Slashdot Mirror


Too Many People in Nature's Way

Ant writes "Wired News report that the dead and the desperate of New Orleans now join the farmers of Aceh and the fishermen of Trincomalee, villagers in Iran and the slum dwellers of Haiti in a world being dealt ever more punishing blows by natural disasters... ... "We rely on technology and we end up thinking as human beings that we're totally safe, and we're not," said Miletti, of the University of Colorado. "The bottom line is we have a very unsafe planet." By one critical measure, the impact on populations, statistics show the planet to be increasingly unsafe. More than 2.5 billion people were affected by floods, earthquakes, hurricanes and other natural disasters between 1994 and 2003, a 60 percent increase over the previous two 10-year periods, U.N. officials reported at a conference on disaster prevention in January. Those numbers don't include millions displaced by last December 2004's tsunami, which killed an estimated 180,000 people as its monstrous waves swept over coastlines from Indonesia's Aceh province to Trincomalee, Sri Lanka, and beyond. By another measure -- property damage -- 2004 was the costliest year on record for global insurers, who paid out more than $40 billion on natural disasters, reports German insurance giant Munich Re. Florida's quartet of 2004 hurricanes was the big factor. But generally it's not that more "events" are happening, rather that more people are in the way, said Thomas Loster, a Munich Re expert. "More and more people are being hit," he said..." I'd also like to point out a project here to find housing for Katrina's victims; it tries to combine lists of sites offering housing, and do a meta-search.

27 of 705 comments (clear)

  1. But then again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The population is growing. It can't be that unsafe.

  2. From the captain-obvious department by slughead · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Perhaps we shouldn't rebuild on the lands that keep getting destroyed... I hear that's what they did in the days before governmental disaster relief.

    1. Re:From the captain-obvious department by keraneuology · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Additionally, maybe it's time we stopped building homes out of sticks.

      Depends on where you live: what holds up wonderfully against a hurricane or tornado can fail miserably the first time San Andres sneezes.

      --
      If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
    2. Re:From the captain-obvious department by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The majority of the population of the planet lives either near an ocean, or near a major tectonic fault line, or both.

      Disasters are always just a matter of time.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    3. Re:From the captain-obvious department by evol262 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps we shouldn't rebuild on the lands that keep getting destroyed... I hear that's what they did in the days before governmental disaster relief.

      Actually, that's not true. The Sumerians consistently rebuilt in the same spots after (constant) floods. Same with the Egyptians. The Romans did not abandon any of the cities around Pompeii (i.e. Capua). Many cities in Africa were completely rebuilt after disasters. The Yangtze floods a lot, and they rebuilt. The Japanese learned to build earthquake-proof buildings. Cultures everywhere still rebuild at the foot of volcanoes. The Indians/Sri Lankans rebuilt after typhoons/tsunamis.

      While it's not a great idea, people certainly still do it. While most of them would wait for the city to stabilize naturally, a good location is a good location. New Orleans is a fairly unbeatable location for a port (like Alexandria, which is still there after half the damn went into the Med), and any culture in their right mind would rebuild.

      The possible loss of human life in the future, while an awful possibility, does not preclude them rebuilding.

      --
      "The more corrupt a society, the more numerous are its laws." -Tacticus
    4. Re:From the captain-obvious department by zotz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So...

      Build a reinforced bunker going from a basement to two stories. Built a bamboo and paper house around it.

      Trouble on the way, get in the bunker. Cheap to rebuild what gets blown or washed, etc. away.

      Problems with this thought?

      all the best,

      drew

      http://www.ourmedia.org/node/41879

      --
      FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
    5. Re:From the captain-obvious department by keraneuology · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Big flood along the Mississippi? OK...we'll just abandon it, and not bother to use the river.

      What a maroon.

      Contrary to what you imply, traffic on the Mississippi can get along just fine without the city of New Orleans. Reinforced port facilities could be built without surrounding them with a city that is below sea level. Ports are useful. Cities built without adaquate mitigation are not.

      Your reality:

      Fire in San Fran? Screw it...It'll just burn again eventually.

      Reality's reality: Require improved building codes and effective fire fighting codes.

      Your reality:

      Hurricanes? Ok...Abandon every city within 50 miles of the coast from Galveston to Baltimore, and the entire state of F1orida.

      Require improved building codes for hurricane resistance. Don't allow people to build directly on flood plains. Don't drain hurricane-buffering wetlands for million dollar condos.

      New Orleans is built on delta silt, notoriously unstable and has been documented for decades to be slowly sinking, eventually turning into Venice of the Gulf. For decades the artifically channeled river continues to silt up, raising the water level ever higher, faster than dredging or levy improvements can check.

      Your claim: New Orleans is useful so continue to throw money at a losing proposition that is guaranteed to result in massive loss of life and an environmental disaster beyond imagination. (By the way... since all of those toxic chemicals are about to be pumped directly into the Gulf, I would advise against eating any shrimp or other seafood from that region for the next few years).

      Do you absolutely need port facilities at that specific location? For the cost of a failed levy system with infinite maintenance and improvement requirements you can build a deep-water port on pilings to bedrock in the middle of the gulf itself, complete with ballast tanks to raise the entire infrastructure well above even 50' storm surges or simply made water-tight and let storm surges wash harmlessly over the entire facility. Multiple rail trestles (including light rail to easily and painlessly transport employees to/from their homes which are located safely inland) ensure efficient transportation of labor and goods.

      Don't abandon Florida, simply require everybody to be self-insured. Insurance subsidies of people who want to enjoy ocean views force people living in trailer parks in Des Moines chip in to guarantee that people who build on the barrier islands of North Carolina (which repeatedly get wiped out) are close enough to repayment so ensure that the FEMA assistance will be enough for them to rebuild the same house in the same dangerous location.

      "Pretty to live in" is not the same thing as "useful". "Useful" can be engineered. A governor who drives past houses with rooflines 10 feet below sea level on her way to celebrate agreeing to pay $190 million to the NFL Saints so they remain in the city is doing nobody a favor while refusing to even address the problem of the city sinking, the waterways silting up and an increase of hurricanes that exceed the design limitations of the city's levyworks is not "useful" by any stretch of the imagination.

      My two cents: rebuild the port but not the houses. If people want to live there, let them assume their own risks. Ditto for people who build on barrier islands that repeatedly get hit by storms and people who build on steep slopes that unleash mudslides every few years.

      States along the Gulf get hit by destructive hurricanes than California gets hit by destructive earthquakes: why is California spending so much more on mitigation than Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida?

      --
      If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
    6. Re:From the captain-obvious department by keraneuology · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Not far off from what they do in tornado-prone midwestern states. Photos of entire subdivisions with each house sporting what appears to be a bank vault that serves as a safe room demonstrate what can happen when people actually care about what might happen. The rest of the house may be destroyed, but everybody has safe haven and the foundations remain intact for easy rebuilding.

      So let's see... let's say there is an exceptionally active tornado season that spawned 500 tornados, each twister 100 yards wide (on the larger side) with a ground track of 5 miles each, which result in approximately 150 square miles (heck... let's round up to 200 square miles) of devestation.

      At 2nd landfall Katrina had hurricane force winds extending 105 miles out from the center. Let's pretend that the storm made it 20 miles inland and collapsed, causing no subsequent damage. 2,100 square miles of devestation. From a single storm. That is, on average, only one of multiple storms in any given season.

      So compare:

      Some communities are faced with the odds of being randomly selected by mother nature to be included within 150 square miles of destruction and make endless plans, preparations, code changes, modifications to standard building concepts and the development of new structures, technologies and strategies.

      Other communities are faced with the prospect of being included in over 2,000 miles of destruction, elect a governor more interested in retaining a football team than the Mississippi, and not only wipe out the only natural protection they have (the wetlands) but actively discourage storm-and-flood resistance by incorporating strict historical accuracy codes and walk along the bottoms of their earthworks and never think once that the silt deposits are now several feet above their heads, let alone the ever-rising water surface.

      Yeah, the city cared about being prepared.

      --
      If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
    7. Re:From the captain-obvious department by evol262 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Contrary to what you imply, traffic on the Mississippi can get along just fine without the city of New Orleans. Reinforced port facilities could be built without surrounding them with a city that is below sea level. Ports are useful. Cities built without adaquate mitigation are not.

      True, it can get along fine, but the next major river city is Saint Louis. What, praytell, should they do with the warehousing of the goods going from the river out to sea, and visa versa? The oil from the Gulf going to the refineries? There is not a port that can take up the slack in the meantime.

      Reality's reality: Require improved building codes and effective fire fighting codes.

      Require improved building codes for hurricane resistance. Don't allow people to build directly on flood plains. Don't drain hurricane-buffering wetlands for million dollar condos.

      The fact that there's a disaster does not necessarily require improved codes. Improved building codes would not have prevented this any more than they'd prevent a major fire. If some slummy warehouse explodes, sure, but a major fire could just as easily start from any number of things.

      So how much will refitting all the buildings in the entire hurricane zone for new (ineffective) codes cost us? How 'bout retraining every firefighter in the country? We haven't had a major fire in years. Do you think a better code in San Diego would have helped? Bad things happen, and it's a fact of life. More regulation won't help.

      New Orleans is built on delta silt, notoriously unstable and has been documented for decades to be slowly sinking, eventually turning into Venice of the Gulf. For decades the artifically channeled river continues to silt up, raising the water level ever higher, faster than dredging or levy improvements can check.

      Ok, that's true. I don't know about "notoriously unstable," but it's definitely not safe and sound. Guess what? Texas is sinking too. Most of the places on the Gulf are. People prevent flooding, and it sinks. We caused this problem, and it's not restricted to New Orleans.

      Your claim: New Orleans is useful so continue to throw money at a losing proposition that is guaranteed to result in massive loss of life and an environmental disaster beyond imagination. (By the way... since all of those toxic chemicals are about to be pumped directly into the Gulf, I would advise against eating any shrimp or other seafood from that region for the next few years).

      Do you absolutely need port facilities at that specific location? For the cost of a failed levy system with infinite maintenance and improvement requirements you can build a deep-water port on pilings to bedrock in the middle of the gulf itself, complete with ballast tanks to raise the entire infrastructure well above even 50' storm surges or simply made water-tight and let storm surges wash harmlessly over the entire facility. Multiple rail trestles (including light rail to easily and painlessly transport employees to/from their homes which are located safely inland) ensure efficient transportation of labor and goods.

      Yes we need port facilites at that specific location. The nearest major port city on the river is Saint Louis. New Orleans is the only location where we can warehouse river good and goods from the Gulf for redistribution.

      The cost of constructing a port on pilings in the Gulf would be extreme. Offshore derricks aren't safe, and the city wouldn't be either. What happens if there's tectonic movement? Do all the rail trestles break? Do you seriously expect the cost of such a feat of engineering to be less than rebuilding New Orleans 3 times? This isn't even mentioning the tourist economy, location of the airport, business travel, etc.

      Don't abandon Florida, simply require everybody to be self-insured. Insurance subsidies of people who want to enjoy ocean views force people living in trailer parks in Des Moines chi

      --
      "The more corrupt a society, the more numerous are its laws." -Tacticus
    8. Re:From the captain-obvious department by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Contrary to what you imply, traffic on the Mississippi can get along just fine without the city of New Orleans. Reinforced port facilities could be built without surrounding them with a city that is below sea level. Ports are useful. Cities built without adaquate mitigation are not.

      Where do they get their low-cost workers if they don't have a major metro area nearby? Yeah, you can pay to fly them in and out each week (like they do for the oil rigs) but that costs a lot. I doubt shipping companies are willing to pay a premium for labor. Cities were built on the river for a reason - commerce (and therefore jobs) was there. You can't have one without the other (at least 'til the robots and teleoperators take over).

      --
      That is all.
    9. Re:From the captain-obvious department by demachina · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "my post into a strawman...but it's not feasable, due to the cost of transporting workers and whatnot."

      Well you obviously didn't read my port. The number of workers you need to run a port plunged in the last 50 years thanks to container shipping. You could support a large port with a small town now. Times changed.

      A big percentage of the people who were left in New Orleans were unemployed and on welfare. It is a city with vast poverty. They weren't people who had longshoreman jobs. They were freed slaves who landed there after abolition, they started with nothing and in formerly segregated and still racist South they still having nothing today.

      "but farming is simply not the reason they're on the floodplain in New Orleans."

      New Orleans is where it is because it was a great port 200+ years ago, its still a good one now but you don't need the large urban city for the port.

      When it was built there the French didn't grasp that it was sinking. Now in light of the fact its sinking you do either two things:

      - Abandon it because its now prohibitively expensive to repair and defend in an era of super hurricanes, or you at least abandon all the low income housing which was substandard before and now is just rank and unlivable.

      - Do what the Dutch do and spend billions building massive new levees and pumping systems to reclaim and defend it.

      What you don't do is put hundreds of thousands of people in a bowl below sea level AND cut back on the money you spend on the levees which is what the U.S. has been doing for years and which accelerated under the Bush administration, in particular as it diverted the Army Corp of Engineers to rebuilding Iraq instead of the U.S. Bush just signed a bill to build a $231 million bridge to an island in Alaska with 50 people on it some of whom probably like the fact there is no highway. Thats WAY more than New Orleans levees have seen in the last 5 years. What is going on here? Alaska has a powerful Republican congressional delegation and they get a vastly disproportionate percentage of pork. New Orleans being poor, black and Democratic gets nothing from this regime which lead to an accident waiting to happen and then it did. A constant of the Bush administration is they direct their pork to their own. They spend billions to rebuild Jeb Bush's Florida every year, they took care of Republican run Mississippi this time. Democrat leaning Louisiana and overwhelmingly Democrat New Orleans was dead last on their partisan priority list and it showed.

      "Industrial scale fertilizer is very useful in the Midwest, the Ukraine, and other farming areas, but farming is simply not the reason they're on the floodplain in New Orleans."

      Not sure why you think I said it was. You were referring to all the ancient civilizations that built on flood plains and I was pointing why they did it, that it was by design and with the realization floods were inevitable and in fact desirable.

      New Orleans is where it is because its at the mouth of America's largest river. During an era when various factions were fighting for control of a new continent it was a strategically essential location. Times changed.

      Another important point is that when New Orleans was built it had a lot of land around it to provide a buffer. Most of that land has sunk in to the gulf thanks to human beings messing up the natural floods of the Mississippi. Its made New Orleans less viable with each passing year.

      --
      @de_machina
    10. Re:From the captain-obvious department by hazem · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only reason someone lives from paycheck to paycheck is because they choose to live that life.

      Sure... when you're smart, talented, and have a healhty mind and body, it's pretty easy.

      But, there are many people who are not as smart as you and have not had the education and opportunities you have had. There are those who are disabled in many ways who simply can't get a better job or a better life. And that's not even considering the racism, age-ism, and classism that exists in our society.

      What should the widowed mother of 3 do to improve her lot, when she's already working 2 part-time jobs and can barely get by. She dosen't have a 401k, and if she did, she can't put any money in it anyway. I'm sure you like to cling to the idea of welfare moms eating potato chips and watching Regis, but there are a lot of poor people who aren't like this.

      What about the 50 year old mechanic who hurts his back on the job and can't work. His case for workman's comp gets denied, all the way up to the state supreme court. His considerable savings are exhausted to pay his medical bills. And now he can't work in his profession. Try changing professions at 50 when you're not already highly educated. Maybe he'll be able to work at walmart when his back is healed enough he can stand all day.

      It must be nice to be inusulated from the hard realities that many people live hand to mouth because there just is no slack to get ahead with. It's bad enough when the resources are limited, but it's made worse by people who prey upon others.

      Not everyone who is poor simply chooses to be poor.

      I hope you're lucky and don't have the world collapse around you - no amount of planning and preparation can spare you from everything.

      The corruption and graft you talk about is usually done by "well off" people with power and connections. It's these people who are preying on the poor, uneducated, and disadvantaged.

  3. Population by Tom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    but generally it's not that more "events" are happening, rather that more people are in the way

    Exactly. I don't think our planet is any more unstable then 100, 1000 or 10000 years ago. Yeah, maybe we have global warming but even so it makes much, much more of a difference that a hurricane making landfall at the Mississipi estuary affects several million people today compared to 10,000 in 1803 or maybe a couple hundred in 500 BC.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:Population by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. I don't think our planet is any more unstable then 100, 1000 or 10000 years ago. Yeah, maybe we have global warming but even so it makes much, much more of a difference that a hurricane making landfall at the Mississipi estuary affects several million people today compared to 10,000 in 1803 or maybe a couple hundred in 500 BC.

      Sure it makes much MUCH more of a difference. Katrina was a Cat 1 when it hit florida, the hot gulf waters drove it to a Cat 5 right quick. Whether that's global warmings fault is debatable, but certainly plausible.

      Also, New Orleans used to have 150 miles of wetlands between itself and the open ocean, that could absorb storm surges. Because of human management of the mississippi river it's rapidly eroding, down to about 30 miles of wetlands. So humans are definately doing some things to make the situation worse.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  4. Maybe About time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Although i agree with the statements made here, that natural disaters and all. The tsunami wasn't caused by climate change, where as the huricane and other floods etc probably have been.
    Maybe it is time to America to Stop rejecting proposals to reduce emissions and to do what the world is asking. Most other countries seem to do alot more, and the states will probably have to have some more Natural Disasters before the Muppets in The white house will understand this.

  5. Isn't the bigger problem by ThaFooz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    a lack of preparation? New Orleans has known for a long time how vulnerable it was, but the levee system wasn't built to sustain anything above a category 3 storm.

    The first rule of risk management is that the amount of time, effort, and money that you spend on security should be proprortional to the probability of a breach times the amount of damage it would cause. I guess Louisana didn't get the memo.

  6. Back atcha, Cap'n. by SoupIsGood+Food · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You heard wrong, unless by "before government disaster relief" you mean "before there were governments and we all ate sticks and berries and ran from sabretooth tigers."

    Serious. Check out the history of the Yangtzee and Ganges rivers going back almost 5,000 years, and the Tigris and Euphrates in Mesopotamia at the very dawn of civilization. Cities are generally built where they are useful, not where they are safe.

    Those with a Libertarian or Conservative leaning sometimes forget that Taxes purchase something useful for you: civilization.

    The government diaster relief you deride so much makes civilization happen in North America. Just the cost of doing business here. Move to Somalia if you want to live someplace where there's no tax burden.

    SoupIsGood Food

  7. Engineering Not Applied! by N8F8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    One thing I find amazing is that many of these catasptophes are worstened because technology WAS NOT APPLIED. At least not modern technology. Many water and sanitation systems date back over 100 years. Road systems are managed under crisis managment with little thought to the future. In Florida it is especially bad. Neighborhoods are being built at a brakneck pace with little thought to infrstructure. Schools, sanitation systems, power grid, flood control all are all lacking. Schools fighting to keep too many kids from showing up for school.

    Planning so so poorly thought out, a kid playing SIM City would come up with better plans. And that is exacly my point. We have simulation software that is inextensive. Tons of historical data to pull from. We know how to design better levee systems, bridges and canals. But the political system fails us again and again.

    Citizens are taught to hate paying taxes. Politicans abuse their authority for personal gain. The spiral leads to the present situation where systems are allowed to decay to the crisis point.
    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
  8. Not Bush's fault that Katrina happened, BUT... by Lellor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is certainly his fault that the disaster recovery wasn't handled well - the aftermath of Katrina was absolutely awful and Bush seemed asleep at the wheel. That is unforgivable. Disasters have happened all over the world this year - in Portugal and Romania, fire and flooding respecitvely. The people from other countries in Europe, and the governments of those countries, helped the victims. Spanish and French rescue efforts were underway very quickly when the fires in Portugal were blazing - yet in the USA, help was very slow coming from the US itself, and when Europe initially offered the US help, they were turned down - why? What the hell? What the hell is going on with Bush?

    Don't criticise Slashdot readers for criticising Bush - they are quite right to. Slashdot's audience, being geeks, are generally more intelligent and well-informed than the average US consumer: Think about it - could there possibly be a reason why so many Slashdotters are criticising Bush? I'll leave you to ponder it.

    --
    Liberal Ontarians and French Quebecers are draining Western Canada's wealth. Stop them now! Support Western separatism.
    1. Re:Not Bush's fault that Katrina happened, BUT... by evol262 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Many of them hate him entirely for past issues, and are eager to seize upon any excuse to bash him more? I mean, be realistic - for every informed criticism of his policy, there's nine other people just tossing out crude insults because he's not a Democratic-style leftist. This isn't meant as an apology or a defense of him - just that I generally find the level of political discourse to be pretty childish and crude, not well-thought-out at all. It's essentially sand-box name-taunting by three year olds.

      Y'know, there are also social and economic conservatives who won't think we should be an Anarcho-capitalistic state where big campaign contributors get put in Undersecretary of (whatever) positions. The government needs to be seperated from the private sector, and it's not. Not every conservative is a Limbaugh/O'Reilly listening, Flying Spaghetti Monsterism preaching neocon. I take it by "Democratic-style leftist" you mean moderate who gets bought off just like the Republicans? The fact that the political center in the administration has shifted more and more to the right doesn't mean that moderates are liberal nutballs. For real leftism, see Sweden or Switzerland.

      I also think that Europeans don't really "get" the dual federal/state government system that the US has. Calling out national guard is typically a state, not federal function, for instance. If the federal government has to call out the National Guard, it means the _state_ has screwed up. Many of the things Europeans are blaming the federal government for are typically _state_ functions. Evacuating the citizens is also a state function (or a city function). This is not to say that the federal government shouldn't assist - but we have separation of powers between state and federal governments over here, apparently to a much larger extent than in, say, Europe.

      Calling out the national guard is a state function, but the federal government could have, and should have, declared a state of emergency. Before Ivan, they had readied the military. It took less than 48 hours. Why is it different now? The fact that the state didn't call in the Guard fast enough (and Ray Nagin was doing his best to get help there fast) doesn't mean that the Fed didn't fuck up as well.

      There are also Americans blaming the Federal government. The federal reaction to this disaster has been worse than any other disaster. Ever. Worse than any hurricane. Worse than any flood. Worse than earthquake response. Worse than major fires. State's rights (which are largely nonexistent nowadays) don't absolve the federal government of their responsibility to help. If I were shot and you saw it, would you call it my responsibility to call 911?

      I wish you'd understand the reason our government is here. When I see all these uninformed arguments, it just tells me how fast we're going downhill.

      --
      "The more corrupt a society, the more numerous are its laws." -Tacticus
  9. Re:Rule #1: Don't build on flood plains by Phronesis · · Score: 4, Insightful
    how many of the people trapped in New Orleans were agriculturalists? I suspect none.

    New Orleans is built on a flood plain not because of agriculture but shipping. If you're going to build a deep water port on the Mississippi river, you need to do so near the water.

  10. Holy Sysiphus, Batman! by Monte · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And New Orleans had plans to redo the levee's to Cat5 strength. Wouldn't have been completed until 2020 or so. Katrina got there first.

    If the build takes 15 years, what are the odds of a Cat5 coming along within that timespan to put you back to square one?

  11. Unspecific Verbiage by Jekler · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Although this sounds impressive and devastating: "... 2.5 billion people were affected by floods, earthquakes, hurricanes and other natural disasters between 1994 and 2003..."

    The problem is the word "affected". I had a cold last year, was I one of the people "affected" by natural disasters? How are they defining whether or not someone was affected? You could say anyone who donated money to a relief fund was affected, or are they only referring to the number of people injured or that had property damage. What about someone who hid out in his bomb shelter for a week. Was that person affected? Does emotional disurbance count as being "affected"?

    I'd prefer a concrete statistic, like number of people killed, number of homes destroyed. Saying that x people were "affected" doesn't tell us anything useful.

    Reports like these remind me that we're not in the information age, we're in the data age. The information age will be next when we start compiling all this data into useful information.

  12. As long as there's oil... by tentimestwenty · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The population can grow as long as there is energy available to support it. Energy, and oil specifically allows us to insulate ourselves from nature's forces by building habitat, artificially increasing food production etc. Whether it is safe isn't even part of the equation.

    When we no longer have the means to protect ourselves (i.e. oil runs out), then Nature will be far more punishing than a hurricane, tsunami or earthquake. Just imagine other cities in the state of New Orleans because there is no electricity, water, gas or food production. All of those comforts are entirely dependent on a shrinking supply of oil.

  13. First US Camp deliberate attempt to kill blacks? by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Before Katrina hit the coast Bush had declared Louisiana and Mississippi disaster areas, allowing FEMA to swing into action.

    If FEMA was already preparing before Katrina struck at Bush's instruction, then why did it still take them four days to really begin rescue operations? And why isn't anyone talking about Bush's early disaster declarations now?

    Obviously, officials would have been aware of the possibility of massive flooding, so they would have obtained the necessary vehicles. The trucks that did eventually roll into New Orleans even drove through flooded streets without a problem...

    This story disappeared off of MSNBC's web site, but it can still be found in Google's cache.

    And Mitchel Cohen writes. . .

    [. . .]
    the so-called looters are simply grabbing water, food, diapers and medicines, because the federal and state officials have refused to provide these basic necessities.

    Les says that "it's only because of the looters that non-looters -- old people, sick people, small children -- are able to survive."

    Those people who stole televisions and large non-emergency items have been selling them, Les reports (having witnessed several of these "exchanges") so that they could get enough money together to leave the area.

    Think about it:

    - People were told to leave, but all the bus stations had closed down the night before and the personnel sent packing.

    - Many people couldn't afford tickets anyway.

    - Many people are stranded, and others are refusing to leave their homes, pets, etc. They don't have cars.

    You want people to stop looting? Provide the means for them to eat, and to leave the area.

    Some tourists in the Monteleone Hotel paid $25,000 for 10 buses. The buses were sent (I guess there were many buses available, if you paid the price!) but the military confiscated them to use not for transporting people in the Dome but for the military. The tourists were not allowed to leave. Instead, the military ordered the tourists to the now-infamous Convention Center.

    How simple it would have been for the State and/or US government to have provided buses for people before the hurricane hit, and throughout this week. Even evacuating 100,000 people trapped there -- that's 3,000 buses, less than come into Washington D.C. for some of the giant antiwar demonstrations there. Even at $2,500 a pop -- highway robbery -- that would only be a total of $7.5 million for transporting all of those who did not have the means to leave.

    Instead, look at the human and economic cost of not doing that!

    So why didn't they do that?

    On Wednesday a number of Greens tried to bring a large amount of water to the SuperDome. They were prevented from doing so, as have many others. Why have food and water been blocked from reaching tens of thousands of poor people?

    On Thursday, the government used the excuse that there were some very scattered gunshots (two or three instances only) -- around 1/50th of the number of gunshots that occur in New York City on an average day -- to shut down voluntary rescue operations and to scrounge for 5,000 National Guard troops fully armed, with "shoot to kill" orders -- at a huge economic cost.

    They even refused to allow voluntary workers who had rescued over 1,000 people in boats over the previous days to continue on Thursday, using the several gunshots (and who knows who shot off those rounds?) to say "It's too dangerous". The volunteers didn't think the gunshots were dangerous to them and wanted to continue their rescue operations and had to be "convinced" at gunpoint to "cease and

  14. Bill Clinton hates black people too by ccmay · · Score: 3, Insightful
    New Orleans itself is in the same situation, living "paycheck to paycheck". They've been begging for federal funds for years before this happened to upgrade the levees. Those funds got redirected to Iraq for the past two years.

    Actually, those funds were to be disbursed for fiscal year 2006. Iraq or no Iraq, the work would not have been done. And supposedly the levees that were breached last week were not on the list for improvement anyway.

    If you can set aside your anti-Bush venom for a few moments, you might ask why Bill Clinton did not fix this problem back in the days of wine and roses. Nobody ever had a more fortunate time in the Presidency than his two terms in the 90's, what with all the budget surpIuses and peace and relatively minor terrorist problems. But he did fuck-all about it. Too distracted getting his dick sucked, I guess.

    Does Clinton hate black people too? That's the logical corollary to all the accusations flying around about Bush.

    -ccm

    --
    Too much Law; not enough Order.
  15. New Orleans can be a new Amsterdam by EccentricAnomaly · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ..but is there some rule that says it must be rebuilt below sea level, so it becomes another disaster-waiting-to-happen right from the start?

    Just because it was built below sea-level it is not a disaster-waiting-to-happen. Holland is proof that you can have a system of levees and pumps and live safely on a river delta below sea level.

    For example, they could drain Lake Pontchartrain to the low tide level like the Zeider Zee in Holland... and put up flood gates to keep the high tides out, lower the gates to allow water out of the Lake at low tide. And dredge the bottom of the lake to build the city high enough that water will flow down into the lake from the city... thus having passive flood control. And where you need pumps, use windmill to help pump water (so as not to be dependent on electricity).

    You could also use dredged mud to expand the swamps around lake Pontchartrain so as to build a natural barrier to disperse the energy from hurricanes.

    That's just one solution. There's lots of ways to make New Orleans safe... and safer than many other major metropolitan areas.

    --
    There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.