On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 00:09:26 -0600, Bill Anderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 18:12 -0700, Frank Gilliland wrote: >> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 05:46:02 -0600, Bill Anderson >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> >> >I did some digging into the progress of Katrina. Here is a link followed >> >by a summary. >> > >> >http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168413,00.html >> >> >> There sure are a lot of things missing out of that timeline. For >> example, they neglect to mention that the governor of LA declared a >> SoE a full day before the governor of Mississippi declared the same. >> Looks like a politically biased timeline to me..... nothing new for >> FOX News. > >A Typical response. everybody but you are politically biased and >motivated. Glad to know that you never have any omissions .. wait you >do ... Of course I'm biased. I'm biased against the two-party cartel that is thinly disguised as a democracy. I'm biased against the weakening representation in the House (i.e, the "Second Senate"). I'm biased against any polititian that opposes a constitutional amendment that guarantees the right to vote, or works to prevent Americans from having the opportunity to elect a third party or independent candidate. IOW, I'm biased against -both- parties. So how does that taint my perception that the aforementioned news agency has leanings towards the Republican party? >Gee maybe they could have left in the Florida part of it? I note you >make no comments on that. > >Tuesday: Tropical Depression is determined >Wednesday: Now a Tropical Storm >Thursday: BAM! Hello Florida! > >>From the NY Times (hardly a pro-Bush and/or pro-conservative >publication): >""" >In an unusual manner, the storm kept its swirling shape and retained its >strength as it quickly rumbled across the state. >""" >Most storms cutting over Florida lose strength and shape and normally >drop from hurricane status to barely a tropical storm. Katrina did not. >but there are other facets. What part of "There sure are a lot of things missing out of that timeline" didn't you understand? >> <snip> >> >And now a few comments on the above reported timeline. >> > >> >First, the declaration of SoE and disaster areas. After years of >> >governments doing this in advance, the effect has worn off. When we see >> >such statements made due to grasshopper infestations, it kinda makes you >> >go "Oh yeah another declaration. So what's for dinner honey?" >> >> >> It was also done for the four hurricanes that hit Florida last year. >> Nobody shrugged -those- warnings off as the government 'crying wolf'. > >Are you saying nobody stayed home? I believe that statement sir would be >idiocy. That wasn't what I said, was it? You claimed that the "effect" of an emergency declaration has "worn off", yet hundreds of thousands of people -- the vast majority of the population -- evacuated the area. So it's clear that your statement isn't quite accurate. And for you to suggest that your statement is true because a few foolish people willingly decided to ride out the storm is nonsense. >For your failing memory two of the 2004 hurricanes were cat3, one cat2 >and one cat1. People generally don't evacuate for cat1s or cat2s. They >are minor hurricanes. For -your- failing memory, Charley was a Cat 4 when it hit land. But Frances and Ivan were just as devastating -- if not more so -- because of their rapid succession in the wake of Charley. 2004 was one of the most expensive and deadliest hurricane seasons in many years. >> >Next, when the warning for N.O. was issued, she was a cat 3. >> >> >> She was a Cat 3 that had already suprised Florida resulting in 11 >> deaths.... as a Cat 1! > >But I thought nobody shrugged off the declarations? How can people get >killed if they didn't stay home? It could have been worse. >Wait, wait here is how they played out as of the 28th: >"Hurricane Katrina churned through the Gulf of Mexico on Friday, after >cutting a swath through southern Florida and leaving seven people dead. >Three people who died in the hurricane were crushed by falling trees. >One man lost control of his car and rammed into a tree. Three others >drowned, including two who tried to ride out the storm in a houseboat." >-- NY Times > >So, of the 11 two were people trying to ride out the storm *IN A >HOUSEBOAT*. If that ain't proof that people were not taking the warnings >seriously, well I'm at a loss for words as to what would be. According to former Governor Ventura, "People have the constitutional right to be stupid". >Of the others, three crushed by falling trees. Clearly they didn't >leave. One lost control of his car. Honestly this may or may not be >hurricane related we don't know for sure. > >Know who the first three deaths in Louisiana from Katrina were? Three >elderly people who died during pre-approach evacuation. They died fo >dehydration. Belittling the casualties doesn't do much to validate your argument. >> Also, because of its slow turn and the warm >> waters in the gulf, the NWS had predicted that the storm would >> increase in intensity and make landfall as a Cat 4 or 5. And just 14 >> hours before landfall the Hurricane Center at Slidell, LA issued an >> uncharacteristically subjective report that this storm was going to be >> the "worst case scenario" (yes, they used those exact words). > >Yup, less than 24 hours prior to landfall. Just as I mentioned. Not two >days before. But the timeline is even shorter, see below. That might be true if not for the fact that the Cat 4-5 prediction was made just after it crossed into the gulf. So they actually had more than 3 days to prepare. That's makes the timeline -longer-, not shorter. And the timeline was even -longer- when you consider that emergency plans could have been devised and refined years before this storm even formed. That's the job of FEMA and DoHS. (If they aren't doing their job then where is all that money going?) >> > A lot of >> >people in that area have weathered those before. >> >> >> Yep. Betsy in 1965, which left half the city flooded and 60,000 >> homeless. > >And killed 78. What political bias led you leave that out? You tell me. >> And, more recently, Andrew in 1992. But the history of >> devastating hurricanes in that area goes back all the way to 1927. > >Ah an omission. Truth is they go back into the 1800's. > >A 1865 hurricane took out Dernier island....... <snip for brevity> Thanks for making my point. >> > Second, the evac >> >recommendation was for those in low lying areas. Now, personally I >> >consider the whole damned area low lying. However, the residents do not. >> >> >> I suppose that's why hundreds of thousands of people heeded the >> warnings and -did- evacuate, huh? > >They predominantly lived in the low lying areas. > >What about the tens of thousands who did not? What about the people >being interviewed prior to landfall saying they were going to wait it >out? Why do feel a need/desire to leave these people out of your >considerations? I don't. If people refuse to acknowledge dire circumstances that's their problem. Much like you refuse to acknowledge that the warnings did indeed have an effect, as the mass evacuation have proved. The majority of people who didn't leave simply didn't have the means or the strength, or had a responsibility to those that remained (hospital workers, police, fire, etc.). The question of the hour is why there was no disaster plan to evacuate those people. And if the plan was to house them in the dome and other shelters, why there was no plan to provide for the survivors. Or, if there -was- a plan, why it didn't work. Those are all questions that will be answered in the coming months. But clearly something went terribly wrong, and it -wasn't- because they didn't have enough warning (additional proof of which you graciously provided above). >> >And I have confirmed that the French Quarter is indeed one of the >> >highest points of the city/area. So add this up: >> >* You've weathered these before >> >* It's only a cat 3 >> >* You don't live in a low lying area >> >> >> You are missing a few points: >> >> * The area has a long history of devastating floods caused by >> hurricanes > >And in fact *most* of the devastating floods in the area have had >nothing to do with hurricanes. Which further reinforces my point -- the area is very sensitive to flooding. > MOST of the hurricanes in the area have >not had devastating floods. Wrong. ALL hurricanes that hit land create a storm surge and heavy rains. The infrastructure (levees, dams, canals, etc) was built to prevent flooding that would have occured naturally. They effectively made an artifical flooding 'threshold'. And they knew where that threshold was by declaring the levees could withstand a Cat-3 storm. Yet history proves that any hurricane has the potential to change in both direction and intensity. To sit on your hands and hope it doesn't hit as a Cat-4 or 5 is not a very good disaster plan. >> * Part of the city is -below- sea level >Only you would make such an inane statement. I've been continually >pointing out that much of the city is BELOW SEA LEVEL. But you miss the >exercise entirely. The point is where *YOU* are is not. Not suprisingly, >the places that were higher ground saw less evacuation. Then what's the problem with making it a premise to an argument? And it's a very important premise because the flooding of that area will have a significant impact on nearby areas -regardless- of the height above sea level, a fact has been proven by previous floods of the area and again by Katrina. >> * The city of NO is surrounded by three major bodies of water >> * The water is held back by levees that have failed in the past > >And surrounded by levees that more often had *not* failed to prevent a >city-wide inundation. Yet some have failed. You might consider the failure rate to be small, and that may very well be true. But that fact, when taken collectively with all the other seemingly insignificant points, makes a very strong inductive argument that casts significant doubt on the ability of the area to withstand -any- approaching hurricane. >> * Even when it was a Cat 3, the storm was predicted to have a storm >> surge that could breach the levees. > >All reasons to not live there in the first place, IMO. I agree 110%. > But nonetheless >YOU missed the point. The point is people CHOSE to stay. Also, the FQ >was/is largely NOT underwater. Of course some people chose to stay. But until you can tell me how many chose to stay -willingly- as opposed to -reluctantly-, and how many had no choice at all, your argument is nothing more than a long winded speculative rant. >Compare it to getting in a car. >* Cars have a long history of killing their occupants >* Part of the car leaves you exposed to direct injury from flying debris >or other vehicles >* While on the road your car will generally be surrounded by many tons >of other cars, and you are surrounded by glass that can potentially >kill/injure you, not to mention any loose objects being turned into >lethal projectiles >* Seat belts and air bags have failed in the past >* Even at 20MPH you can get killed > >Do you still get into a/the car? I bet you do! You're talking to a driver that's been hit 16 times in as many years.... and once by an ambulance! I'm not dead yet. I account for that because I have been able to see what's coming and take measures to avoid or minimize the damage. IOW, I try to get the hell out of the way if I see an 18-wheeler bearing down on me! Some people don't. Some people cross railroad tracks right in front of a speeding train. Some people drive drunk. Some people drive 55 in thick fog. I don't, and as long as I avoid situations that are clearly unsafe then my odds of survival are pretty darn good. Now apply your analogy to Katrina; the radio says there's a lunatic driving a tank around town and that it's headed your way. Do you sit there and wait for it to drive over you and your car? Or do you get the hell out of the way? >The National Weather service also has noted for years that people are >getting complacent with regards to hurricanes just as people on >California are to earthquakes. To quote: >"The problem is further compounded because 80 to 90 percent of the >population now living in hurricane-prone areas have never experienced >the core of a "major" hurricane. Many of these people have been through >weaker storms. The result is a false impression of a major hurricane's >damage potential. This can lead to complacency and delayed actions >resulting in injuries and loss of lives." Your quote (whatever it's source) is misleading, giving the false impression that 80-90% of the population -wouldn't- evacuate. That might hold water if not for the fact that 80-90% -did- evacuate and survived -despite- such "complacency". >Combine this with the state government declaring states of emergencies >over minor hurricanes and you have a recipe for people staying home. >This latter cause is due largely to a desire to get federal funding. >Declaring the SoE is *primarily* about federal funds. What a load of horse-hooey! When Blanco made the request for a federal emergency declaration she only asked for $9 million and the use of some federal resources. >Also, the NEW clearly states that the actual frequency of major (cat3-5) >hurricanes is lower than the last three decades. Katrina is only the >third Cat 4 to make landfall in LA since the scale was invented. There >has been only one Cat 5 to hit LA at all, and only 3 Cat 5s to ever make >landfall in the US Gulf Coast since records (and the scale) began. They >were: > >Labor Day Hurricane of 1935 (naming not used yet) >Camille: 1960 >Andrew: 1992 > >Between 1970 and 1999 the majority of deaths due to hurricanes were from >*inland fresh water flooding*. Storm surge accounted for less than 1%. >here, storm surge is the primary cause. More misleading information. Storm surge has not been a primary cause of death recently because of modern weather information gathering technology and better predictions. Overall (both before -and- after 1970), storm surge -is- the leading cause of death from hurricanes. However, it does reiterate my point: Hurricanes do hit that area, and the damage from them can be devastating. Didn't I mention something about history repeating itself....? >Camille, a Cat5, struck the Mississippi gulf coast with 25 foot storm >surges. And Camille hit in 1969, not 1960. >> >Do you leave? Not suprisingly, a significant portion do not. >> >> >> Yet a significant portion..... in fact, MOST residents.... DID leave. >> Those who couldn't, didn't. > >Thank you Captain Obvious. A key factor you refuse to acknowledge is >those who chose not to. Not everybody who could leave, did. Where, in any of my posts, did I suggest anything to the contrary? > Indeed, in >Florida the towns and cities basically boarded up and many people were >literally sitting on the porch watching it roll in. All, most, some, few, none..... How many stayed willingly? How many stayed reluctantly? How many stayed because they had no choice? Put up some numbers and then maybe I'll agree. >Here are some items for your ponderance: >"We call it a vertical evacuation," -- Joseph Fein, owner of the Court >of Two Sisters, a French Quarter restaurant. > >He said they and the citizens were responding to it (the hurricane) as >they always do. Go for the taller buildings, get in the middle, and wait >it out. This was on the 28th. > > >> >Now put yourself in the shoes of the government. You are prepped for a >> >cat 4 (and in some laces a cat4). You've taken cat 3s before, several >> >times. What disaster response to you prepare for? Most likely a cat 3. >> >> >> Putting yourself "in the shoes of the government", you knew decades in >> advance as to the possible devastation of any significant hurricane to >> hit the area. > >No, you haven't been there for decades, get a grip. None of the current >officials have been there for decades. You are operating entirely from >hindsight and as such your opinions based on said hindsight are >irrelevant. It seems that you have a reading comprehension problem. Try reading this line one more time: "Putting yourself 'in the shoes of the government'". Those were -your- words, and I used them in the very same context. If you were "in the shoes of the government" then you would have access to historical weather data to as far back as it has been collected and recorded. Suggesting that such data is invalid if not collected personally is nothing but a piss-poor attempt at obfuscating the issue. >A cat three is a significant hurricane, and they've hit the area for >decades without this impact. Again, you are ignoring the fact that hurricanes are dynamic systems; they change. They don't suddenly appear out of nowhere as a Cat 3 and stay that way until they suddenly vanish over land. Regardless, -many- hurricanes have hit that region without the impact of Katrina. But -some- have come close. And there always exists the possibility that the biggest is yet to come. >Katrina was unique in it's characteristics. The storm itself is >unprecedented in the last hundred years. See below for details. So was Ivan. So was Charley. So was Andrew. So was..... blah, blah, blah. The fact that the hurricane was unusual should have given even more weight to the warnings. >> History has proven that it can be catastrauphic. Add to >> that the NWS recent predictions as to the increased frequency of such >> storms, poor management by both the state and the federal government >> of the surrounding wetlands, and the economic impact of such a storm >> in today's economy. Put it all together and you have a recipe for a >> major disaster. The problem is that everyone was acting on assumptions >> and nobody bothered to read the recipe. > >The whole recipe is an assumption. On average, since 1871, a tropical >storm or hurricane should be expected somewhere within the state every >1.2 years. A hurricane should make landfall every 2.8 years. > >As to increasing frequency, the 1980's cyclone strikes to Louisiana >totaled 9 (4/5 hurricane/storm). In the 1990's they totaled 5 (3/2). >Here are the decadal totals starting with the 1850's: >4,9,9,10,9,9,5,5,10,12,9,5,7,9,5 > >Those are not assumptions, those are fact as best we have them. What >trend if any is there? Hey, I didn't make the prediction. If you want to argue weather statistics contact someone at the NOAA or the NWS. <snip boring statistics> >Landfall is describes as when the eye touches land. Do not forget the >hurricane precedes the eye. You Lidell reference coming 14 hours before >landfall means 14 hours before the eye made landfall. This means that >several hours prior the hurricane winds and rain were already pounding >shorelines. This means there was even less time. For some reason you can't seem to recognize the fact that even though hurricanes are dynamic in nature, they are somewhat predictable. In fact, projected paths and strengths are becoming more and more accurate every year. After entering the gulf, Katrina was predicted to make a beeline straight for New Orleans. It did. It was also predicted to land as a Cat-4 or 5. It did. But whether it did or not, those predictions came three full days before landfall. There was -PLENTY- of time. >Now, there is also the matter of what the NWS was advising and the >probabilities they were providing. Your position gets much weaker when >these are taken into account. > >On Saturday the 27th the NWS issued it's latest update (at 10PM Central >time that night) which gave Katrina a 3% chance of coming within 75 >miles of Buras, LA from then through 7PM Sunday, a 23% chance of it >coming w/in that range between 7PM Sunday to 7AM Monday, and a 1% chance >of it coming w/in 75 miles of Buras, LA from 7AM to 7PM Monday. Twelve >hours earlier it was less than one%, followed by 3% followed by 14%. I'm going to snip this "report" and postpone my response until you provide a link; the report is contrary to what was reported in the news, and contradicts the reason Blanco declared a state of emergency just one day -prior- to the report. IOW, something smells fishy. > it was not flood protection levees that went down. It was >flood walls for the shipping lanes. Three flood walls were breached: >those along the Industrial Canal, the 17th Street Canal, and the London >Avenue Canal. We've all been referring to them as levees (self included) >when in fact, they were not part of the actual levee system. Call it what you want; levee, dyke, flood wall, a big pile of dirt with a little Dutch boy at the bottom plugging a hole with his finger.... I don't really care because your post is abhorrently long and it's really not necessary. >OK hotshot, it is Sunday afternoon. You've got a city that is 80-80% >evacuated, Wouldn't have happened. I, unlike LA's gov and the Shrub, was paying attention to the predictions. <snip> >> >However, there is one significant action I do take issue with: >> >Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco says everyone still in New Orleans an >> >estimated 50,000 to 100,000 people must be evacuated. >> > >> >This is after the city is 80-85% flooded. IMO, that's a bit late there >> >Gov., and not terribly helpful. >> >> >> It is essential. The city is now a breeding ground for dysentery, >> cholera, plague, yellow fever, malaria, or any other nasty bug that >> nature has cooked up in recent years. If they don't get those people >> out of there ASAP there is a very -real- possibility that a disease >> could be contracted without any symptoms, then spread to the general >> population -after- evacuation. The sooner they get them out the >> better. > >And what good does a proclamation that ignores reality do? While reading your post I have been asking myself the same question. I have also been asking what good a reply would do when you are so dead-set against looking at the issue from a historical standpoint, or providing any facts that support your arguments (instead of providing facts that support -my- arguments). I have come to the conclusion that such an endeavor is worthy if for no other reason but to discourage other would-be propoganda distributors from preying on the more gullible members of our society. So feel free to proclaim all the ignorance you want, Bill -- I'll fill in the reality for you. > It furthers >the problem, and does nothing for the solution. You've got a city that >is 85% underwater and you announce everyone has to leave? First, nearly >everyone left has no power, no tv, no radio. They are in their attics or >on their roof, or out wading through water trying to leave, or are >surrounded by water because they are in one of the non-low-lying areas. >Just how the hell do you propose they evacuate themselves? More obfuscation: She never said that they must evacuate -themselves-. Is this how you think you can win arguments? By misquoting people? spinning the issues? ignoring the facts? Better think again, Bill, because over the years I've caught just about every trick in the book. It helps when you earn a 4.0 in Logic -- and go on to teach the class for a semester the next year. But if you really think you can pull a fast one then by all means keep trying. Oh, and do try to be a little more economical with your rants; I have to work for a living and simply don't have as much spare time as you evidently have. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list Libnw@immosys.com List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
