Slashdot Mirror
Geologists Warned of Washington State Mudslides For Decades
Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "The Seattle Times reports that since the 1950s, geological reports on the hill that buckled last weekend, killing at least 17 residents in Snohomish County in Washington State, have included pessimistic analyses and the occasional dire prediction. But no language seems more prescient than what appears in a 1999 report filed warning of 'the potential for a large catastrophic failure.' Daniel Miller, a geomorphologist, documented the hill's landslide conditions in a report written in 1997 for the Washington Department of Ecology and the Tulalip Tribes. Miller knows the hill's history, having collected reports and memos from the 1950s, 1960s, 1980s and 1990s and has a half-dozen manila folders stuffed with maps, slides, models and drawings, all telling the story of an unstable hillside that has defied efforts to shore it up. That's why he could not believe what he saw in 2006, when he returned to the hill within weeks of a landslide that crashed into and plugged the North Fork of the Stillaguamish River, creating a new channel that threatened homes on a street called Steelhead Drive. Instead of seeing homes being vacated, he saw carpenters building new ones. 'Frankly, I was shocked that the county permitted any building across from the river,' says Miller. 'We've known that it's been failing. It's not unknown that this hazard exists.'" (More, below.)
"The hill that collapsed is referred to by geologists with different names, including Hazel Landslide and Steelhead Haven Landslide, a reference to the hillside's constant movement. After the hill gave away in 1949, in '51, in '67, in '88, in 2006, residents referred to it simply as 'Slide Hill.' 'People knew that this was a landslide-prone area,' says John Pennington. Geomorphologist Tracy Drury said there were discussions over the years about whether to buy out the property owners in the area, but those talks never developed into serious proposals. 'I think we did the best that we could under the constraints that nobody wanted to sell their property and move.'"
And still not much is being done to stop it. Wait 30 years and you'll see this same article here, only referencing global warming.
...is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result - A. Einstein.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
"I wanna build that wood-made doll house on the side of the collapsing hill, on a shore of a constant tide, at the bottom of a restless avalanche, in the way of a hundred hurricanes, next to an ever-flooding river, at the feet of a volcano! And you ain't gonna stop me!"
Why do they hate our freedom to build somewhere incredibly stupid and dangerous?
At some point the urgency wanes, the storm turns at the last before landfall again, and fewer people leave their homes.
Since the '50's is way past most folks' attention spans.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
The story in the news was particularly "funny".
It starts with "and then the slope collapsed without any warning".
Later it stated that "scientists warned of the risk in a report 15 years ago".
So how is that "without any warning"?
And I hate it when they say "scientists". They don't say "celebrities", "politicians", "football players" - no, they use names. But scientists always remain nameless. Scientists are not amorphous magicians, they are people like you and me.
As a tech working in Southern California with a B.A. in Geology, I can tell you that most geologic reports that are prepared are typically all but ignored by developers, leading to many problems down the road, and occasional tragedies such as this. I know of a large building built in the San Andreas Fault Zone that did not have the proper footings in place, and has sunk as a result (not from any earthquake, but from the nature of the fractured strata beneath the site), costing more taxpayer money to save it (this being a state institution).
Geologist warnings serve more to set insurance rates then to avoid issues, and many lives have been lost, and will be lost as a result. Geologist by the nature of their science look at the land in terms of what will happen over time, while Developers are concerned with only if their investment will pay off in the short term, assuming the added risk as just an increase in insurance costs taken from their bottom lines.
Umm, no. At least for New Orleans. We already have levees around the city to deal with hurricane flooding. Raising the levees a foot or so per century really isn't that big a deal.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Think of all of the warnings we hear from scientists/experts.
Mudslides, floods, hurricanes, earthquakes - there are lots of places we just shouldn't live because some day there will be a disaster.
Bridges, buildings, subways - there are lots of man-made structures we need to repair. some will collapse
Diet, medicine, excessive - it will harm society if we are allowed 20 oz drinks or salt at the table.
We could probably list legitimate warnings all day. And I'll probably experience dozens of things today that scientists have warned about. This situation is tragic but it doesn't mean anyone is to blame. With 1000s of warnings from scientists, some will happen - but most don't.
If there's anywhere to focus it's on how to evaluate and prioritize warnings across a wide variety of areas (natural disaster, diet, structures, etc). We don't have the resources to fix everything we are warned about - where do we start?
The other thing we may want to learn is that the media should not over-hype all warnings. People need to know better what warnings to pay attention to. When we watch the news and scientists say "just about everything you do today" may kill you (or the planet), why even try to fix anything?
Look at the story after this, California quakes.
I theorize that seismic activity shook the mud loose. I cite Samuel Clemens standing on Nicola Teslas vibrating platform as proof of concept.
California shakes and Washington took a dump.
Its Scienterrific!
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
When it comes to beach houses, nothing can be done to protect them from hurricanes. But people still build huge homes there. A hurricane comes by and wipes them out, the President declares a disaster area, government (taxpayers) pays to rebuild - rinse and repeat.
See, the wealthy people who own beach houses also have the political clout to get us peons to pay for their luxuries.
What we need is to just say, "Sorry, you build on the beach and your house gets smashed by a hurricane, tough shit. Eat it."
Since a report about it landed on President Johnson's desk we've already had the 30 years plus change.
The stupidity of a bunch of people that believe academics can afford better publicity people than oil companies is amazing. This is exactly the same thing. The geologist states facts once and thinks it's settled. The housing developers have a staff of people who keep asking different officials uni they find one who listens. Then they keep commissioning secret reports until they find a tame "expert" land slide denialist. When they find this person they pay a huge amount more to publish the report.
These are people who are killing people for money. Even of the denialist "expert" is an idiot who never realises what he's done, the industrialist behind him knows exactly what is going on. What should we do?
>What should we do?
Charge the developers with manslaughter, at least?
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
But... but.. personal responsibility!
Currently the idea of being 'responsible' only covers your own life, whatever you do to others, as long as you made a profit, is their own fault.
And the hill slid FIVE TIMES during those decades, before the most recent slide. Definitely a case of crying wolf; how were the towns people supposed to realize the wolf was real after only seeing it five times?
There's a story in Washington State that all of the river names here, Snohomish, Skykomish, Skokomish, have the postfix "ish". Which is an Indian term meaning "This is a flood plain, idiot. Don't build your house here."
Have gnu, will travel.
The song started playing in my head as soon as I read that phrase.
Led Zeppelin When the Levee Breaks.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Whether it's the regulators overseeing the Deepwater Horizon being captured by the oil and gas industry, or whether it's local politicians being captured by the Finance/Real Estate sector, the results are usually bad for the society. And occasionally, they becomes spectacularly lethal.
To overcome the persistent regulatory capture of the US government, two things must occur:
1) Overhaul of the campaign finance system (so politiicians will be more inclined to work for their constituents not their highest bidder).
2) Term limits (because power corrupts).
No -- this hill slid five or six times in the last 60 years, and he said it's gonna keep on sliding. Back when, people weren't building there. More recently, probably with a little help from the housing bubble, people built it up.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Western Washington has millions of people living in slide zones, living on old slide deposits, living in front of future slides. It's easy to point to one active slide area and say 'damn fools shouldn't have lived there' but the reality is that we live in the shadow of glaciers from the recent past that resulted in widespread deposits of soupy soil. Western Washington is also a high-hazard area for huge earthquakes, as are many parts of California. Do people expect everyone to move? Or what about Oklahoma or Kansas in the path of tornadoes? Or Minnesotans subject to stinging blizzards and arctic chill? Or...? You get the idea. You try and identify the hazards, mitigate them, and warn of them. In the case of the Oso landslide, there never should have been clearcut logging above the slide-prone area, there should have been monitoring of the water levels, and there should have been drainage mitigations installed years ago...as there have been in many other similar areas including just up the road from Oso. So...don't tell people to move until you're prepared to tell Californians or Oklahomans or English or Japanese or whoever to move.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect#History
Try centuries i.s.o. decades.
Uhmm... Money trumps everything. More people die from a lack of money than from mudslides... Wasting a few billion on inspecting shoes in airports means it can not go to disease research, or fresh water projects, or health care, or... Large amounts of money ends up being wasted in very unlikely but high profile disasters where "We have to do something!" Unfortunately, the money is not unlimited...
As a libertarian with a localist bent this is a issue I think a lot about. But if America wants a Nanny State....lets go full Nanny State where the Nanny can be fired if the kids go to the ER with a yard dart sticking out the side of little marys head.
If government worked as promised once a area becomes known as a slide, avalanche, wildfire, tusnami, tornado, sinkhole, earthquake or flood risk where the chance of total loss of the property or the occupants is a real number, permitting of new residences and major external improvements needs to stop immediately and insurance switches to high risk private insurance within the decade (or post bond equal to the value of your property).
Commercial property know are owned by people who know how to manage risk. (man I sound like a 1%er) The average citizen has no idea of the risks of home ownership until FEMA is tagging their house with spray paint. This will be beneficial to all of us who built and live in sensible locations and FEMA will have funds for the real freak events. (Johnstown Flood, Texas City, Dust Storm that swallows Phoenix, Yellowstone Super volcano, New Madrid) The plains and Midwest land in flood plains is for farming as it is most fertile and cheapest for the purpose and the risk is only a few thousand dollars per square km. Land near the seas is great habitat for birds and multiuse use parks. .
If a developer wants to attempt to improve area to mitigate the risk he can set a bond in perpetuity to pay for the losses on the high risk community and make the cost of the land closer to the true cost for the community. Corrective action may be attempted by developers but they are taking on future risk not the local, state and federal government. New Orleans, Florida, the foothills of LA, Sandy point, Martha's Vinyard and thousands of miles of coastlines will all still have there risky homes to buy but will be clearly a risky buy with not only high insurance premium but a declining value. Building on the side of a mountain or hill without rebar cemented into bedrock needs to be in the building code. Redlines will be back and drawn by Geologists, Mortgage Companies and Insurance Companies.
And still not much is being done to stop it. Wait 30 years and you'll see this same article here, only referencing global warming.
Odd, I thought that they'd been claiming that the end of the world would be coming every 10 years for the last 30 years. I can pretty much find that in literature easily enough, including that: No glaciers by 2000, no snow falls by 2000, and 2010 in europe, no polar ice caps, and a whole pile of other things.
Om, nomnomnom...
It's hell on Earth here! Raining at the moment! When it stops it'll go back to our 9 straight months of greyness! No jobs! Unless hack sacking weed smoking hippies who make careers out of pan handling count! Furious volcanoes! Floods! People being chased by landslides! Don't move here! It sucks! Stay where you are! It's mostly just more pavement! Plus you can't pump your own gas! And you get a holy reaming on your property taxes! Here be dragons! And rabid beavers!
Bullshit. Even in the 70s, the consensus was already leaning heavily toward warming.
A survey of climate science articles from '65 to '79 found seven that leaned toward global cooling, but they also found 44 articles on global warming over the same period. This notion of a "consensus" in the 70s about global cooling is simply a myth. The video linked above explains why and how. (Hint: the culprit is the media, not the scientists.)
Here's a little "thought experiment" for you... Imagine a "typical" English or Journalism major from your college days. How would you rate their understanding of science and engineering issues? Now imagine that person is writing for, say, Time Magazine...
Watch the video above to see how that works out. ;-)
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
Odd, I thought that they'd been claiming that the end of the world would be coming every 10 years for the last 30 years.
That's because instead of listening to the predictions, you waved your hands without even knowing what the predictions were.
I can pretty much find that in literature easily enough, including that: No glaciers by 2000, no snow falls by 2000, and 2010 in europe, no polar ice caps, and a whole pile of other things.
What you failed to realize is that those were not the predictions of mainstream climate science, but of wackos were paraded in front of you as straw men. I call you on your bullshit and invite you to look up that "literature."
Unlike you I can cite Scientific American to back up what I've written with an actual link:
http://www.scientificamerican....
Note the mention of President Johnson there. If that's not enough try google and you will find many others.
1. You claimed "that the end of the world would be coming every 10 years for the last 30 years." Cite this claim specifically
2. You claimed to have citation stating there would be "No glaciers by 2000" Cite this.
3. " no snow falls by 2000 and 2010 in europe," Cite this from peer reviewed material
4. no polar ice caps - provide this citation (Noting that it must be for both poles and must predict that would be no polar ice caps before 2014 to qualify per your criteria).
I particularly like the ones on no glaciers in the Himalayas, that were based on no evidence by Greenpeace, with no scientific data.
Your mistake. This doesn't qualify as an example of scientific literature (get a full understand of the composition of AR4 before mouthing off next time, moron), and they (the authors of the piece) didn't say "no glaciers in the himalayas" they made reference to one glacier completely disappearing. In an opinion piece.
Now get on with it.
You are the revisionist, and you remain a liar. Citing a secondary source is simply repeating someone else's lie, but it leaves you a liar nonetheless. Here is the speech: http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/j... Scientific American says, "When a report on climate change hit the U.S. president's desk, ..." and it was not a report on climate at all - it was about pollution and it's health affects on humans. Yes, Johnson mentions carbon dioxide and not one word about its specific affect upon the environment. The particulate pollution and sulfur dioxide he mentioned were believed to cause cooling. Nowhere in the reports he was provided was there any mention of warming from carbon dioxide.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.