live in a death trap and then people were surprised when they died. It was bad enough that it happened the first time but the crime was letting them do it again. There is a federal law that requires these houses should have been condemned and rebuilt above the datum plane. That was ignored. When? Before which event? Come on. You're just upset because gov't is either too big or not big enough. That is the law for any event that damaged your home greater than 50% I bet you have a similar law about earthquake damage and building back to your current seismic code. |
OT La Migra redux
wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:36:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:40:32 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The wetlands had absolutely NOTHING to do with it. The water came from Lake Pontchartrain, a direct connection to the Gulf. Those were the levees that failed. Have you ever been to New Orleans or seen a map of the area. The places that flooded were on the lake and the industrial canal. It's a pretty well-known fact that the wetlands surrounding the entire area have been degraded to the point that they're no long viable to dampen storm surge. Sure. The water came from the lake. Where do you think the water in the lake came from on that fateful occasion? Look at a map. Then learn a little about the Coriolis effect and low pressure systems. Ponchartrain is north of New Orleans, the wetlands are south. If you look at your map, look at the path of the storm, east of New Orleans and understand the wind circles counter clockwise around a low you see the water circling around the peninsula and into the inlet that feeds Ponchartrain. The lake level rose and overtopped the levees north of the city along with the industria canal that goes south from the lake and that was the area where the flooding started. Once it started, the bowl simply filled up. Who supplies the dirt, money, etc.? The same people who underwrite their flood insurance You and Me BTW nobody would supply my dirt if I had to rebuild my house under the same circumstances and I would be doing it at the point of a government gun. The gun is owned by you and I. If you don't like it, vote for another Congressman or Senator. I do and it doesn't change. I can never fight the billion dollars fat cats pump into our political system every year. The community Judy built required over 4 feet of dirt to be brought in over the whole development, just for the road surface height and the houses were 3 feet above that on a stem wall. The rich (certainly better off) community... If you were poor you would have to follow the same laws, everywhere but NOLA You know that's not the case. There are almost always differences in regs and enforcement, depending upon the situation/location. I don't know of anywhere else where the FEMA elevation rules do not apply. It certainly is not being ignored in Florida. We have written it into our building codes. I wonder how these people can get a mortgage without flood insurance and how is FEMA writing insurance on a home that was rebuilt below sea level? Assuming the facts are correct, it was the storm surge that caused the levee damage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects...in_New_Orleans |
OT La Migra redux
On Aug 24, 2:16*am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:36:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:40:32 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The wetlands had absolutely NOTHING to do with it. The water came from Lake Pontchartrain, a direct connection to the Gulf. Those were the levees that failed. Have you ever been to New Orleans or seen a map of the area. The places that flooded were on the lake and the industrial canal. It's a pretty well-known fact that the wetlands surrounding the entire area have been degraded to the point that they're no long viable to dampen storm surge. Sure. The water came from the lake. Where do you think the water in the lake came from on that fateful occasion? Look at a map. Then learn a little about the Coriolis effect and low pressure systems. Ponchartrain is north of New Orleans, the wetlands are south. If you look at your map, look at the path of the storm, east of New Orleans and understand the wind circles counter clockwise around a low you see the water circling around the peninsula and into the inlet that feeds Ponchartrain. The lake level rose and overtopped the levees north of the city along with the industria canal that goes south from the lake and that was the area where the flooding started. Once it started, the bowl simply filled up. Who supplies the dirt, money, etc.? The same people who underwrite their flood insurance You and Me BTW nobody would supply my dirt if I had to rebuild my house under the same circumstances and I would be doing it at the point of a government gun. The gun is owned by you and I. If you don't like it, vote for another Congressman or Senator. I do and it doesn't change. I can never fight the billion dollars fat cats pump into our political system every year. The community Judy built required over 4 feet of dirt to be brought in over the whole development, just for the road surface height and the houses were 3 feet above that on a stem wall. The rich (certainly better off) community... If you were poor you would have to follow the same laws, everywhere but NOLA You know that's not the case. There are almost always differences in regs and enforcement, depending upon the situation/location. I don't know of anywhere else where the FEMA elevation rules do not apply. It certainly is not being ignored in Florida. We have written it into our building codes. I wonder how these people can get a mortgage without flood insurance and how is FEMA writing insurance on a home that was rebuilt below sea level? Assuming the facts are correct, it was the storm surge that caused the levee damage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects...in_New_Orleans Very good, D'Plume. And what does that have to do with "...I wonder how these people can get a mortgage without flood insurance and how is FEMA writing insurance on a home that was rebuilt below sea level?" |
OT La Migra redux
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
... wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:36:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:40:32 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The wetlands had absolutely NOTHING to do with it. The water came from Lake Pontchartrain, a direct connection to the Gulf. Those were the levees that failed. Have you ever been to New Orleans or seen a map of the area. The places that flooded were on the lake and the industrial canal. It's a pretty well-known fact that the wetlands surrounding the entire area have been degraded to the point that they're no long viable to dampen storm surge. Sure. The water came from the lake. Where do you think the water in the lake came from on that fateful occasion? Look at a map. Then learn a little about the Coriolis effect and low pressure systems. Ponchartrain is north of New Orleans, the wetlands are south. If you look at your map, look at the path of the storm, east of New Orleans and understand the wind circles counter clockwise around a low you see the water circling around the peninsula and into the inlet that feeds Ponchartrain. The lake level rose and overtopped the levees north of the city along with the industria canal that goes south from the lake and that was the area where the flooding started. Once it started, the bowl simply filled up. Who supplies the dirt, money, etc.? The same people who underwrite their flood insurance You and Me BTW nobody would supply my dirt if I had to rebuild my house under the same circumstances and I would be doing it at the point of a government gun. The gun is owned by you and I. If you don't like it, vote for another Congressman or Senator. I do and it doesn't change. I can never fight the billion dollars fat cats pump into our political system every year. The community Judy built required over 4 feet of dirt to be brought in over the whole development, just for the road surface height and the houses were 3 feet above that on a stem wall. The rich (certainly better off) community... If you were poor you would have to follow the same laws, everywhere but NOLA You know that's not the case. There are almost always differences in regs and enforcement, depending upon the situation/location. I don't know of anywhere else where the FEMA elevation rules do not apply. It certainly is not being ignored in Florida. We have written it into our building codes. I wonder how these people can get a mortgage without flood insurance and how is FEMA writing insurance on a home that was rebuilt below sea level? Assuming the facts are correct, it was the storm surge that caused the levee damage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects...in_New_Orleans The disaster had major implications for a large segment of the population, economy, and politics of the entire United States. It has prompted a Congressional review of the Corps of Engineers and the failure of portions of the federally built flood protection system which experts agree should have protected the city's inhabitants from Katrina's surge. -- I'm the real Harry, and I post from a Mac, as virtually everyone knows. If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a Mac, it's from an ID spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his own ID. |
OT La Migra redux
"TopBassDog" wrote in message
... On Aug 24, 2:16 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:36:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:40:32 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The wetlands had absolutely NOTHING to do with it. The water came from Lake Pontchartrain, a direct connection to the Gulf. Those were the levees that failed. Have you ever been to New Orleans or seen a map of the area. The places that flooded were on the lake and the industrial canal. It's a pretty well-known fact that the wetlands surrounding the entire area have been degraded to the point that they're no long viable to dampen storm surge. Sure. The water came from the lake. Where do you think the water in the lake came from on that fateful occasion? Look at a map. Then learn a little about the Coriolis effect and low pressure systems. Ponchartrain is north of New Orleans, the wetlands are south. If you look at your map, look at the path of the storm, east of New Orleans and understand the wind circles counter clockwise around a low you see the water circling around the peninsula and into the inlet that feeds Ponchartrain. The lake level rose and overtopped the levees north of the city along with the industria canal that goes south from the lake and that was the area where the flooding started. Once it started, the bowl simply filled up. Who supplies the dirt, money, etc.? The same people who underwrite their flood insurance You and Me BTW nobody would supply my dirt if I had to rebuild my house under the same circumstances and I would be doing it at the point of a government gun. The gun is owned by you and I. If you don't like it, vote for another Congressman or Senator. I do and it doesn't change. I can never fight the billion dollars fat cats pump into our political system every year. The community Judy built required over 4 feet of dirt to be brought in over the whole development, just for the road surface height and the houses were 3 feet above that on a stem wall. The rich (certainly better off) community... If you were poor you would have to follow the same laws, everywhere but NOLA You know that's not the case. There are almost always differences in regs and enforcement, depending upon the situation/location. I don't know of anywhere else where the FEMA elevation rules do not apply. It certainly is not being ignored in Florida. We have written it into our building codes. I wonder how these people can get a mortgage without flood insurance and how is FEMA writing insurance on a home that was rebuilt below sea level? Assuming the facts are correct, it was the storm surge that caused the levee damage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects...in_New_Orleans Very good, D'Plume. And what does that have to do with "...I wonder how these people can get a mortgage without flood insurance and how is FEMA writing insurance on a home that was rebuilt below sea level?" It will happen, if obama's historical governance is any indication of our future. He'll get some help from Barney Frank and it will be like cutting butter with a hot knife. -- I'm the real Harry, and I post from a Mac, as virtually everyone knows. If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a Mac, it's from an ID spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his own ID. |
OT La Migra redux
"TopBassDog" wrote in message ... On Aug 24, 2:16 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:36:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:40:32 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The wetlands had absolutely NOTHING to do with it. The water came from Lake Pontchartrain, a direct connection to the Gulf. Those were the levees that failed. Have you ever been to New Orleans or seen a map of the area. The places that flooded were on the lake and the industrial canal. It's a pretty well-known fact that the wetlands surrounding the entire area have been degraded to the point that they're no long viable to dampen storm surge. Sure. The water came from the lake. Where do you think the water in the lake came from on that fateful occasion? Look at a map. Then learn a little about the Coriolis effect and low pressure systems. Ponchartrain is north of New Orleans, the wetlands are south. If you look at your map, look at the path of the storm, east of New Orleans and understand the wind circles counter clockwise around a low you see the water circling around the peninsula and into the inlet that feeds Ponchartrain. The lake level rose and overtopped the levees north of the city along with the industria canal that goes south from the lake and that was the area where the flooding started. Once it started, the bowl simply filled up. Who supplies the dirt, money, etc.? The same people who underwrite their flood insurance You and Me BTW nobody would supply my dirt if I had to rebuild my house under the same circumstances and I would be doing it at the point of a government gun. The gun is owned by you and I. If you don't like it, vote for another Congressman or Senator. I do and it doesn't change. I can never fight the billion dollars fat cats pump into our political system every year. The community Judy built required over 4 feet of dirt to be brought in over the whole development, just for the road surface height and the houses were 3 feet above that on a stem wall. The rich (certainly better off) community... If you were poor you would have to follow the same laws, everywhere but NOLA You know that's not the case. There are almost always differences in regs and enforcement, depending upon the situation/location. I don't know of anywhere else where the FEMA elevation rules do not apply. It certainly is not being ignored in Florida. We have written it into our building codes. I wonder how these people can get a mortgage without flood insurance and how is FEMA writing insurance on a home that was rebuilt below sea level? Assuming the facts are correct, it was the storm surge that caused the levee damage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects...in_New_Orleans Very good, D'Plume. And what does that have to do with "...I wonder how these people can get a mortgage without flood insurance and how is FEMA writing insurance on a home that was rebuilt below sea level?" What do you have to do with intelligent discourse? |
OT La Migra redux
wrote in message ... On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:12:27 -0400, "Harry ?" wrote: Assuming the facts are correct, it was the storm surge that caused the levee damage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects...in_New_Orleans The disaster had major implications for a large segment of the population, economy, and politics of the entire United States. It has prompted a Congressional review of the Corps of Engineers and the failure of portions of the federally built flood protection system which experts agree should have protected the city's inhabitants from Katrina's surge. -- There was a lot of hand wringing but the levees were only designed for a cat 3 storm. The criticism is they failed in a cat 3. A cat 4 would have been more than the design was built for. We have cat 5s. They are trying to fight the physical law that water flows downhill. The other problem is that New Orleans needs to be pumped out constantly, millions of gallons an hour on a dry day. Any little glitch in the pump system and they go under water. It is still questionable that they could handle the rain fall of a big hurricane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drainage_in_New_Orleans Allowing a half million people to live below sea level is criminal negligence. It will take at least one more Katrina like disaster to prove that but it is going to happen. If there is anything to this global warming thing it is going to happen a lot. If? I guess you don't keep up on the news. FYI, as I said, it was the storm surge that caused the problem. If you want to fix the problem (or come close), you need to fix the wetlands. In the City of New Orleans, the storm surge caused more than 50 breaches in drainage canal levees and also in navigational canal levees and precipitated the worst engineering disaster in the history of the United States.[3] |
OT La Migra redux
wrote in message ... On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:16:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: It's a pretty well-known fact that the wetlands surrounding the entire area have been degraded to the point that they're no long viable to dampen storm surge. Sure. The water came from the lake. Where do you think the water in the lake came from on that fateful occasion? Look at a map. Then learn a little about the Coriolis effect and low pressure systems. Ponchartrain is north of New Orleans, the wetlands are south. If you look at your map, look at the path of the storm, east of New Orleans and understand the wind circles counter clockwise around a low you see the water circling around the peninsula and into the inlet that feeds Ponchartrain. The lake level rose and overtopped the levees north of the city along with the industria canal that goes south from the lake and that was the area where the flooding started. Once it started, the bowl simply filled up. Assuming the facts are correct, it was the storm surge that caused the levee damage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects...in_New_Orleans Yes and that storm surge was in Lake Ponchartrain, the opposite direction from the bayou. I know they look south towards the gulf but the danger is from the north. Surge is wind blown water and that wind blew the water right into the lake. Get a map and look at the l;evees that failed, Wiki has a list. They are on the north side. The Mississippi river levee on the south side held. There are good reasons to restore the wetlands but that would not have saved them from Katrina. Perhaps taking some of that Corps of Engineers money Nagin spent on port improvements instead of the levees it was intended for might have helped. They are still just a ticking time bomb, waiting for the next storm. Katrina wasn't even that powerful. It came in as a Category 3. They get a lot worse. You're just wrong: http://world-wire.com/news/0908260001.html |
OT La Migra redux
On 8/24/10 12:31 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
"TopBassDog" wrote in message ... On Aug 24, 2:16 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:36:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:40:32 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The wetlands had absolutely NOTHING to do with it. The water came from Lake Pontchartrain, a direct connection to the Gulf. Those were the levees that failed. Have you ever been to New Orleans or seen a map of the area. The places that flooded were on the lake and the industrial canal. It's a pretty well-known fact that the wetlands surrounding the entire area have been degraded to the point that they're no long viable to dampen storm surge. Sure. The water came from the lake. Where do you think the water in the lake came from on that fateful occasion? Look at a map. Then learn a little about the Coriolis effect and low pressure systems. Ponchartrain is north of New Orleans, the wetlands are south. If you look at your map, look at the path of the storm, east of New Orleans and understand the wind circles counter clockwise around a low you see the water circling around the peninsula and into the inlet that feeds Ponchartrain. The lake level rose and overtopped the levees north of the city along with the industria canal that goes south from the lake and that was the area where the flooding started. Once it started, the bowl simply filled up. Who supplies the dirt, money, etc.? The same people who underwrite their flood insurance You and Me BTW nobody would supply my dirt if I had to rebuild my house under the same circumstances and I would be doing it at the point of a government gun. The gun is owned by you and I. If you don't like it, vote for another Congressman or Senator. I do and it doesn't change. I can never fight the billion dollars fat cats pump into our political system every year. The community Judy built required over 4 feet of dirt to be brought in over the whole development, just for the road surface height and the houses were 3 feet above that on a stem wall. The rich (certainly better off) community... If you were poor you would have to follow the same laws, everywhere but NOLA You know that's not the case. There are almost always differences in regs and enforcement, depending upon the situation/location. I don't know of anywhere else where the FEMA elevation rules do not apply. It certainly is not being ignored in Florida. We have written it into our building codes. I wonder how these people can get a mortgage without flood insurance and how is FEMA writing insurance on a home that was rebuilt below sea level? Assuming the facts are correct, it was the storm surge that caused the levee damage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects...in_New_Orleans Very good, D'Plume. And what does that have to do with "...I wonder how these people can get a mortgage without flood insurance and how is FEMA writing insurance on a home that was rebuilt below sea level?" What do you have to do with intelligent discourse? TopBass = TopAsshole. |
OT La Migra redux
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
... wrote in message ... On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:16:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: It's a pretty well-known fact that the wetlands surrounding the entire area have been degraded to the point that they're no long viable to dampen storm surge. Sure. The water came from the lake. Where do you think the water in the lake came from on that fateful occasion? Look at a map. Then learn a little about the Coriolis effect and low pressure systems. Ponchartrain is north of New Orleans, the wetlands are south. If you look at your map, look at the path of the storm, east of New Orleans and understand the wind circles counter clockwise around a low you see the water circling around the peninsula and into the inlet that feeds Ponchartrain. The lake level rose and overtopped the levees north of the city along with the industria canal that goes south from the lake and that was the area where the flooding started. Once it started, the bowl simply filled up. Assuming the facts are correct, it was the storm surge that caused the levee damage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects...in_New_Orleans Yes and that storm surge was in Lake Ponchartrain, the opposite direction from the bayou. I know they look south towards the gulf but the danger is from the north. Surge is wind blown water and that wind blew the water right into the lake. Get a map and look at the l;evees that failed, Wiki has a list. They are on the north side. The Mississippi river levee on the south side held. There are good reasons to restore the wetlands but that would not have saved them from Katrina. Perhaps taking some of that Corps of Engineers money Nagin spent on port improvements instead of the levees it was intended for might have helped. They are still just a ticking time bomb, waiting for the next storm. Katrina wasn't even that powerful. It came in as a Category 3. They get a lot worse. You're just wrong: http://world-wire.com/news/0908260001.html Show us precisely what proves him wrong. -- I'm the real Harry, and I post from a Mac, as virtually everyone knows. If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a Mac, it's from an ID spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his own ID. |
OT La Migra redux
In article ,
says... On 8/24/10 12:31 PM, nom=de=plume wrote: "TopBassDog" wrote in message ... On Aug 24, 2:16 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 20:36:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:40:32 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: The wetlands had absolutely NOTHING to do with it. The water came from Lake Pontchartrain, a direct connection to the Gulf. Those were the levees that failed. Have you ever been to New Orleans or seen a map of the area. The places that flooded were on the lake and the industrial canal. It's a pretty well-known fact that the wetlands surrounding the entire area have been degraded to the point that they're no long viable to dampen storm surge. Sure. The water came from the lake. Where do you think the water in the lake came from on that fateful occasion? Look at a map. Then learn a little about the Coriolis effect and low pressure systems. Ponchartrain is north of New Orleans, the wetlands are south. If you look at your map, look at the path of the storm, east of New Orleans and understand the wind circles counter clockwise around a low you see the water circling around the peninsula and into the inlet that feeds Ponchartrain. The lake level rose and overtopped the levees north of the city along with the industria canal that goes south from the lake and that was the area where the flooding started. Once it started, the bowl simply filled up. Who supplies the dirt, money, etc.? The same people who underwrite their flood insurance You and Me BTW nobody would supply my dirt if I had to rebuild my house under the same circumstances and I would be doing it at the point of a government gun. The gun is owned by you and I. If you don't like it, vote for another Congressman or Senator. I do and it doesn't change. I can never fight the billion dollars fat cats pump into our political system every year. The community Judy built required over 4 feet of dirt to be brought in over the whole development, just for the road surface height and the houses were 3 feet above that on a stem wall. The rich (certainly better off) community... If you were poor you would have to follow the same laws, everywhere but NOLA You know that's not the case. There are almost always differences in regs and enforcement, depending upon the situation/location. I don't know of anywhere else where the FEMA elevation rules do not apply. It certainly is not being ignored in Florida. We have written it into our building codes. I wonder how these people can get a mortgage without flood insurance and how is FEMA writing insurance on a home that was rebuilt below sea level? Assuming the facts are correct, it was the storm surge that caused the levee damage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects...in_New_Orleans Very good, D'Plume. And what does that have to do with "...I wonder how these people can get a mortgage without flood insurance and how is FEMA writing insurance on a home that was rebuilt below sea level?" What do you have to do with intelligent discourse? TopBass = TopAsshole. Spoofer alert! I'm much too refined and sophisticated to talk like that. |
OT La Migra redux
wrote in message ... On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:34:24 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Allowing a half million people to live below sea level is criminal negligence. It will take at least one more Katrina like disaster to prove that but it is going to happen. If there is anything to this global warming thing it is going to happen a lot. If? I guess you don't keep up on the news. FYI, as I said, it was the storm surge that caused the problem. If you want to fix the problem (or come close), you need to fix the wetlands. In the City of New Orleans, the storm surge caused more than 50 breaches in drainage canal levees and also in navigational canal levees and precipitated the worst engineering disaster in the history of the United States.[3] The wetlands have nothing to do with the lake. It has a direct access to the gulf. It was the levee system on the lake side that failed. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? Did you look at a map? There is a good one on that "drainage" link from Wiki showing the low areas. They are on the north, "lake" side of NOLA If the surge had come from the river side you might have a case but bear in mind, the channelization of the river was a response to the 1927 flood where the water came down the river. They were trying to get it out to the gulf as fast as they could. You can do all the mitigation you want but as long as people are living below sea level they are going to be flooded. You can't beat physics. That is why FEMA has the datum plane rules in the first place. I posted the text of a link that described the problem. Why is that so hard for you to grasp? Feel free to dispute the study. |
OT La Migra redux
wrote in message ... On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:36:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:16:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: It's a pretty well-known fact that the wetlands surrounding the entire area have been degraded to the point that they're no long viable to dampen storm surge. Sure. The water came from the lake. Where do you think the water in the lake came from on that fateful occasion? Look at a map. Then learn a little about the Coriolis effect and low pressure systems. Ponchartrain is north of New Orleans, the wetlands are south. If you look at your map, look at the path of the storm, east of New Orleans and understand the wind circles counter clockwise around a low you see the water circling around the peninsula and into the inlet that feeds Ponchartrain. The lake level rose and overtopped the levees north of the city along with the industria canal that goes south from the lake and that was the area where the flooding started. Once it started, the bowl simply filled up. Assuming the facts are correct, it was the storm surge that caused the levee damage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects...in_New_Orleans Yes and that storm surge was in Lake Ponchartrain, the opposite direction from the bayou. I know they look south towards the gulf but the danger is from the north. Surge is wind blown water and that wind blew the water right into the lake. Get a map and look at the l;evees that failed, Wiki has a list. They are on the north side. The Mississippi river levee on the south side held. There are good reasons to restore the wetlands but that would not have saved them from Katrina. Perhaps taking some of that Corps of Engineers money Nagin spent on port improvements instead of the levees it was intended for might have helped. They are still just a ticking time bomb, waiting for the next storm. Katrina wasn't even that powerful. It came in as a Category 3. They get a lot worse. You're just wrong: http://world-wire.com/news/0908260001.html That is a great piece of propaganda about the wetlands but it ignores the fact that the water came in from the east, not up from the south. You still have not looked at the map and the inlet to lake pontchartrain. Everyone agrees the surge that overtopped the levees came from the lake, not rising water in the river, where the wetlands would have the effect of buffering it. The fact that the Army Corps is piling on is just to divert attention from their levee failures. Elevation map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Msyelevst.jpg That water to the north is the lake Region map http://www.neworleanscvb.com/cvbmap/default.cfm?_map=3 See all that water north east of the city? That is the gulf actually worse than just the gulf, it is the end of an inlet off of the gulf in the direction of the wind in a hurricane. Water piles up in that inlet (AKA surge) with no place to go except into the lake. The wetlands destruction everyone is talking about is south of the city and had exactly zero effect on the lake surge. "The severity of Katrina's damage in Louisiana was caused, in part, by the fact that the state has lost 1/3 of its original wetlands -- about 2,000 square miles -- an area larger than Delaware. " Sure... the EDF and the NWF don't know what they're talking about. Sure. |
OT La Migra redux
"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
... wrote in message ... On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:36:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:16:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: It's a pretty well-known fact that the wetlands surrounding the entire area have been degraded to the point that they're no long viable to dampen storm surge. Sure. The water came from the lake. Where do you think the water in the lake came from on that fateful occasion? Look at a map. Then learn a little about the Coriolis effect and low pressure systems. Ponchartrain is north of New Orleans, the wetlands are south. If you look at your map, look at the path of the storm, east of New Orleans and understand the wind circles counter clockwise around a low you see the water circling around the peninsula and into the inlet that feeds Ponchartrain. The lake level rose and overtopped the levees north of the city along with the industria canal that goes south from the lake and that was the area where the flooding started. Once it started, the bowl simply filled up. Assuming the facts are correct, it was the storm surge that caused the levee damage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects...in_New_Orleans Yes and that storm surge was in Lake Ponchartrain, the opposite direction from the bayou. I know they look south towards the gulf but the danger is from the north. Surge is wind blown water and that wind blew the water right into the lake. Get a map and look at the l;evees that failed, Wiki has a list. They are on the north side. The Mississippi river levee on the south side held. There are good reasons to restore the wetlands but that would not have saved them from Katrina. Perhaps taking some of that Corps of Engineers money Nagin spent on port improvements instead of the levees it was intended for might have helped. They are still just a ticking time bomb, waiting for the next storm. Katrina wasn't even that powerful. It came in as a Category 3. They get a lot worse. You're just wrong: http://world-wire.com/news/0908260001.html That is a great piece of propaganda about the wetlands but it ignores the fact that the water came in from the east, not up from the south. You still have not looked at the map and the inlet to lake pontchartrain. Everyone agrees the surge that overtopped the levees came from the lake, not rising water in the river, where the wetlands would have the effect of buffering it. The fact that the Army Corps is piling on is just to divert attention from their levee failures. Elevation map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Msyelevst.jpg That water to the north is the lake Region map http://www.neworleanscvb.com/cvbmap/default.cfm?_map=3 See all that water north east of the city? That is the gulf actually worse than just the gulf, it is the end of an inlet off of the gulf in the direction of the wind in a hurricane. Water piles up in that inlet (AKA surge) with no place to go except into the lake. The wetlands destruction everyone is talking about is south of the city and had exactly zero effect on the lake surge. "The severity of Katrina's damage in Louisiana was caused, in part, by the fact that the state has lost 1/3 of its original wetlands -- about 2,000 square miles -- an area larger than Delaware. " Sure... the EDF and the NWF don't know what they're talking about. Sure. Absolutely, Yup, Uh Ha, right you are. Greg is just being contrary to get you riled up. And you fell for it. Have a cookie. -- I'm the real Harry, and I post from a Mac, as virtually everyone knows. If a post is attributed to me, and it isn't from a Mac, it's from an ID spoofer who hasn't the balls to post with his own ID. |
OT La Migra redux
wrote in message ... On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:45:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:36:12 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 00:16:38 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: It's a pretty well-known fact that the wetlands surrounding the entire area have been degraded to the point that they're no long viable to dampen storm surge. Sure. The water came from the lake. Where do you think the water in the lake came from on that fateful occasion? Look at a map. Then learn a little about the Coriolis effect and low pressure systems. Ponchartrain is north of New Orleans, the wetlands are south. If you look at your map, look at the path of the storm, east of New Orleans and understand the wind circles counter clockwise around a low you see the water circling around the peninsula and into the inlet that feeds Ponchartrain. The lake level rose and overtopped the levees north of the city along with the industria canal that goes south from the lake and that was the area where the flooding started. Once it started, the bowl simply filled up. Assuming the facts are correct, it was the storm surge that caused the levee damage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects...in_New_Orleans Yes and that storm surge was in Lake Ponchartrain, the opposite direction from the bayou. I know they look south towards the gulf but the danger is from the north. Surge is wind blown water and that wind blew the water right into the lake. Get a map and look at the l;evees that failed, Wiki has a list. They are on the north side. The Mississippi river levee on the south side held. There are good reasons to restore the wetlands but that would not have saved them from Katrina. Perhaps taking some of that Corps of Engineers money Nagin spent on port improvements instead of the levees it was intended for might have helped. They are still just a ticking time bomb, waiting for the next storm. Katrina wasn't even that powerful. It came in as a Category 3. They get a lot worse. You're just wrong: http://world-wire.com/news/0908260001.html That is a great piece of propaganda about the wetlands but it ignores the fact that the water came in from the east, not up from the south. You still have not looked at the map and the inlet to lake pontchartrain. Everyone agrees the surge that overtopped the levees came from the lake, not rising water in the river, where the wetlands would have the effect of buffering it. The fact that the Army Corps is piling on is just to divert attention from their levee failures. Elevation map http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Msyelevst.jpg That water to the north is the lake Region map http://www.neworleanscvb.com/cvbmap/default.cfm?_map=3 See all that water north east of the city? That is the gulf actually worse than just the gulf, it is the end of an inlet off of the gulf in the direction of the wind in a hurricane. Water piles up in that inlet (AKA surge) with no place to go except into the lake. The wetlands destruction everyone is talking about is south of the city and had exactly zero effect on the lake surge. "The severity of Katrina's damage in Louisiana was caused, in part, by the fact that the state has lost 1/3 of its original wetlands -- about 2,000 square miles -- an area larger than Delaware. " Sure... the EDF and the NWF don't know what they're talking about. Sure. Expand those abbreviations and get back to me. Do you think there is an agenda there? Umm... environmental concern? Hard to tell from the names. LOL |
OT La Migra redux
wrote in message ... On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 14:17:32 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Sure... the EDF and the NWF don't know what they're talking about. Sure. Expand those abbreviations and get back to me. Do you think there is an agenda there? Umm... environmental concern? Hard to tell from the names. LOL They make their money (the F stands for "fund") getting people to do things like restoring wetlands. They were saying the loss of wetlands would endanger NOLA years before Katrina. The reality is the real danger is the lake, not the bayou. That bay below Mississippi acts like a funnel and pipes the water straight into the lake if the storm goes that way. We watch hurricanes around here like people watch football games and we saw guys like Jim Cantore explaining exactly what ended up happening a day before the storm hit. It becomes very easy to understand as soon as you draw that cyclone over a map of the area. I bet I can find one if you want to see it. They have been talking abut this exact storm for decades before it happened. 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. Sure. All environmental organizations are motivated by profit. All big corporations are motivated by altruism. I get it. |
OT La Migra redux
|
OT La Migra redux
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... 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! |
OT La Migra redux
On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 11:44:16 -0400, wrote:
Allowing a half million people to live below sea level is criminal negligence. Does anyone in the Netherlands know that? |
OT La Migra redux
"Wayne.B" wrote in message ... On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 11:44:16 -0400, wrote: Allowing a half million people to live below sea level is criminal negligence. Does anyone in the Netherlands know that? You're not allowed to mention Holland! |
OT La Migra redux
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 |
OT La Migra redux
wrote in message ... On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:55:35 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 14:17:32 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Sure... the EDF and the NWF don't know what they're talking about. Sure. Expand those abbreviations and get back to me. Do you think there is an agenda there? Umm... environmental concern? Hard to tell from the names. LOL They make their money (the F stands for "fund") getting people to do things like restoring wetlands. They were saying the loss of wetlands would endanger NOLA years before Katrina. The reality is the real danger is the lake, not the bayou. That bay below Mississippi acts like a funnel and pipes the water straight into the lake if the storm goes that way. We watch hurricanes around here like people watch football games and we saw guys like Jim Cantore explaining exactly what ended up happening a day before the storm hit. It becomes very easy to understand as soon as you draw that cyclone over a map of the area. I bet I can find one if you want to see it. They have been talking abut this exact storm for decades before it happened. 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. Sure. All environmental organizations are motivated by profit. All big corporations are motivated by altruism. I get it. They are both motivated by money, that is just a fact. Most "non-profits" have directors who make plenty of money. They just don't have to share anything with stockholders. Come on. You're trying to compare Exxon-Mobile with the Environmental Defense Fund? Continually making false equivalencies isn't much of an argument. |
OT La Migra redux
wrote in message ... On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 17:09:49 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: "Wayne.B" wrote in message . .. 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. |
OT La Migra redux
wrote in message ... On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 22:06:05 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 15:55:35 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message m... On Tue, 24 Aug 2010 14:17:32 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: Sure... the EDF and the NWF don't know what they're talking about. Sure. Expand those abbreviations and get back to me. Do you think there is an agenda there? Umm... environmental concern? Hard to tell from the names. LOL They make their money (the F stands for "fund") getting people to do things like restoring wetlands. They were saying the loss of wetlands would endanger NOLA years before Katrina. The reality is the real danger is the lake, not the bayou. That bay below Mississippi acts like a funnel and pipes the water straight into the lake if the storm goes that way. We watch hurricanes around here like people watch football games and we saw guys like Jim Cantore explaining exactly what ended up happening a day before the storm hit. It becomes very easy to understand as soon as you draw that cyclone over a map of the area. I bet I can find one if you want to see it. They have been talking abut this exact storm for decades before it happened. 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. Sure. All environmental organizations are motivated by profit. All big corporations are motivated by altruism. I get it. They are both motivated by money, that is just a fact. Most "non-profits" have directors who make plenty of money. They just don't have to share anything with stockholders. Come on. You're trying to compare Exxon-Mobile with the Environmental Defense Fund? Continually making false equivalencies isn't much of an argument. I didn't start this. I was just pointing out that EDF is a contribution driven organization with an agenda. You are the one who started comparing them to for profit corporations. They may know all there is to know about saving sea turtles and spotted owls but I am not going to trust what they say about wetlands destruction causing Katrina when it goes against the facts. The wetlands were not in the path of the water that came into the lower 9th ward. It came in from the north east There is a great radar loop of the storm, here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hu...fall_radar.gif See how that circulation is pushing the water along the coast of Mississippi and into lake Pontchartrain. For New Orleans it was the perfect storm. That circulation could not have had a worse path. The wet lands are on that peninsula you see popping up in the eye right at the end of the loop (AKA the delta). If the eye was 70-80 miles to the west and the circulation was pushing water up into the delta from the 3 o'clock position they might have had a case about the wetlands but it would have been the river levees on the south side of the city that would have failed because the wind would have been south to north, not east to west as it was. I have been in several of these things and the place you are in that circulation determines which way the wind blows and makes all the difference between whether you get lots of water or it blows the water out. We had one here where the Estero River bed was virtually dry. You said they had an agenda. I'd rather have the agenda be the public good than stockholder value. I'm pretty sure that the non-profits in question have a bit more credibility than an Exxon. Feel free to think otherwise. |
OT La Migra redux
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. Really? Silly? How can you tell? Yet this is an actual claim by some on the right. So, should all those people who live behind levees in the delta have to have their land filled with dirt? |
OT La Migra redux
wrote in message ... 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. 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. |
OT La Migra redux
|
OT La Migra redux
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. |
OT La Migra redux
|
OT La Migra redux
wrote in message ... 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!! |
OT La Migra redux
|
OT La Migra redux
"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! |
OT La Migra redux
wrote in message ... On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 10:23:28 -0700, "nom=de=plume" wrote: wrote in message . .. 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! |
OT La Migra redux
|
OT La Migra redux
wrote in message ... 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. |
OT La Migra redux
On 8/25/10 5:11 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message ... 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. |
OT La Migra redux
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:53 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com