Abandon hope, all ye who live in a flood-prone city!
This comment to my previous entry, along with my response, deserves its own post.
Someone I've never met, spoken to, or even heard of, tj_o_pootertoot, had this to say:
EDIT: Well, well, well! It turns out I do know him, after all. Jeez, Dan-O, if I'd known it was you, I wouldn't have been so easy on you. You can still go count your dick, though. Oh, and now that I know it's you, for the love of GOD, the possessive of it is its, not it's. It's is a freakin' contraction; it means it is. Example: When it's feeling unclean, horny, or bored, the cat licks its own butt.
Anyway, here's the argument from Da... er, tj_o_pootertoot:
How about we agree on several things:
1) It was stupid to maintain a metropolitan area, and expand its city limits, when it was widely know that it would eventually flood. New Orleanians have been expanding it's limits since the 1800's into floodplains and swampland. Granted, it's hard to simply halt urban sprawl, but levees or no levees, they were building in a high risk area.
2) The federal grants should have been granted. Despite the stupidity of LIVING in a swamp, it was beyond that question when the grants were requested. Considering the amount of oil that comes from this region, it made fiscal sense if nothing else.
3) If you build it, will people come? With rising tides, year after year, will people still find a reason to live in this disaster area? My guess is that some will return, but most won't miss the place. Yes, N.O is one of America's oldest cities, but will people actually 'set-up shop' knowing that within a few years it will need higher levees, or even more so: will taxpayers want to fit the bill year after year after year after year? My guess is No.
Yes, Nah-Lens has it's history, it's cajun cuisine, it's Mardi Gras, but can't we expound of Baton Rogue? It's just up the block, and sometimes, like when a house burns down it makes sense to leave a burnt out skeleton of a home and build it down the street and start over. Sure, you might have had memories that can't be replaced with a new structure, but you can't hold on to the past, right?
My response:
Fine, let's also abandon the following major world cities:
Houston. It's above sea level, but it has "subsided by 5 to 10 ft. in the past half-century. . . . In 2001, Tropical Storm Allison poured nearly 3 ft. of rain into Houston's tunnel system in a few days, creating underground rivers that invaded downtown. . . . A recent study says a Category 4 or 5 storm would cause $50 billion in damages."
Sacramento. "Built on a flood plain more than 70 miles inland . . . considered one of the most flood-prone U.S. cities."
St. Petersburg. Only 13 ft. above sea level. It's "been flooded 300 times in three centuries. In 1824, a storm surge off the Gulf of Finland rose almost 14 ft., killing hundreds. An equivalent surge today would flood most of the city."
London. It's "been at risk for centuries--storm surges from the North Sea can swell the Thames Estuary and engulf the city. In 1953, a storm hit London during high tide, killing more than 300. Since then, the city has continued to sink on its clay foundations. . . . With rising sea levels, storm surges will likely overtake the gates of the Thames Barrier within 30 years."
(Flooding data from an article by Daniel Engber in the November, 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics from www.popularmechanics.com.)
That's just flooding. I haven't even gotten into earthquakes yet. But now that I've brought it up, let's discuss!
Istanbul. 17,000 people died in northwestern Turkey (mere miles from Istanbul) in 1999. Dickson Despommier, a professor and researcher at Columbia University, says, "The 1999 earthquake sequence in northwestern Turkey probably has overstressed the segment of the North Anatolian Fault just south of Istanbul. The probability of a major earthquake striking Istanbul in the next thirty years has doubled." This is a city of 13 million people-- 75% of the construction is illegal. Seismologists predict the next "big one" will kill 60-70,000 people and destroy 10,000 buildings.
Kobe. In 1995, a mere 20 seconds of rockin' and rollin' on the part of the earth caused over 5100 deaths. Statistically, this was unlikely, and surprising, as "the Kobe region was thought to be fairly safe in terms of seismic activity." (from www.vibrationdata.com)
Tokyo. As if the constant specter of ginormous monsters like Godzilla terrorizing the city weren't enough, Tokyo is also prone to massive, destructive earthquakes. In 1923 an earthquake there claimed 140,000 lives.
San Francisco. In 1906, an earthquake felt as far away as Oregon, Los Angeles, and central Nevada killed a whole bunch of people and left even more people homeless. The death toll was officially reported at 478, but today this is widely accepted as total bullshit, with the most conservative estimates topping 3,000. About 2/3 of the city's population of 400,000 was left homeless.
I don't need to go on. There are dozens more major cities, and thousands of minor ones, whose structures and inhabitants are at risk of being wiped out to varying degrees by a massive geological or weather phenomenon. Where, pray tell, would you have the people live? What cities or areas are safe enough?
Now, I don't know you. At all. But I can't believe you'd say something as asinine as "most won't miss the place."
EDIT: Now that I know that I know him, I can, in fact, believe he'd say something that asinine. Love ya babe, let's do lunch, call me or something.
Seriously, have you ever been there? No, never mind, it doesn't matter. Why don't you just go count your dick?
Someone I've never met, spoken to, or even heard of, tj_o_pootertoot, had this to say:
EDIT: Well, well, well! It turns out I do know him, after all. Jeez, Dan-O, if I'd known it was you, I wouldn't have been so easy on you. You can still go count your dick, though. Oh, and now that I know it's you, for the love of GOD, the possessive of it is its, not it's. It's is a freakin' contraction; it means it is. Example: When it's feeling unclean, horny, or bored, the cat licks its own butt.
Anyway, here's the argument from Da... er, tj_o_pootertoot:
How about we agree on several things:
1) It was stupid to maintain a metropolitan area, and expand its city limits, when it was widely know that it would eventually flood. New Orleanians have been expanding it's limits since the 1800's into floodplains and swampland. Granted, it's hard to simply halt urban sprawl, but levees or no levees, they were building in a high risk area.
2) The federal grants should have been granted. Despite the stupidity of LIVING in a swamp, it was beyond that question when the grants were requested. Considering the amount of oil that comes from this region, it made fiscal sense if nothing else.
3) If you build it, will people come? With rising tides, year after year, will people still find a reason to live in this disaster area? My guess is that some will return, but most won't miss the place. Yes, N.O is one of America's oldest cities, but will people actually 'set-up shop' knowing that within a few years it will need higher levees, or even more so: will taxpayers want to fit the bill year after year after year after year? My guess is No.
Yes, Nah-Lens has it's history, it's cajun cuisine, it's Mardi Gras, but can't we expound of Baton Rogue? It's just up the block, and sometimes, like when a house burns down it makes sense to leave a burnt out skeleton of a home and build it down the street and start over. Sure, you might have had memories that can't be replaced with a new structure, but you can't hold on to the past, right?
My response:
Fine, let's also abandon the following major world cities:
Houston. It's above sea level, but it has "subsided by 5 to 10 ft. in the past half-century. . . . In 2001, Tropical Storm Allison poured nearly 3 ft. of rain into Houston's tunnel system in a few days, creating underground rivers that invaded downtown. . . . A recent study says a Category 4 or 5 storm would cause $50 billion in damages."
Sacramento. "Built on a flood plain more than 70 miles inland . . . considered one of the most flood-prone U.S. cities."
St. Petersburg. Only 13 ft. above sea level. It's "been flooded 300 times in three centuries. In 1824, a storm surge off the Gulf of Finland rose almost 14 ft., killing hundreds. An equivalent surge today would flood most of the city."
London. It's "been at risk for centuries--storm surges from the North Sea can swell the Thames Estuary and engulf the city. In 1953, a storm hit London during high tide, killing more than 300. Since then, the city has continued to sink on its clay foundations. . . . With rising sea levels, storm surges will likely overtake the gates of the Thames Barrier within 30 years."
(Flooding data from an article by Daniel Engber in the November, 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics from www.popularmechanics.com.)
That's just flooding. I haven't even gotten into earthquakes yet. But now that I've brought it up, let's discuss!
Istanbul. 17,000 people died in northwestern Turkey (mere miles from Istanbul) in 1999. Dickson Despommier, a professor and researcher at Columbia University, says, "The 1999 earthquake sequence in northwestern Turkey probably has overstressed the segment of the North Anatolian Fault just south of Istanbul. The probability of a major earthquake striking Istanbul in the next thirty years has doubled." This is a city of 13 million people-- 75% of the construction is illegal. Seismologists predict the next "big one" will kill 60-70,000 people and destroy 10,000 buildings.
Kobe. In 1995, a mere 20 seconds of rockin' and rollin' on the part of the earth caused over 5100 deaths. Statistically, this was unlikely, and surprising, as "the Kobe region was thought to be fairly safe in terms of seismic activity." (from www.vibrationdata.com)
Tokyo. As if the constant specter of ginormous monsters like Godzilla terrorizing the city weren't enough, Tokyo is also prone to massive, destructive earthquakes. In 1923 an earthquake there claimed 140,000 lives.
San Francisco. In 1906, an earthquake felt as far away as Oregon, Los Angeles, and central Nevada killed a whole bunch of people and left even more people homeless. The death toll was officially reported at 478, but today this is widely accepted as total bullshit, with the most conservative estimates topping 3,000. About 2/3 of the city's population of 400,000 was left homeless.
I don't need to go on. There are dozens more major cities, and thousands of minor ones, whose structures and inhabitants are at risk of being wiped out to varying degrees by a massive geological or weather phenomenon. Where, pray tell, would you have the people live? What cities or areas are safe enough?
Now, I don't know you. At all. But I can't believe you'd say something as asinine as "most won't miss the place."
EDIT: Now that I know that I know him, I can, in fact, believe he'd say something that asinine. Love ya babe, let's do lunch, call me or something.
Seriously, have you ever been there? No, never mind, it doesn't matter. Why don't you just go count your dick?