serious katrina issues

[William_Thompson]

The truth is stranger than fiction.

One of the draw-backs to having a sense of humor is that when I say something unbelievable that is true, people tend to disbelieve me.

Well, here is a way you can tell. If it NOT FUNNY and just plain strange, then I am dead serious.

I have not posted this on any websites (including my own yet) because I need to dig up the proof because it is so unbelievable. But, anyway, here it goes:

When I relocated to St. Louis I was alone at first and put in long hours at work. I just had an AM radio to keep me company when I got tired of music. I called into a talk show that was discussing the benefits of space exploration. Here is the kicker. I predicted disasters like Katrina and I told about how space exploration helps us. Now, here is the unbelievable part. After I gave my speech (one that was only repeating what I had learned from NASA's websites and other scientific resources) the next caller called me a nut and said that I should call Art Bell's show instead.

People cannot --- MOST people cannot tell the difference between science and pseudo-science.

My point is that the biggest thing to point to at fault with Katrina is our own inability to believe what is really true and possible.

[sarongsong]

...I have not posted this on any websites (including my own yet) because I need to dig up the proof...Of/for what?

[Fram]

My question exactly. What are you trying to tell us? It isn't funny, so you're serious, but what is 'unbelievable'? That some people who phone in on a radio show are unscientific, that a message you try to give is for some people incomprehensible (which can as easily be the fault of the messenger), anything else?

[MrObvious]

I think the OP is saying he brought up valid concearns regarding natural disasters and how space exploration can help (eg prediction) and was met with disbelief and accused of being a woowoo.

The proof being proof of the accusation.

Well, thats what I read from the post in any case :)

Given that then, I'd agree with the OP. I get the same thing in my industry. Safety concearns are brushed aside because of probability. Mostly managment has no idea about the technicalities but makes a safety decision based on profit, ignorance and the belief that its so unlikely that it will never happen. In extreame cases arguing on technical grounds as to the imposibility of an event yet have no technical background to base it on......

I find the situation for natural disasters the same. We are relying on someone with no technical background to make a decision that affect peoples lives, it makes no sense because it comes down to conflict of interest and safety should not be treated so lightly. Just MHO.

[Manchurian Taikonaut]

Yes there are a heap of NASA sats, GOES weather imagery, ESA/French Environmental satellites....they have helped track storms, watch the tsunami, forest fires, pollution, oil spills....
nobody is going to cutback this stuff because it is highly important

However NASA has given us info on storms and disasters in the past, but the problem with this incident seems to be the slow response to Katrina
For example they already had a hurricane pam rehearsal, space satellites and weather stats gave great info on the Hurricane
but because of failures on many other levels, such as bad political moves, the local people not paying attention or federal response failures....the natural disaster became a major catastrophe with many American deaths and children on the street without food

[William_Thompson]

Of/for what?

Of me predicting this sort of natural disaster.

I need to track down the radio station and the time I called and get a recording of the show and convert it to a format fot the internet and put it online.

[William_Thompson]

My question exactly. What are you trying to tell us? It isn't funny, so you're serious, but what is 'unbelievable'? That some people who phone in on a radio show are unscientific, that a message you try to give is for some people incomprehensible (which can as easily be the fault of the messenger), anything else?
It seems that I summarized too much here. My apologies.


My question exactly. What are you trying to tell us?
I am trying to tell you that the lessons to be learned from Katrina is that the real "cause" (something that the political left and the political right have been talking a lot about lately) of the disaster is the human incapacity to regard science. Science is our friend, usually. Nature is not necessarily our friend. This is contradictory to a lot of people's thinking and it is this thinking that is the enemy.



It isn't funny, so you're serious, but what is 'unbelievable'?
Well, you and others who visit this website and forum may not think what I said on the radio show was unbelievable but the average Joe radio listener to the program seemed to think it was unbelievable. No one wants to believe that these disasters are right around the corner. And so, somehow they cannot believe something that they do not want to.

Also, I was making the comment because sometimes I have posted parodies on this website to make a point. Well, this post is not a parody. It is not funny. I am being serious. I could say to someone, "I predicted Katrina months ago and noone seemed to listen". That seems to be hard to believe. But it is not funny. It is true.


That some people who phone in on a radio show are unscientific, that a message you try to give is for some people incomprehensible (which can as easily be the fault of the messenger), anything else?
Well, I am hoping that once I get my hands on an audio recording of the show and once I put together a complete essay, that people will listen to the likes of me.

[antoniseb]

A few things worth noting here:
- first this would be a good time politically to make a very public list of other places in the US/World that are disasters waiting to happen, and see what can be done to lower the risks. (I'll start a thread to see what we can come up with for the list).
- at least as far as hurricanes go, I suspect a lot of people will be quicker to evacuate when the order comes in the next few years.

[William_Thompson]

A few things worth noting here:
- first this would be a good time politically to make a very public list of other places in the US/World that are disasters waiting to happen, and see what can be done to lower the risks. (I'll start a thread to see what we can come up with for the list).
- at least as far as hurricanes go, I suspect a lot of people will be quicker to evacuate when the order comes in the next few years.

On that radio program I mentioned the fact that Oregon is due for a Tsunami that -- according to geological studies and other evidence -- happens every 300 years.

I also mentioned the fact that Yellowstone is really the mouth of a huge valcano.

And I talked about the Near Earth objects.

And I did elaborate on what needed to be done about many of these things.

[Monique]

I believe part of problem is cyclic nature of hurricane activity. The basic cycle seem to be approximately 50 years. Last maximum approximate 1950-1960. Is long time ago, people forget. :(

[Moose]

Referencing William_Thompson (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=553026&postcount=9)'s post above:

Considering the number of earthquakes on the west coast of the US, predicting a tsunami at an unspecified date (presumably sometime within the next three hundred years I imagine) is even less impressive than predicting a hurricane landfall, someday, in the Gulf of Mexico.

As for your "prediction" that Yellowstone "is really the mouth of a huge valcano[sic]", a few moments of googling shows that Yellowstone's geological condition is common knowledge (http://www.mines.utah.edu/%7Eggcmpsem/UUSATRG/CD-Yel/ys-geodyn.html).

And last, your "near earth objects", is there an actual prediction hidden in there somewhere or is this a "water is wet", "springtime is spiffy" sort of thing?

ETA: As I see it, William, you got off easy on that radio show. Next time you feel like predicting stuff, how about including a specific date/time for when the prediction is supposed to occur, and actually publishing it before the fact, rather than after?

[William_Thompson]

Referencing William_Thompson (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=553026&postcount=9)'s post above:

Considering the number of earthquakes on the west coast of the US, predicting a tsunami at an unspecified date (presumably sometime within the next three hundred years I imagine) is even less impressive than predicting a hurricane landfall, someday, in the Gulf of Mexico.

As for your "prediction" that Yellowstone "is really the mouth of a huge valcano[sic]", a few moments of googling shows that Yellowstone's geological condition is common knowledge (http://www.mines.utah.edu/%7Eggcmpsem/UUSATRG/CD-Yel/ys-geodyn.html).

And last, your "near earth objects", is there an actual prediction hidden in there somewhere or is this a "water is wet", "springtime is spiffy" sort of thing?

ETA: As I see it, William, you got off easy. Next time you feel like predicting stuff, how about including a specific date/time for when the prediction is supposed to occur, and actually publishing it before the fact, rather than after?

That does not detract from the fact that most people refuse to believe it.

And a hurricane hitting New Orleans was also widely discussed before but ignored.



As for your "prediction" that Yellowstone "is really the mouth of a huge valcano...

You put the word "prediction" in quotes here but I did not say I predicted that.

And, I should add that the tone to your posting is odd considering the fact that I had said that all I did on this radio program is repeat what I had learned from reliable sources.

You know, I have to say I was hesitant about posting all this online here because I feared that someone might easily misunderstand what I am trying to say. I am NOT saying that I have some special gift where I can predict the future.

[William_Thompson]

I believe part of problem is cyclic nature of hurricane activity. The basic cycle seem to be approximately 50 years. Last maximum approximate 1950-1960. Is long time ago, people forget. :(

Which brings to mind another point I made... Actually, the main point I made on the program. It is the fact that recorded history is really very short and huge things have happened in prehistoric times that dwarf what we are familiar with. And yet this does not mean that we are somehow safe and immune to them hitting us again.

[Moose]

That does not detract from the fact that most people refuse to believe it.

Believe what? That a hurricane is going to hit somewhere in the Gulf? That your statements to the patently obvious have any sort of predictive value whatsoever?

"I predict the sun will come up tomorrow morning". Is this the sort of thing you feel should be earning you kudos, William?

[William_Thompson]

Believe what? That a hurricane is going to hit somewhere in the Gulf? That your statements to the patently obvious have any sort of predictive value whatsoever?

"I predict the sun will come up tomorrow morning". Is this the sort of thing you feel should be earning you kudos, William?

Right.

As I said, I am not claiming to have any special poweres where I can predict the future.

Read what I wrote. Read what I wrote without reading anything into it. I am commenting on peoples incapacity to believe science. This is the point to this tread of discussion. I am not guilty of what you are accusing me of and, in fact, I also like to debunk people to do claim to have supernatural powers.

You seem to claim to have the power to see beyond what I have written to see what is not there.

[Monique]

Which brings to mind another point I made... Actually, the main point I made on the program. It is the fact that recorded history is really very short and huge things have happened in prehistoric times that dwarf what we are familiar with. And yet this does not mean that we are somehow safe and immune to them hitting us again.
Is why I hate phrase "record breaking".

We examine few cm of time line meters long and believe we have wisdom. :(

[Moose]

I am NOT saying that I have some special gift where I can predict the future.

So noted. But the statements you claim to have made on that radio show are as unimpressive when originating from your "reliable sources" as they would have been had you pulled them out of a hat. I'm entirely unsurprised another caller gave you a hard time about it.

[William_Thompson]

So noted. But the statements you claim to have made on that radio show are as unimpressive when originating from your "reliable sources" as they would have been had you pulled them out of a hat. I'm entirely unsurprised another caller gave you a hard time about it.

Sorry but I have to say you missed that point too. The other caller was so conditioned by pseudo-science that he could not tell science from pseudo-science. He confused what I was saying as being pseudo-science.

I think you should ask yourself if you, perhaps, are guilty of doing something simular here. It seems you judged me without really reading fully what I had written.

[Moose]

Sorry but I have to say you missed that point too. The other caller was so conditioned by pseudo-science that he could not tell science from pseudo-science. He confused what I was saying as being pseudo-science.

Did you cite your "sources"?


I think you should ask yourself if you, perhaps, are guilty of doing something simular here. It seems you judged me without really reading fully what I had written.

I assure you I fully read what you wrote. What you wrote here wasn't science by any stretch of the imagination.

[William_Thompson]

...What you wrote here wasn't science by any stretch of the imagination.http://fool.exler.ru/sm/nud.gif I don't know what you mean. I was relating an experience and you made some accusations towards me. To me that is it in a nut shell.

You missed the point again. Do you know what my point was in this discussion thread? Please tell me what you think my point has been.

Yes, on the radio program I cited my sources but the next caller had formed his opinion before he heard that part I think.

[Moose]

Yes, on the radio program I cited my sources[...]

Let's see them.

[William_Thompson]

Let's see them.
Please answer my question. You DID say that you read what I write. Well I asked you a question. Please answer it.

I sources, AS I WROTE EARLIER were NASA web sites and other scientific sources. The other scientific sources include PBS, NPR, and Scientific American.

By the way, from your tone, you seem to be proving my point further. Just as the other caller said I belonged on Art Bell, you seem to be implying the same thing.

Please answer my question. What is the point of this message I have posted, in your opinion?

[Fram]

I called into a talk show that was discussing the benefits of space exploration. Here is the kicker. I predicted disasters like Katrina and I told about how space exploration helps us.

This came from the OP. But afterwards, you have said that you talked about the Oregon tsunami, Yellowstone volcano, and near Earth objects. Then you claimed that you not predicted these.
Then what have you predicted? That one day these will happen? Or that they will happen soon and that they should be the top priority of the government?
You are making vague claims, retract things you said (or implied) before, and draw farfetched conclusions of the reaction of one caller.

And how are all these 'serious katrina issues'?

[antoniseb]

And how are all these 'serious katrina issues'?

I suspect that William is saying that broadly the fact that many Americans cannot correctly identify which threats are coming from real science vs. those from fiction (Vampires, Supernova Sun, etc.). So this is a large social issue, hilighted by the recent events with Katrina in New Orleans.

I take what William is saying seriously, even if there may be some doubt as to how he expressed himself either here or on the radio. It is the case that the possibility of Yellowstone exploding in the next half million years is far removed from Katrina, but IMO his overall point is valid.

[William_Thompson]

I suspect that William is saying that broadly the fact that many Americans cannot correctly identify which threats are coming from real science vs. those from fiction (Vampires, Supernova Sun, etc.). So this is a large social issue, hilighted by the recent events with Katrina in New Orleans.

I take what William is saying seriously, even if there may be some doubt as to how he expressed himself either here or on the radio. It is the case that the possibility of Yellowstone exploding in the next half million years is far removed from Katrina, but IMO his overall point is valid.

Thanks.

[Moose]

I take what William is saying seriously, even if there may be some doubt as to how he expressed himself either here or on the radio. It is the case that the possibility of Yellowstone exploding in the next half million years is far removed from Katrina, but IMO his overall point is valid.

Oh, be assured I take William seriously as well, but at the same time, it is seldomly a good idea to accept wild unsupported statements at face value.

And while it is a logical fallacy to reject a claim (which I'm not) based (solely) on past history, William has a (short) history of making some whoppers (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=18902&highlight=lucas).

As Fram pointed out, in the OP William had claimed:


I predicted disasters like Katrina and I told about how space exploration helps us.

If he made a statement like that on the radio show, it doesn't surprise me at all that someone called him on it.

William, as you have made this claim here, it isn't unreasonable for me to expect you to back it up. Now, since then, you've backpedaled somewhat so I'm not entirely sure what you're claiming anymore.

As for the OP, it is true that your average layperson has a difficult job in evaluating claims, mainly because it is so common nowadays for people to throw heaps of them out there without adequate support.

The solution, William, to the problem you posed in your OP is to require people to back up their significant claims before they are accepted, and to not take them at face value.*

So, as I have answered your demand that I demonstrate my reading comprehension skills, the ball is now right back in your court, William. You've said you've predicted Katrina. You have not (quite) retracted this claim (although you have backpedaled on it a bit). You have not shown us where you've recorded your prediction (emphasizing that this must have been prior to the event to be of any use), nor the (specific) information upon which you've drawn any of your conclusions. And this all assumes that at some point you've made predictions considerably less vague than the ones you've summarized in this thread.

(* And yes, I try very hard to hold myself to the same standard, professionally most of all.)

[Edit to change one word.]

[William_Thompson]

After my post, according to the response, some people got my point while others did not.

I spent some time clarifying my comments to those who did not get my point. Just because my clarification is not what you had thought I said, does not mean I have backpedaled.



Oh, be assured I take William seriously as well, but at the same time, it is seldomly a good idea to accept wild unsupported statements at face value.


Some people think in paragraphs and others think in sentances. Some people see the whole subject matter while others pick out little parts of a statement and take the individual sentances out of context. THe point to this entire discussion thread is found on the last sentance of my first post: "My point is that the biggest thing to point to at fault with Katrina is our own inability to believe what is really true and possible." In Freshman English Composition class it is called The Summary.



And while it is a logical fallacy to reject a claim (which I'm not) based (solely) on past history, William has a (short) history of making some whoppers (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=18902&highlight=lucas).


Ah, but I established clearly in this posting the difference between a joke and a serious comment. Did I not?

I would think most people would consider National Geographic suing George Lucas to be clearly tongue-in-cheek and pretty amusing. I am not the one to blame if you do not see the humor in that particular posting.

There is a posting somewhere, I don't know where, about Bart Sibrel making a movie that WW II never happened. It is a parody. It is a joke. It might not even be on this website. But it is funny because it draws a parallel between his moon movies and illustrates how absurd they are through parody.

Take a look at The Onion www.theonion.com for some hard hitting journalism, Moose.



William, as you have made this claim here, it isn't unreasonable for me to expect you to back it up. Now, since then, you've backpedaled somewhat so I'm not entirely sure what you're claiming anymore.


Gee. Sorry.

Wait a second, what claim is that? Is it the claim that I predicted Katrina? Well, guess what? Lots of people had predicted Katrina and storms like it and events like it. I was only repeating what they had said on the radio program.

You want me to "back up" and "quote my sources" for something that is really no big deal and no big claim. And, besides, it is not the main thrust, not the main point, not the summary, and not the issue I am presenting.

[Lance]

I think the word being stumbled over here is "prediction".

It is my interpretation that William, let's say, "presented" information that should be well known and is widely accepted scientifically, yet is unknown or ignored by the general public.

It was well known that a major hurricane hitting New Orleans would be a catastrophy, yet the public and the government were unprepared.

Am I on the right track, William?

[paulie jay]

Moose, I don't know, but I really think you have missed the point of William's post. I did not get the impression that he was saying that he had a special ability to predict natural disasters, rather I took his phrase "I predicted disasters like Katrina" to mean the impact and aftermath resulting from a lack of preparedness to deal with them. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I got. Maybe the use of the word "predict" was not the best of choices?


edited - Lance, took the words right out of my mouth!

[Lance]

edited - Lance, took the words right out of my mouth!

I'm sorry paulie jay. Would you like them back?

[Moose]

You two may be right, but it seems to me you're both having to stretch a bit to get to that interpretation. I can only go by what someone actually writes, not by what they thought they'd successfully expressed.

In any case, if William didn't mean to claim that he'd predicted Katrina, then I'm okay with it. I similarly have no problem if he'd instead meant to claim to have read that New Orleans was acutely vulnerable to a hurricane strike (as this was common knowledge in any case, or should have been). I have no beef larger than a quibble with the rest of his OP, where he expresses his speculation in the form of speculation.

[William_Thompson]

I think the word being stumbled over here is "prediction".

It is my interpretation that William, let's say, "presented" information that should be well known and is widely accepted scientifically, yet is unknown or ignored by the general public.

It was well known that a major hurricane hitting New Orleans would be a catastrophy, yet the public and the government were unprepared.

Am I on the right track, William?

I was intending to say exactly the same thing but you beat me to it.

[Lance]

Then I would strongly agree with you.

[William_Thompson]

And while it is a logical fallacy to reject a claim (which I'm not) based (solely) on past history, William has a (short) history of making some whoppers (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=18902&highlight=lucas).


BTW http://www.jitterbug.com/origins/ "borrowing" is not out of character for George.

Sorry for flying off at a tangent. That can be discussed there.

But, at the same time...

I am glad that you have brought up this post. You should go back and reexamine the methodologies you use to examine this topic. In this OP was nothing more than a photo. The origional post was just a caption and a photo.

That is it.

There was nothing more.

And my saying that there was nothing more is not backpeddaling. And to say that my entertaining your arguments with counter-arguments was an indication that I was taking you seriously is Non Sequitur.

[paulie jay]

You two may be right, but it seems to me you're both having to stretch a bit to get to that interpretation. I can only go by what someone actually writes, not by what they thought they'd successfully expressed.

snip
Well, that was my interpretation after first reading it ;)

[taurus26]

Hello there people - I haven't got eough time to read all your posts on this issue!

I don't think there is much more right now that needs to be said other than -

http://www.bushclintonkatrinafund.org/

Actually I think it would be a good idea for members to continually post to a loop to keep this project active -

quote the url too of course!

I have a confession, Prince Adedeji had asked me to promote that url. It was a very noble gesture as his own organization was also in need of funds.

http://www.helpconcerns.org/index.html

[William_Thompson]

Hello there people - I haven't got eough time to read all your posts on this issue!

I don't think there is much more right now that needs to be said other than -

http://www.bushclintonkatrinafund.org/

Actually I think it would be a good idea for members to continually post to a loop to keep this project active -

quote the url too of course!

I have a confession, Prince Adedeji had asked me to promote that url. It was a very noble gesture as his own organization was also in need of funds.

http://www.helpconcerns.org/index.html

I have given.

Interesting that you are from Australia (right?). I am curious, can people outside the US contribute from this website?

[taurus26]

Good question - I was wondering that too - I can't see why not - the tax deduction may not apply against our government 'tho. If potential donors can't fill in all details might hold things up - I will try to make a donation and find ou!

[taurus26]

I have given.

Interesting that you are from Australia (right?). I am curious, can people outside the US contribute from this website?

Thank's William for giving me the opportunity to check things out!

I was able to make a donation in the normal way.

Donation's are accepted from around the World. And if you are able, please don't forget the Prince. It was his suggestion to me in the first place.

http://www2.bushclintonkatrinafund.org/

http://www.helpconcerns.org/

[Ara Pacis]

"Prediction" does not to me imply supernatural ability. It is my understanding that a theory based on the Scientific Method has as its definition the ability to "predict" future events.

[taurus26]

Thank's William for giving me the opportunity to check things out!

I was able to make a donation in the normal way.

Donation's are accepted from around the World. And if you are able, please don't forget the Prince. It was his suggestion to me in the first place.

http://www2.bushclintonkatrinafund.org/

http://www.helpconcerns.org/


Let's keep this thread active people!

[Moose]

I am glad that you have brought up this post. You should go back and reexamine the methodologies you use to examine this topic. In this OP was nothing more than a photo. The origional post was just a caption and a photo.

I have no idea what you're on about here. There is no photo in this OP or anywhere else in this thread.


And to say that my entertaining your arguments with counter-arguments was an indication that I was taking you seriously is Non Sequitur.

You might want to "reexamine" your own "methodologies", William. Or whatever. I've never said this or anything like this. I don't much care if you take me seriously or not, but if you continue to make stuff up, I will continue to correct you.

[Fram]

He means the OP of the George Lucas / National Geographic thread referenced earlier, a 'joke' only he found funny (and which he only described as a joke after all his arguments had been wiped away).
Your OP here has a good conclusion, but that doesn't mean that the rest of the text can't be criticized. And as you admitted in a later post, you didn't predict disasters like Katrina, you predicted much bigger and rarer ones. This gives the impression to me that instead of showing how dumb the rest of the world is (well, one caller on that show is a good sample of course), you just wanted to show how smart you are yourself, just like you tried in that George Lucas post (oh right, but that was a joke), and you thought that Katrina was a good excuse of doing so, certainly with a thread title that would catch the attention.

[genebujold]

I think the OP is saying he brought up valid concearns regarding natural disasters and how space exploration can help (eg prediction) and was met with disbelief and accused of being a woowoo.

The proof being proof of the accusation.

Well, thats what I read from the post in any case :)

Given that then, I'd agree with the OP. I get the same thing in my industry. Safety concearns are brushed aside because of probability. Mostly managment has no idea about the technicalities but makes a safety decision based on profit, ignorance and the belief that its so unlikely that it will never happen. In extreame cases arguing on technical grounds as to the imposibility of an event yet have no technical background to base it on......

I find the situation for natural disasters the same. We are relying on someone with no technical background to make a decision that affect peoples lives, it makes no sense because it comes down to conflict of interest and safety should not be treated so lightly. Just MHO.

However! Having been a New Orleans resident for seven years (I moved away in 1989), I know for a fact that the vast majority of people both in the local, county, and state governments, as well as on the street, knew with the utmost certainty that all it would take is a big enough storm and New Orleans would be underwater.

The talk involved both what should have been done (what the Army Corps of Engineers has been proposing for YEARS), as well as what the people would do if, or before, flooding began.

This general knowledge is the main reason as to why, when the Mayor said "evacuate," the vast majority of folks evacuated.

The rest of the "horrors" we hear about on CNN and other media decrying things is merely the media trying to sell advertising.

[Moose]

He means the OP of the George Lucas / National Geographic thread referenced earlier, a 'joke' only he found funny (and which he only described as a joke after all his arguments had been wiped away).

He described two mutually exclusive OPs in successive sentences.

"In this OP was nothing more than a photo. The origional post was just a caption and a photo."

Come to think of it, his George Lucas / National Geographic (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=18902&page=1) thread has an OP with two photos and no captions. I'm pretty sure he has started only two threads, to which he's apparently referenced neither accurately.

It seems reasonable to me to assume he means the OP in this thread when he says "this OP". But that could just be my "methodologies [used] to examine this topic" again.

Lousy methodologies.

[Moose]

This general knowledge is the main reason as to why, when the Mayor said "evacuate," the vast majority of folks evacuated.

It must be noted, however, that there was no mass transit running out of the city at the time the mandatory evacuation order was given (and the mass exodus occurred.) Families without cars and people with disabilities simply could not obey the mandatory evacuation order.

As they'd been instructed to seek the Superdome, the convention center, and a few other places as "shelters of last resort", that's what they did.

Unfortunately, needed supplies to the Superdome were being systematically halted by FEMA while the security folks tried to prevent an impending riot while an uncontrolled (though limited) fire was burning. (I was monitoring the scanner traffic secondhand from the real-time transcript threads on Fark.) Other rescue workers were trying to call for help to the convention center as well, so somebody apparently knew about the folks there. Still others were "taking small-arms fire" from the looters as they flew past the dryer parts of town.

All real-time (or moments after.)


The rest of the "horrors" we hear about on CNN and other media decrying things is merely the media trying to sell advertising.

Gene, the horrors I'd heard were "merely" rescue personnel on the ground trying to get through the night any way they could until support arrived.

By the available evidence, the media was systematically under-reporting the situation, not sensationalizing it.

Anybody wishing to read the transcripts, you can find the first of them on the Thu September 01, 2005 archive page at Fark.com. Note that Fark is not family friendly, so I won't link directly here.

[Ara Pacis]

We might want to cut William_Thompson a little slack about knowing that a hurricane like Katrina could wreak such havoc. I remember watching Chertoff on TV talking about how Katrina and the flooding of NO were not a single event but two separate events that could not be planned for because no one in his office anticipated that they would both happen at the same time. He then went on to say that a terrorist nuke in NO within this recent timeframe might be possible but that it is so unlikely to happen that he didn't bother planning for it either.

I find it ridiculous that Chertoff & Co. were so ignorant to not consider that a strong hurricane might cause a flood in NO like so many have predicted over the years. And then he goes on TV and basically says that ignorance is his defense. (BTW, this isn't about partisan politics, it's just about dumb politics.) So William should get credit for using common sense that was absent in DHS and FEMA, but I don't know that he implied preternatural abilities.

[Sam5]

However! Having been a New Orleans resident for seven years (I moved away in 1989), I know for a fact that the vast majority of people both in the local, county, and state governments, as well as on the street, knew with the utmost certainty that all it would take is a big enough storm and New Orleans would be underwater.

Yes, I used to cover Levee Board meetings in 1963-65 for a local TV station, and they were talking about it back then.

In 1965 they had a big hurricane and much of the Eastern part of the city (East of the Industrial Canal) was flooded just like what we see now all over town.

They knew this years ago and they used to prepare for it. But the current city government didn't seem to be prepared for it.

Back in '63-'65 they still had evacuation maps and large supplies of food and water stored up around town, left over from the "Civil Defense" days of the 1950s.

[Manchurian Taikonaut]

Thank's William for giving me the opportunity to check things out!

I was able to make a donation in the normal way.

Donation's are accepted from around the World. And if you are able, please don't forget the Prince. It was his suggestion to me in the first place.

http://www2.bushclintonkatrinafund.org/

http://www.helpconcerns.org/


yes, the people need a lot of help now

here are the space pictures
http://www.thespacesite.com/hurricane_katrina_floods_from_space.html
Hurricane Floods Seen from Space

[Sam5]

Map of flood of 1849:

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/new_orleans_1849.jpg

[MrObvious]

However! Having been a New Orleans resident for seven years (I moved away in 1989), I know for a fact that the vast majority of people both in the local, county, and state governments, as well as on the street, knew with the utmost certainty that all it would take is a big enough storm and New Orleans would be underwater.

The talk involved both what should have been done (what the Army Corps of Engineers has been proposing for YEARS), as well as what the people would do if, or before, flooding began.

This general knowledge is the main reason as to why, when the Mayor said "evacuate," the vast majority of folks evacuated.




It still seems to me that there was disbelief it was happening or the disbelief that it would be so serious. If there wasn't then the 72hrs evacuation procedure would have been followed. The mayor wouldn't have a need to talk to lawyers prior issuing an evacuation order and there wouldn't be so many people stuck in a city without basic essensials or busses sitting in lots flooded while people needed evacuating.
I can't imagine anyone beleiving this would happen and then not follow the appropriate procedures that have been prepared in advance for such an event.

To me that means that the scientific comunity knew about it in advance and prepared estimates and procedures to be followed. The weather service predicted the event well in advance and yet valuble time went by with procedures being ignored. It's either a case of disbelief (hence a major stuff up) or its something far worse.




The rest of the "horrors" we hear about on CNN and other media decrying things is merely the media trying to sell advertising

You can't be seriously sugesting this?

[Gillianren]

if, for whatever reason, the city of Olympia was to be evacuated right now, I could actually do it (although I'd be illegally driving; see "sprained ankle" thread!), because I can take my neighbors' car while they're on a cruise to Alaska. I'd have to load their cats for 'em, too, but I could make it out.

however, most of the time, I'd be in some pretty serious trouble. you see, I don't own a car. I couldn't rent one even if I currently had a driver's license, because what I don't have is any money--and while my boyfriend has money, he doesn't have a driver's license. doesn't want one, either. a lot of other people I know would be in the same situation, because I still hang around with a "poor college student" sort of crowd, because we all graduated during a really lousy job market.

so okay. some people are expressing anger that there are buses that weren't used, and I can sympathize with that, but think about this--were there drivers for all those buses? was there fuel for all those buses? was there a way to organize using those buses before the hurricane got there? (I mean, have you ever tried to organize a car trip for just a few people? imagine that times ten thousand or so.)

and if the buses had been used, where would they have put all those people that got bused out? it's ridiculous that no one thought of this in advance, but the simple fact is, there was no real evacuation plan for the entire city. in fact, I'd say there still isn't much of anywhere. in fact, in our hypothetical evacuation of Olympia, I don't know where I'd go, either, because I can't afford a motel room even for one night. (I couldn't even afford a tank of gas, man, and they frown on taking the $7.50 in pennies that's all the money I have to my name right now.) I would imagine a lot of those people are from families that all live in New Orleans, just as, for a very long time, just about all of my family (on both sides) lived in Los Angeles County. my sister's in Olympia. the next-closest family is in northern California, and we don't get along.

yes, I'm quite sure some people stayed behind voluntarily, for whatever reason. however, I'm equally sure that most of those who did stay behind did so because they didn't have any other options.

[taurus26]

Summed up perfectly Gillianren. We should be looking at fixing the whole cause no matter how long it takes. This should be a world government issue!

[The Supreme Canuck]

This should be a world government issue!

Er, no. It should be handled by local government. Less red tape, faster response times, and eyes on the ground. Can you imagine if NO asked for, say, the UN's permission to evactuate? They'd still be making a decision.

[taurus26]

Yes I agree that it is a local government issue but our government is very lax in this area!

Who monitors the monitors?

[The Supreme Canuck]

I see what you're saying. I think it would be best for the federal gov't to monitor and regulate local government emergency plans. (In this case, local refers to municipal, county, and/or state gov'ts)

World gov't wouldn't deal with things like this (specifically because there is no world gov't)

[Ara Pacis]

Er, no. It should be handled by local government. Less red tape, faster response times, and eyes on the ground. Can you imagine if NO asked for, say, the UN's permission to evactuate? They'd still be making a decision.

Maybe if we had a proper world government that was efficient and effective and active in anticipating such disasters and preplanning responses. But the UN is not a good example as it's not even a world government, proper or not.

A proper world government might prevent wars, so more national guard would be available for disaster relief. A proper world government might be able to afford several relief-oriented ships that can be dispatched from regional locations. A proper world government might be able to distribute funds and labor and resources so that storm prone areas have proper storm-rated infrastructure.

[Sam5]

Maybe if we had a proper world government that was efficient and effective and active in anticipating such disasters and preplanning responses.

I think that's a pipe dream. It's like saying "If we had a proper city, state, and federal government." We didn't have any, and it would have been far worse if we had a World President trying to issue orders from Italy, France, Russia, South Africa, or China, etc., etc.

[Ara Pacis]

maybe

[MrObvious]

if, for whatever reason, the city of Olympia was to be evacuated right now, I could actually do it (although I'd be illegally driving; see "sprained ankle" thread!), because I can take my neighbors' car while they're on a cruise to Alaska. I'd have to load their cats for 'em, too, but I could make it out.

however, most of the time, I'd be in some pretty serious trouble. you see, I don't own a car. I couldn't rent one even if I currently had a driver's license, because what I don't have is any money--and while my boyfriend has money, he doesn't have a driver's license. doesn't want one, either. a lot of other people I know would be in the same situation, because I still hang around with a "poor college student" sort of crowd, because we all graduated during a really lousy job market.

so okay. some people are expressing anger that there are buses that weren't used, and I can sympathize with that, but think about this--were there drivers for all those buses? was there fuel for all those buses? was there a way to organize using those buses before the hurricane got there? (I mean, have you ever tried to organize a car trip for just a few people? imagine that times ten thousand or so.)

and if the buses had been used, where would they have put all those people that got bused out? it's ridiculous that no one thought of this in advance, but the simple fact is, there was no real evacuation plan for the entire city. in fact, I'd say there still isn't much of anywhere. in fact, in our hypothetical evacuation of Olympia, I don't know where I'd go, either, because I can't afford a motel room even for one night. (I couldn't even afford a tank of gas, man, and they frown on taking the $7.50 in pennies that's all the money I have to my name right now.) I would imagine a lot of those people are from families that all live in New Orleans, just as, for a very long time, just about all of my family (on both sides) lived in Los Angeles County. my sister's in Olympia. the next-closest family is in northern California, and we don't get along.

yes, I'm quite sure some people stayed behind voluntarily, for whatever reason. however, I'm equally sure that most of those who did stay behind did so because they didn't have any other options.


There was an evacuation plan, problem was it wasn't followed. It also was a senario for a cat3 storm, not a cat 4 or 5 so it would have been pretty clear that it needed to be heeded more so because of that.

http://www.ohsep.louisiana.gov/plans/EOPSupplement1a.pdf

Getting 50 or even 100 drivers is no real issue, there are plenty of people in a large city that can drive a bus. Anyone that has a heavy truck licence can also drive a bus, that means there are thousands of potential drivers.

Re-fueling is pretty easy if the politicians just allow diesel to be provided to buses from any service station. Fuel can be replaced, people can't.

As for organising it only takes locations in the city to be designated as pick up points, buses pick people up and keep going.

The logistics isn't the problem, the lack of any real organisation was. The elected officials didn't want the responsibility for a false alarm so waited till the last moment, by then it was too late.

I still hold firm in my belief that pending disasters be the responsibility of trained people not elected officials. There is way too much conflict of interest to make a timely or correct decision.

If there is anything we've learnt its that an elected official hasn't the experience required to make such life or death decisions, so why put them in a position to do so.

[sarongsong]

...I need to track down the radio station and the time I called and get a recording of the show and convert it to a format for the internet and put it online.Any progress with this yet?

[William_Thompson]

"Prediction" does not to me imply supernatural ability. It is my understanding that a theory based on the Scientific Method has as its definition the ability to "predict" future events.

Thanks for your support as well.

[William_Thompson]

Any progress with this yet?

I have this coming friday off and I will spend some time on it. I have narrowed down a list of radio stations but if I post them here, in this forum I think there is a chance that, when I call them, they will say, "Oh, YOU are the guy who has been causing this flood of email!!" or "someone has been sending us wierd email claiming that we had a guy who could predict the future on our show...are you the cause of this?!".

And then they might not be very receptive to me.

I have had experiences where it takes just one distructive person to ruin a good idea or a good plan. *sigh*

[sarongsong]

Okay, in the meantime what do you make of this (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/091005A.shtml)?

[William_Thompson]

Okay, in the meantime what do you make of this (http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/091005A.shtml)?

Laughable. Socialist propaganda. Let's not discuss politics here. I have a section on completetranslations.com for political discussions. Please re-direct political comments there.

[sarongsong]

"...in its second and final post-Katrina emergency spending package sent to Congress on November 8th, the White House dismissed the rescue plan with a shockingly small $250 million proposed authorization instead of the $14 billion requested..." Orion Online (http://www.oriononline.org/pages/oo/sidebars/front/index_front.html)

[mugaliens]

Interesting analysis on the erosion of wetlands due to levees. But isn't that upstream? I'd think the silt staying in the river would increase the delta. Or do levees exist downstream to maintain draft for ships?

I think most Americans have written off New Orleans. They're more interested in leaders throwing money towards winning a war and getting the boys home.

I was thinking about visiting next summer. If things don't get better, I'll make other plans.

[Gullible Jones]

You know, in 2001 one of the columnists in Scientific American said that New Orleans should be ready at any time for a whopping big hurricane, and that it was a wonder they hadn't already been hit. Foreseeing such obvious potential disasters is nothing new; the problem is that people only listen to predictions of disasters that are hideously unlikely, if not patently impossible.

[jkmccrann]

I had read some time ago of the potential for disaster in New Orleans, perhaps in Scientific American, and I'm way over the Pacific in Australia! Having said that however, whatever other problems there were in terms of preparedness in a place like New Orleans, one of the biggest problems in NO, and LA in general is corruption.

Corruption is a very destructive force in terms of planning for a potential disaster that no one knows when it will occur. NO under water was always going to happen if proper measures were not taken, just a question of time-frames. Would it be in 10yrs? 20yrs? 50yrs? 100yrs? 200yrs? 500yrs? Who knew?

If its going to be in 500 yrs, should we really waste money now preparing for that eventuality when we're not even certain its going to happen and wouldn't it be more sensible to deal with the problem in the future when technology has advanced and our solutions will be more effective and durable? These are tough questions, and in a place rife with corruption it ain't easy to get things done in a hurry. They also relate to global warming I guess.

One argument that always annoys me is to hear people arguing that if we don't do something now then we're doomed for all-time. In relation to something like global warming, that's absolute garbage. Fact is, we don't have only 20yrs, or 50yrs or even 100yrs to come up with a solution to climate change. Climate change is not going to end the world in an instant, climate change is ever-present and occurs over very long time periods.

In 10,000 years I can guarantee that people won't be sitting around thanking their lucky stars that something like Kyoto was enacted because otherwise the world would have been destroyed by Carbon Dioxide emissions. We simply aren't that special, and in relation to global warming and climate change I simply don't think many people out there really understand the enormity of time-frames we're dealing with. Having said that, I'm not against working to reduce emissions if we can decide that's a sensible thing to do, I just don't buy the argument that if we don't do it soon, ie 5-10yrs, we're all doomed.

5-10yrs is such a short period when one thinks of the age of the Earth that it is simply insignificant in considering things like the direction and effect on global climate realities.

[mugaliens]

A federal judge ruled yesterday that it was "the Army Corps of Engineers' failure to properly maintain a navigation channel led to massive flooding in Hurricane Katrina." - Source (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091119/ap_on_re_us/us_katrina_flood_lawsuit)

Frankly, I'm appalled at this decision, as it opens the fed, aka we taxypayers, up to billions in dollars in claims, following the initial billions of (current) dollars that the levee system originally cost, and the $1.3+ billion the Army Corps of Engineers is spending, post-Katrina, to short up the levees with rocks and build a floodgate to stop surge from entering the city from the channel and Lake Borgne.

While Duval ruled they weren't at fault for the flooding of eastern New Orleans, that means little, as some 100,000 other individuals, businesses, and local/state government entitites now have a better shot at claims.

I'm curious as to why flood insurance doesn't seem to be an issue.

In years past, if you chose to live on a flood plain, you purchased flood insurance. If you were flooded, the insurance paid. If you failed to purchase flood insurance, bad on you.

I used to live in New Orleans (next door, actually).

Many people who build on flood plains receive a serious discount on flood insurance if they build on stilts. You've seen houses like this at the beach, with a carport, storage area, and steps beneath the house, but with the first floor of the house raised to 8 ft or more on pilings. Yes, it's more expensive, but if the insurance companies are charging rates appropriate for the behaviors of their insured, rather than spreading risky behavior over the much broader base of risk averse insured, than the insurance savings will cover the additional cost of building on stilts.

On the other hand, if the insurance companies spread the insurance base out too far, then two things happen:

1. People won't build on stilts, as there's not enough savings on insurance to pay for the additional expense.

2. Everyone else pays for the risky behavior of a few, not only when it comes to paying for insurance, but also when it comes to court awards for damages, much of which would have been mitigated the homes had been built on stilts.

"Duval referred to the corps' approach to maintaining the channel as 'monumental negligence.'"

This sets a very bad precedent, and will not be the final word on this issue.


You know, in 2001 one of the columnists in Scientific American said that New Orleans should be ready at any time for a whopping big hurricane, and that it was a wonder they hadn't already been hit.

Exactly, and this raises the question of the day: Where's the liability of the city of New Orleans in all this? They run their own flood control system. Several times over the last several decades, including when I lived there, they opted for less expensive measures of protecting their city. They could have, at any time, fortified their levees with a rock battery. It's not cheap, but when one lives next to the sea, but below sea level, one must take the appropriate precautions.

They didn't, and when disaster struck, they failed to shoulder the responsibility for their own poor choices while blaming Uncle Sam.

[rommel543]

Typical finger-pointing. Some one always has to be 'at fault' these days, regardless of the situation. It was NOAA's fault that the tornado touched down and destroyed these houses, it's NASA's fault that the asteroid crashed into this city, it's ACE's fault that you live in a flood plane and got flooded. Lets get some personal accountability. If you live in an area called Tornado Alley there's a pretty good chance that a tornado is going to hit, if you live in a coastal area (especially the gulf coast area) you're going to be hit by a hurricane and get flooded. If you live in New Orleans (that is below sea level), there is even a higher chance of being flooded.

Rulings like this only compound the issues instead of helping. How much did this investigation cost? Money that could have been spent helping ACE in repairing the levees.

[aastrotech]

Well this is a real zombie thread.



Typical finger-pointing. Some one always has to be 'at fault' these days, regardless of the situation.

But someone is at fault. A product was purchased and it did not perform the purpose for which it was purchased. If *you purchased a computer and got an empty box wouldn't you want recompense? Would you accept blame for "wanting" a computer. If you purchased a car and the brakes failed, which caused damage, because of a manufacturing defect the manufacturer would be liable. There is overwhelming legal and cultural precident for the liability of deliverers of defective product. Even the bible holds the builder of a defective house liable even with his life.

Building levees on a flood area is taking responsability for living in a flood area. It's not our fault that a defective product was delivered. Should the taxpayer pay for the damages? Yes. Because they are the chief executive officers of the product deliverer and let them get away with delivering defective product. They are also stockholders in the delivering company and were paid for the defective levee. We paid for our defective levee by delivering a good highway to them. If they sustained damages from a defective highway then we would have to help pay for the damages.

Then again there is this youtube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scAZtW2-bq4) that indicates that it was entirely sombody elses fault.







*Generic "we, they, you, me".

[publiusr]

Interesting analysis on the erosion of wetlands due to levees. But isn't that upstream? I'd think the silt staying in the river would increase the delta.

Both sides of the spectrum are to blame. We can argue the effects of levees, but the point is you have to keep them in good repair until such time as you can responsibly relocate the population, as was done in Hilo due to their bad history of tsunami going right up into the town.

The problem is that the same folks who hate levees also screamed when the housing was not being rebuilt (see the movie THE YES MEN SAVE THE WORLD). But many Greens wanted just that state of affairs--i.e people being displaced. The other side of the spectrum is also to blame, in that public works smacks of FDR, and the tax cutters probably don't care about folks in the ninth ward who need flood control measures.

So what happens?--the engineers get blamed, even though they have been underfunded by both sides of the spectrum who are against public works for environmental or anti-gov't idiot-ology. Let's face it--engineers, and space advocates don't often have many friends in high places. The engineer-bashing needs to stop.

[captain swoop]

Why does the Army have responsibility for building and maintaining Civil works anyway?

[mugaliens]

Typical finger-pointing.

...

Rulings like this only compound the issues instead of helping.

Agreed.


How much did this investigation cost? Money that could have been spent helping ACE in repairing the levees.

I dunno. 100 lawyers' pools? 1,000?


Well this is a real zombie thread.

Mooaoowaowoawaawhahhahhhhh....


But someone is at fault. A product was purchased and it did not perform the purpose for which it was purchased.

The product that was purchased was: One Home in downtown New Orleans, with very proximity to the ocean, the mean effective level of which is 16 feet above your living room! You'll also enjoy the creature comforts of a city well known for providing poor and nonexistant services, and a city staff who is happily unresponsive to major NOAA hurricane warnings until after two other state governors have called, saying, "get out!" only to realize it's too late!

Seriously - that's the product that was purchased. When you buy a home, you don't buy the house itself. You buy the land, the neighborhood, the city/county in which you live, your neighbors, your homeowners association, your city council, your local education system, your community services, state and local emergency services, the terrain on which you purchased the house, local weather, crime, hospitals...

All of those things, good or bad, are included in the price of your house (or rent). They are reflected in your home's value. If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.

So who's responsible? The buyer! They chose to live there, knowing all of those things.

Having lived there in middle school, and again for two summers while in college, I vowed never to live there, period, and for all the reasons I mentioned, above.

The only difference between myself and those that did choose to live there is that I'm a discriminating buyer.


Should the taxpayer pay for the damages? Yes. Because they are the chief executive officers of the product deliverer and let them get away with delivering defective product.

No. The title of CEO would belong to our gov't.


They are also stockholders in the delivering company...

Yes.


...and were paid for the defective levee.

No. I wasn't paid for the defective levee.... :confused: How was I paid for a levee? ACE works for cost, not profit. No funds transferred to the "stockholders" (taxpayers)


We paid for our defective levee by delivering a good highway to them.

:confused:


If they sustained damages from a defective highway then we would have to help pay for the damages.

:confused:

[publiusr]

Why does the Army have responsibility for building and maintaining Civil works anyway?

Perhaps these links should help

http://www.usace.army.mil/History/Pages/Brief/09-disasters/disaster.html
http://www.usace.army.mil/History/Pages/Brief.aspx
http://www.usace.army.mil/about/Pages/Mission.aspx

There is a move afoot to have our military used for more than "killing and breaking things" ---indeed, there are more and more who see military assets as vital in disaster recovery.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/546013

See this quote from the article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood_of_1993
"Emergency officials estimated that nearly all of the 700 privately built agricultural levees were overtopped or destroyed along the Missouri River."

THIS is why we have gov't standards. By and large it is private levees, not ones built by gov't that are the problem. There are a lot of folks out there who don't like NASA for the same reason they don't like the USACE--they have this religion that you can just contract things out unregulated--as if some bean-counter won't cut costs. It is the mission of the USACE to help protect the homeland--if they are underfunded--that is the fault of our leaders, and not of the hard-working people who gave America much of its flood-control infrastructure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Corps_of_Engineers

They do great work--and deserve better than to be slimed by the press--or that Judge who probably couldn't dig a post hole on his own.

[korjik]

Well this is a real zombie thread.




But someone is at fault. A product was purchased and it did not perform the purpose for which it was purchased. If *you purchased a computer and got an empty box wouldn't you want recompense? Would you accept blame for "wanting" a computer. If you purchased a car and the brakes failed, which caused damage, because of a manufacturing defect the manufacturer would be liable. There is overwhelming legal and cultural precident for the liability of deliverers of defective product. Even the bible holds the builder of a defective house liable even with his life.

Building levees on a flood area is taking responsability for living in a flood area. It's not our fault that a defective product was delivered. Should the taxpayer pay for the damages? Yes. Because they are the chief executive officers of the product deliverer and let them get away with delivering defective product. They are also stockholders in the delivering company and were paid for the defective levee. We paid for our defective levee by delivering a good highway to them. If they sustained damages from a defective highway then we would have to help pay for the damages.

Then again there is this youtube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scAZtW2-bq4) that indicates that it was entirely sombody elses fault.







*Generic "we, they, you, me".

LA didnt buy a defective product. They bought levees for a cat 3 hurricane and they were busted by what was at one point a cat 5. LA knew for years that New Orleans was in trouble, but actually spending the money on getting the levees upgraded would have taken away too much of their pocket lining.

I think it is amazing that the Houston metro area was nailed by Ike last year, and all but the most damaged areas are back to being going concerns. Galveston was flooded worse than New Orleans, and was hit by storm surge, not leaky levees, yet today it is getting back to normal.

[aastrotech]

LA didnt buy a defective product. They bought levees for a cat 3 hurricane and they were busted by what was at one point a cat 5.

So you agree that the taxpayer paid for cat 3 protection. The reports I heard were that it was a cat 1 or maybe cat 2. What it "was at one point" is irrelevant. We paid for cat 3 protection and it failed at cat 1. I call that defective product.




I think it is amazing that the Houston metro area was nailed by Ike last year, and all but the most damaged areas are back to being going concerns. Galveston was flooded worse than New Orleans, and was hit by storm surge, not leaky levees, yet today it is getting back to normal.

Water standing 12 feet deep for 9 days has a different effect than water standing for only a couple of hours. Then again people not being able to return right away, for various reasons, to clean up the mess causes more damage. You may not know this, You may have heard it, but you really need to see it in person to understand it. New Orleans was and is really damaged. It's not fake or exagerated. Think Hiroshima or Dresden or worse 5 to 10 times worse. It's a lot of damage. The people are working really hard to fix it and have been for a long time under real harsh conditions. And by far most of the insurance and federal money that was promised and expected has not come.

[Moose]

So you agree that the taxpayer paid for cat 3 protection. The reports I heard were that it was a cat 1 or maybe cat 2.

The reports you heard were wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Katrina_2005_track.png).

Summary: Katrina was Cat 5 within 200 miles of Louisiana, and had slowed only to Cat 3 by "landfall". It held strength well inland. Katrina only slowed to Cat 1 when it was 150 miles inland.

The levies failed because they were taking massive storm surges generated by Katrina at Cat 5 and Cat 4 potency.

Waves propagate. In 1999 (same weekend as the Swissair crash off of Nova Scotia), I remember walking on the beach to a light breeze, warily staying well back from (to me) rather frightening storm surge from the tropical storm that had gone by the day before.

[R.A.F.]

They do great work--and deserve better than to be slimed by the press--or that Judge who probably couldn't dig a post hole on his own.

Can you demonstrate that the ruling was in error?

Do you think that insulting the judge, simply because you disagree with his ruling, is a rational response?

[aastrotech]

The reports you heard were wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Katrina_2005_track.png).

Summary: Katrina was Cat 5 within 200 miles of Louisiana, and had slowed only to Cat 3 by "landfall". It held strength well inland. Katrina only slowed to Cat 1 when it was 150 miles inland.

The levies failed because they were taking massive storm surges generated by Katrina at Cat 5 and Cat 4 potency.

Waves propagate. In 1999 (same weekend as the Swissair crash off of Nova Scotia), I remember walking on the beach to a light breeze, warily staying well back from (to me) rather frightening storm surge from the tropical storm that had gone by the day before. Possibly you were quoting from the same page but you quoted "landfall" numbers and it didn't make landfall in New Orleans.
I was quoting from this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Katrina)
"As the eye of Hurricane Katrina swept to the northeast, it subjected the city to hurricane conditions for hours. Although power failures prevented accurate measurement of wind speeds in New Orleans, there were a few measurements of hurricane-force winds. From this the NHC concluded that it is likely that much of the city experienced sustained winds of Category 1 or Category 2 strength."

[Moose]

Yes, that's my point. The _winds_ didn't do in the levies. The storm surge did.

[aastrotech]

Yes, that's my point. The _winds_ didn't do in the levies. The storm surge did.

Well now you're changing the subject. I point out that you did not admit your previous mistake.

I was using an official definition of storm strength which is based on wind speed. If you have some other definition of storm strength based on storm surge feel free to post it. But I was discussing the specifications required of the product in its officialy defined terms and its defective performance under officialy defined storm conditions.

[HenrikOlsen]

It's not the winds that damage levees, it's the waves, and they were driven by the cat 5 offshore, so it's really irrelevant if it was a cat 1 by the time it landed, the damage was done by cat 5 waves.

[Moose]

Well now you're changing the subject. I point out that you did not admit your previous mistake.

1) Wind doesn't damage levies. Storm surge does. Your argument, even if it were correct, that Katrina was Cat 1 over Louisiana has never been relevant to the discussion of why the levies failed.

2)


The storm weakened before making its second landfall as a Category 3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffir-Simpson_Hurricane_Scale#Category_3) storm on the morning of Monday, August 29 in southeast Louisiana.

3) Hurricanes are big. Katrina was Cat 5 while this satellite shot was taken. Note that the storm is eclipsing Cuba while being slightly over SE Louisiana.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Hurricane_Katrina_August_28_2005_NASA.jpg/236px-Hurricane_Katrina_August_28_2005_NASA.jpg

4) The storm weakened to Cat 3 by landfall, but held its strength across Louisiana.


After moving over southeastern Louisiana and Breton Sound (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breton_Sound), it made its third landfall near the Louisiana/Mississippi border with 120 mph (195 km/h) sustained winds, still at Category 3 intensity.


Katrina maintained strength well into Mississippi, finally losing hurricane strength more than 150 miles (240 km) inland near Meridian, Mississippi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meridian,_Mississippi).

[aastrotech]

I think there's something you all aren't understanding about catagory definitions. Surge and waves are a function of wind as the wind drives the surge and waves. Where there's cat 3 winds there's cat 3 surge and waves. Actually strongest east of the eye. Where there's cat 1 winds there's cat 1 surge and waves. While there are slight variables in the coincidence of wind and surge the most consistant relationship of surge and waves to a measurable quantity is to wind which is why wind speed is used to define storm strength. That is why the catagory ratings are used to design the specifications of levees. The levees are designed to hold back water not wind. They were supposed to hold back water driven by cat 3 wind and they were defective in holding back water driven by cat 1 or 2 wind.

I have not seen any documetation or evidence presented that New Orleans got cat 1 wind but cat 3 surge and waves. Probably because there is no definition of a catagory of storm surge or waves except as a function of wind speed.

[Moose]

I have not seen any documetation or evidence presented that New Orleans got cat 1 wind but cat 3 surge and waves. Probably because there is no definition of a catagory of storm surge or waves except as a function of wind speed.


Waves propagate. In 1999 (same weekend as the Swissair crash off of Nova Scotia), I remember walking on the beach to a light breeze, warily staying well back from (to me) rather frightening storm surge from the tropical storm that had gone by the day before.

Waves propagate. Storm surge lags somewhat from the winds. That surge I was avoiding on the beach? The breakers were about five feet from the bottom of the trough to the top of the waves. And there was nearly no wind.

NO was getting surge generated by Katrina in Cat 5 and Cat 4 modes, as far out as where that sat shot was taken. It weakened to Cat 3 upon landfall over SE Louisiana, and held it all the way across that state.

It did not weaken to Cat 1 until it was well into Mississippi. The "evidence" (a wiki article) _you_ presented says so.

[aastrotech]

Let me get this straight Moose. You think the entire area covered by the clouds in the sat pic was being subjected to cat 5 force or whatever catagory it is at any given moment? If so you're mistaken. The strongest forces, wind wave and surge, in gulf hurricanes are near the eye to the northeast and are coming from the sea driving the surge and waves into the land. The wind to the west of the eye is weaker and is coming from the land (weakened by friction with the land and distance from the eye) out to the sea driving the surge and waves out.

The fact is, and the court found, that the storm was not strong enough in NO to do the damage it did except to defective levees.

[Moose]

Let me get this straight Moose. You think the entire area covered by the clouds in the sat pic was being subjected to cat 5 force or whatever catagory it is at any given moment?

No.

Are you suggesting that waves don't propagate?

[aastrotech]

No.

Are you suggesting that waves don't propagate?

No.

Are you suggesting that waves propagate out equaly in all directions from a storm?

[Moose]

Nope, but I am saying that heavy seas will linger after a storm has weakened or moved on. Katrina had weakened from Cat 5 to Cat 3 shortly before landfall, which means the sea state was necessarily worse than you're assuming it was.

Either way, Katrina held at Cat 3 until it had moved on to Mississippi.

In any case, I don't actually care if you're going to insist on believing Katrina was understrength. You're wrong, your own link explains why you're wrong, and I'm simply not interested in arguing it any further. What you do with what I've told you is your problem.

[korjik]

So you agree that the taxpayer paid for cat 3 protection. The reports I heard were that it was a cat 1 or maybe cat 2. What it "was at one point" is irrelevant. We paid for cat 3 protection and it failed at cat 1. I call that defective product.


Water standing 12 feet deep for 9 days has a different effect than water standing for only a couple of hours. Then again people not being able to return right away, for various reasons, to clean up the mess causes more damage. You may not know this, You may have heard it, but you really need to see it in person to understand it. New Orleans was and is really damaged. It's not fake or exagerated. Think Hiroshima or Dresden or worse 5 to 10 times worse. It's a lot of damage. The people are working really hard to fix it and have been for a long time under real harsh conditions. And by far most of the insurance and federal money that was promised and expected has not come.

Most of the buildings on Bolivar Peninsula were literally washed onto islands in Galveston Bay. Within months, the roads were being rebuilt and in locations that could, houses being replaced. The debris was starting to get cleared within hours after the storm, without needing billions of dollars in handouts from the feds.

Galveston and alot of the area around Galveston Bay were flooded for several days after the storm, but again, most of the damage is gone. Without hundreds of billions of dollars from the feds. After a year. Why hasnt NO fully recovered after 4?

[HenrikOlsen]

More in total to rebuild? Poorer population?
Galveston Bay is in Texas which has oil revenue, NO in in Louisiana which hasn't so there are large differences in state funds available?

[aastrotech]

More in total to rebuild? Poorer population?
Galveston Bay is in Texas which has oil revenue, NO in in Louisiana which hasn't so there are large differences in state funds available?


It goes on. Insurance didn't pay. Courts refusing to hear such cases (too busy/not enough personel). The republican insurance commisioner came from nowhere with millions of dollars (from where?) to become governor in a democratic state. Demolition of homes of people trying to rebuild. Refusal to permit* demolition of severely damaged buildings so the owners could rebuild. Long lines, miles of red tape and weeks months and years to get permits* to do any work at all. Increased property taxes. Police arrests and imprisonments without trial of thousands trying to return. Courts refusing to hear those cases too (too busy/not enough personel). Arrests, imprisonments and disbarment of lawers who tried to fight it. State officials sitting on 130 billion in federal money* and "losing" over 4 billion of 8 billion "spent" until the fed took the money back. Monthly if not weekly federal investigations and indictments of officials from the mayor to the garbage commisioner for imbezelment. And on and on.

It surprises me how many people miss the reports that there is something "wrong" with the authorities' response. The court's finding of defective levees is just one step in the right direction.

*Getting the federal money is contingent on getting the permits.

[01101001]

Then again there is this youtube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scAZtW2-bq4) that indicates that it was entirely sombody elses fault.


Heh, it's by a YouTube user named dpsamu2000. There's a good chance that's our departed BAUT member SAMU (http://www.bautforum.com/members/samu.html). See topic They blew up the levee (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/46680-they-blew-up-levee.html).

You aren't advocating SAMU's rubbish conspiracy claims are you?

[mugaliens]

So you agree that the taxpayer paid for cat 3 protection. The reports I heard were that it was a cat 1 or maybe cat 2. What it "was at one point" is irrelevant. We paid for cat 3 protection and it failed at cat 1. I call that defective product.

No Cat I hurricane (or Cat 3 hurricane, for that matter) has ever resulted in the surge experienced by the levees during Katrina.

It failed at Cat 4 levels. But it was never built for Cat 4 levels. The ACE recommended Cat 5 levels, but NO settled for 3.

They got exactly what they opted for, which is what makes the judge's decision so ridiculous.


Think Hiroshima or Dresden or worse 5 to 10 times worse.

Not even close.


And by far most of the insurance and federal money that was promised and expected has not come.

Where did it go, then? As a taxpayer, I'm extremely curious.

[korjik]

More in total to rebuild? Poorer population?
Galveston Bay is in Texas which has oil revenue, NO in in Louisiana which hasn't so there are large differences in state funds available?

You do know that New Orleans is the last major port on the largest river in North America?

You do know that Louisiana also is rich in oil?



Energy
Louisiana is rich in petroleum and natural gas. Petroleum and gas deposits are found in abundance both onshore and offshore in State-owned waters. In addition, vast petroleum and natural gas reserves are found offshore from Louisiana in the federally administered Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in the Gulf of Mexico. According to the Energy Information Administration, the Gulf of Mexico OCS is the largest U.S. petroleum-producing region. Excluding the Gulf of Mexico OCS, Louisiana ranks fourth in petroleum production and is home to about 2 percent of total U.S. petroleum reserves. Louisiana's natural gas reserves account for about 5 percent of the U.S. total. The recent discovery of the Haynesville Shale formation in parts of or all of Caddo, Bossier, Bienville, Sabine, De Soto, Red River, Sabine, and Natchitoches parishes have made it the world's fourth largest gas field with some wells initially producing over 25 million cubic feet of gas daily.



New Orleans is one of the most important cities in its state, Galveston is a backwater exurb.

There is no reason for New Orleans do have needed as much assistance, or for the reconstruction to have taken so long. Well, at least any reason cant be discussed here :)

[aastrotech]

Where did it go, then? As a taxpayer, I'm extremely curious.
This guy got some
http://www.neworleans.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=253953&Itemid=2603
Half a dozen more coming out of that investigation
http://www.fox8live.com/news/local/story/Feds-rack-up-corruption-indictments/kA-ikQboJU6qaDasY9VVdw.cspx

This guy got $900,927
http://www.wdsu.com/news/20654556/detail.html
Lots of road home fraud indictments.
Then there was a recent indictment against an officer in charge of disbursing road home money. He wrongly disbursed about 45,000 to himself. Who knows how much more he stole. He certainly had his hand in the honey pot.
Veronica White Director of Sanitation is alleged to have charged the city double on garbage pickup for some addresses. When first asked about it by a city council member she implied racism on the part of the council member. Alledged tie in with the mayor there.

There are dozens of investigations going on right now. Of course we'll never find out who got all of it. Probably never find out who got most of it. It is alledged by the authorities to have been "lost" through improper record keeping. To "cut through the red tape for people", "to get the money into the hands of people who need it faster". We laugh about that one. We also celebrate with relish the weekly indictments. There are bumper stickers popping up around town; "Nagin, proud to call him GONE".

[HenrikOlsen]

You do know that New Orleans is the last major port on the largest river in North America?

You do know that Louisiana also is rich in oil?
You do know those oil reserves are so far offshore that the tax revenue is federal, not state?
Louisiana don't get the money for the offshore oil.

[Gillianren]

I will note that, if we're talking about people who should know better than to live where they do, the people of Galveston are not notably more intelligent about it than the people of New Orleans, given what's happened in Galveston before with hurricanes.

[publiusr]

Can you demonstrate that the ruling was in error?

Do you think that insulting the judge, simply because you disagree with his ruling, is a rational response? Not long ago we had a woman who sued because she said she lost her psychic ability after an MRI. Remember, Scopes technically lost. The Army Corp of Engineers are only as good as they are funded. I'ts very easy to say--"Well they built it, they are responsible." That is the essence of the ruling. But--as usual--what goes on in the coursts and what goes on in the real world are two different things.

[sarongsong]

...Louisiana don't get the money for the offshore oil.Well, not enough:
February 14, 2006
Louisiana's governor...sent a letter to federal officials containing a plea and a threat. She says that unless her state gets more taxes from oil and gas drilling, she may block future drilling off Louisiana's coast...Louisiana currently receives just a small portion, about $40 million last year out of some five billion dollars in total tax revenue...
NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5205346)
...The discrepancy can be traced back to 1949 when Louisiana Governor Earl Long rejected a 37.5% offshore oil and gas revenue share offered by President Truman...
RAC (http://rac.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=2403&pge_prg_id=9793&pge_id=3050)

[R.A.F.]

Not long ago we had a woman who sued because she said she lost her psychic ability after an MRI. Remember, Scopes technically lost. The Army Corp of Engineers are only as good as they are funded. I'ts very easy to say--"Well they built it, they are responsible." That is the essence of the ruling. But--as usual--what goes on in the coursts and what goes on in the real world are two different things.

Sorry, but that doesn't answer my question(s)...

[korjik]

I will note that, if we're talking about people who should know better than to live where they do, the people of Galveston are not notably more intelligent about it than the people of New Orleans, given what's happened in Galveston before with hurricanes.

Considering the number of people who were in Galveston (or anywhere near the coast) when the storm hit, as compared to New Orleans, I would have to disagree with you.

Playing devil's advocate for a minute, I could make the arguement that the reason that Southeast Texas requires so much less aid and repairs so much quicker is that we do know how to live with the storms, and know to get out of its way.

[Gillianren]

Hurricane of 1900.

After such a horrible experience, living in that area would be known to be unsafe. And yet. Besides, the entire population of Galveston County was lower than just the population of the city of New Orleans.

[aastrotech]

There are 4 possibilities.

1) After 50 years of building the army corps of engineers and the contractors it hired in a highly politicly corrupt state produced defective levees.

Or the levees were not defective in which case;
2) 21st century weather observations including dopler radars, infrared satelite photography and several storm chaser planes flying directly through the storm from assorted angles scrutinised for 4 years of world wide peer review result in a grossely inacurate measure of the storm strength that struck New Orleans.

Or the levees were not defective and the measure of the storm that struck New Orleans is accurate. In which case;
3) Something else (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scAZtW2-bq4) caused the levee to fail.

Or
4) A combination of 1 and 3.

[HenrikOlsen]

Or, 5) you willfully ignore that the storm surge, i.e. the waves that actually hit the levee and were what caused it to fail, were the result of the storm when it was cat 5, which means the power of the waves when they hit the levee was cat 5 even though the wind was down to cat 3 by the time it (the wind) hit the coast.

No one's been claiming the wind was cat 5 when it hit the coast, we've been claiming the waves had the power of the cat 5 the wind was when it made them.
Why can't you understand this?

[Moose]

Facts are inconvenient, Henrik.

[aastrotech]

Facts are inconvenient, Henrik.

They certainly are Moosie:whistle:

Cat 5???!!! surge in cat 1 conditions? (cat 5 conditions were a long way off before it hit anywhere.) And breaches (or at least witnessed flooding (notwithstanding rain flooding which was drained away and over with hours before breach flooding)) occuring after the "storm" had passed enough for documented witnesses to go out, look around, and say "we dodged the bullet". All on the opposite side of the center of the storm where the strongest documented cat 3 conditions (wind, surge, wave), 150 miles away from New Orleans, are documented to have occured moving ("propogating") in the other direction making "landfall" "coming ashore" "damaging stuff". Riiiight!

By the way, just to give you a geographical description of the damage of New Orleans as a referance to storm strength. relative to the roofs torn off and flood damaged areas in the worst areas, 3 miles away was undamaged and compusa was back up and running in a week. All the damage was primarily flood. Not wind not wave not surge. God only knows how much damage would have happened if the breaches had happened during the storm.

You really need to see it in person. (Person seeing it for the first time) "So the levee breached there? So how come all these houses (the houses right next to most of the small breaches) are still standing?" Except for the big Industrial Canal breach (referanced in the youtube video) where about 6 square blocks (not a really big area compared to the rest of the area damaged. Infinitesimal really) were completely flattened.

And thanks for the referance to "SAMU". Interesting guy. I sense a kindred spirit. Too bad what you did to him. The generic you. Not you personaly. But BAUT et al.

By the way the BA/UT merger happened right around then. I'm looking in to this.

[publiusr]

Sorry, but that doesn't answer my question(s)... Pehaps you should ask the Army Corp of Engineers to answer those questions. I consider them heros even if no one else does.

[Gillianren]

It's in part the problem of looking at "the Army Corps of Engineers" as a single thing. The guys on the ground are a different aspect than the guys doing the designs, who are in turn different from the higher-ups, and I don't think anyone's suggesting the guys on the ground are the ones at fault.

[mugaliens]

This guy got some
http://www.neworleans.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=253953&Itemid=2603
Half a dozen more coming out of that investigation
http://www.fox8live.com/news/local/story/Feds-rack-up-corruption-indictments/kA-ikQboJU6qaDasY9VVdw.cspx

This guy got $900,927
http://www.wdsu.com/news/20654556/detail.html
Lots of road home fraud indictments.
Then there was a recent indictment against an officer in charge of disbursing road home money. He wrongly disbursed about 45,000 to himself. Who knows how much more he stole. He certainly had his hand in the honey pot.
Veronica White Director of Sanitation is alleged to have charged the city double on garbage pickup for some addresses. When first asked about it by a city council member she implied racism on the part of the council member. Alledged tie in with the mayor there.

There are dozens of investigations going on right now. Of course we'll never find out who got all of it. Probably never find out who got most of it. It is alledged by the authorities to have been "lost" through improper record keeping. To "cut through the red tape for people", "to get the money into the hands of people who need it faster". We laugh about that one. We also celebrate with relish the weekly indictments. There are bumper stickers popping up around town; "Nagin, proud to call him GONE".

These are prime examples of why throwing money at problems rarely works to actually fix the problem.


But--as usual--what goes on in the coursts and what goes on in the real world are two different things.

Boy, you ain't kidding!

[publiusr]

It takes money to do public works. But infrastructure has to compete with tax-breaks from one side and ecological concerns from the other--thus it is like space advocacy--it doesn't have a constituency of its own, and must fight to get any funds at all. This is why I would love to see a third party--a technocrat party.