![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nobody listens
It's amazing the level of detail that storm modelers had right about the disaster that was waiting for New Orleans:
"If a big, slow-moving hurricane crossed the Gulf of Mexico on the right track, it would drive a sea surge that would drown New Orleans under 20 feet of water." - Scientific American, October 2001
"As the whirling maelstrom approached the coast, more than a million people evacuated to higher ground. Some 200,000 remained, however—the car-less, the homeless, the aged and infirm, and those die-hard New Orleanians who look for any excuse to throw a party.
The storm hit Breton Sound with the fury of a nuclear warhead, pushing a deadly storm surge into Lake Pontchartrain. The water crept to the top of the massive berm that holds back the lake and then spilled over. Nearly 80 percent of New Orleans lies below sea level—more than eight feet below in places—so the water poured in. A liquid brown wall washed over the brick ranch homes of Gentilly, over the clapboard houses of the Ninth Ward, over the white-columned porches of the Garden District, until it raced through the bars and strip joints on Bourbon Street like the pale rider of the Apocalypse. As it reached 25 feet (eight meters) over parts of the city, people climbed onto roofs to escape it.
Thousands drowned in the murky brew that was soon contaminated by sewage and industrial waste. Thousands more who survived the flood later perished from dehydration and disease as they waited to be rescued. It took two months to pump the city dry, and by then the Big Easy was buried under a blanket of putrid sediment, a million people were homeless, and 50,000 were dead. It was the worst natural disaster in the history of the United States." - speculative description of a Category 5 hurricane striking New Orleans, National Geographic, October 2004
Does anyone think we will actually see a debate on whether or not to rebuild New Orleans?
EDIT: Hey look! URS helped run last year's Hurricane Pam simulation!
"If a big, slow-moving hurricane crossed the Gulf of Mexico on the right track, it would drive a sea surge that would drown New Orleans under 20 feet of water." - Scientific American, October 2001
"As the whirling maelstrom approached the coast, more than a million people evacuated to higher ground. Some 200,000 remained, however—the car-less, the homeless, the aged and infirm, and those die-hard New Orleanians who look for any excuse to throw a party.
The storm hit Breton Sound with the fury of a nuclear warhead, pushing a deadly storm surge into Lake Pontchartrain. The water crept to the top of the massive berm that holds back the lake and then spilled over. Nearly 80 percent of New Orleans lies below sea level—more than eight feet below in places—so the water poured in. A liquid brown wall washed over the brick ranch homes of Gentilly, over the clapboard houses of the Ninth Ward, over the white-columned porches of the Garden District, until it raced through the bars and strip joints on Bourbon Street like the pale rider of the Apocalypse. As it reached 25 feet (eight meters) over parts of the city, people climbed onto roofs to escape it.
Thousands drowned in the murky brew that was soon contaminated by sewage and industrial waste. Thousands more who survived the flood later perished from dehydration and disease as they waited to be rescued. It took two months to pump the city dry, and by then the Big Easy was buried under a blanket of putrid sediment, a million people were homeless, and 50,000 were dead. It was the worst natural disaster in the history of the United States." - speculative description of a Category 5 hurricane striking New Orleans, National Geographic, October 2004
Does anyone think we will actually see a debate on whether or not to rebuild New Orleans?
EDIT: Hey look! URS helped run last year's Hurricane Pam simulation!
no subject
His crystal ball shone so brightly you could see it from space:
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/content/?050912fr_archive01
Oops.
http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/?050912ta_talk_mcphee
The Control of Nature.
no subject
Besides, not to rebuild would be giving in to the terr- I mean, nature.
The debate that won't happen.
In the long run it would be so much more intelligent to pull most large-scale development out of the Delta. But this simply won't even be debated. It's a shame. OTOH, how would Bay Areans feel if the nation debated the wisdom of building cities over active earthquake faults?
Let's hear it.
I'm listening - what does your profession say should be done?
no subject
The Mayor's Plan.
no subject
On that thought .... off to research the disaster response plans for the Bay Area in the event of a major earthquake.
no subject
FEMA has places large caches of disaster recovery supplies and equipment around the United States for use in catastrohpic events. One of these caches is extremely close to the affected area. So far it remains completely untapped.
FEMA was there when the hurricane was coming. They were there when it hit. There were there afterward, but they couldn't do anything because they weren't told to do anything. The disaster teams of Louisiana were responsible for coordinating state and federal responses. It's set up this way to avoid the problem of too many chiefs and not enough indians. The state controls is for two reasons: 1. The state should know what's best for the state. 2. There is still a separation between state and federal authority, and the feds do have limitations on what kind of troop movements they can make without state approval.
The problem is that the government of Louisiana didn't do anything until two days after the event. Then when they requested federal aid they were angry that it took a couple days to mobilize the thousands of troops and supply caravans that would have already been there if the state government had taken action when they first heard the hurricane was coming.
As far as I'm concerned, the state should be paying for its own levees. There's no reason for that to be a federal project. Especially since it wasn't getting done, they should have paid the money then sought reimbursement. With all the casinos that were there, they could have afforded it.
no subject
As far as I'm concerned, the state should be paying for its own levees.
They couldn't afford it. So if they can't afford it & you don't think that the Federal government should pay for it, what do you think should be done? I'm not trying to be antagonistic here - I'm just looking for ideas.
fact check, & ever more confusion
http://gov.louisiana.gov/2005%20%20proclamations/48pro2005-Emergency-HurricaneKatrina.pdf
Also, why was a disaster declared by FEMA for the northern half of Louisiana??
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/08/20050827-1.html
no subject
1) Find a suitable structure to place yourself under, such as a doorway or a bathtub.
2) Bend over so that your head is between your legs.
3) Kiss ass goodbye.
no subject
I think they did a decent job back in 1906. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/08/opinion/08winchester.html)
no subject
Trust me. We're just as fucked as the folks in New Orleans. ;)
no subject
I wouldn't go so far as to say they never should have built it there in the first place. They didn't know the dangers back then, and anyway it wasn't under sea level when first established, IIUC. And it's not like you can wake up one morning and say "hey, this whole city is below sea level, let's move it fifty miles inland." But I do think that for *re*building purposes it would make tons of sense to move it, and no sense at ALL to rebuild in the same place. alas.
Yahoo! news story
Re: Yahoo! news story
"How many of those people have been to New Orleans?" said Alec Phoenix, a New Orleans resident who is currently in Los Angeles. "To say the city should be abandoned because it's below sea level is an irresponsible statement."
I think this guy is a little unclear on the meaning of the word "irresponsible." He's probably blinded by his affection for what the city used to be, which I can understand, but yeesh.
I really need to make some Princess Bride icons.
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Re: I really need to make some Princess Bride icons.
(Anonymous) 2005-09-09 06:49 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
http://www.livejournal.com/users/krick/20178.html
no subject
no subject
Quake probabilities
Thanks...
Re: Thanks...
no subject
http://www.livejournal.com/users/copperbird/84998.html
no subject
no subject