[Flipside]

Well, every country would deal with things in a similar manners. After all, it takes one man or a small group to mishandle something, whereas it takes an entire country to start a war.

It's always easier to point away from yourself.

[WeatherOp]

Indeed, my problem is not with the Levees not being upgraded, it is with Bush declaring that they never suspected if, in fact, they did suspect that Katrina would break them, and that people in the Dome would not be able to be properly helped. Lives might have been saved if it had been officially stated that there was a high risk of those Levees not holing.

It's 6am here, so I'll wait and see how the story develops to be honest, details are sketchy, and I'm sure more will come to light over the next 24 hours or so.

Errr, no, people would have have stayed, I mean, if you are gonna stay with a Cat 5 hurricane in a city that is below sea level anyways, then good luck too ya.

Also the fact, everyone who knew a thing about weather, knew those levees were gonna come down, it's very simple, and it's been preached for years. The fact is people are dumb enough not listen.

The thing is, we would not be taking about the levees if Kat come in at full steam, we would be talking about the 10s of thousands killed when the Superdome came down with a crash.

[Flipside]

I know, I recall you mentioning your concerns before Katrina hit. However, do you really believe that the American public will view it that way, especially with Bushes comments after the fact and the slow initial response? I put the 'might' in italics because I'm actually pretty much in agreement with you, but I don't think that will be the general consensus. People will think more of the fact they weren't warned than of the fact that it wouldn't have helped.

[aldo_14]

Let's see this "video", or at least a transcript.  Where the hell is the transcript??  If it's there, I certainly didn't see it.  But, anywho, I cant stand people who are pointing thier fingers at Bush saying "It's all his fault we didnt' recieve help after Katrina".  What the hell did Ray Nagin do?  He's no Juliani, for sure.  Comments he's made during, and after the hurricane (especially the "Chocolate City" remarks) give me a bad feeling that I just can't put my finger on.  I've heard reports of Nagin having transportation ready and waiting, but was never utilized when the hurricane hit. 

The Levees, it's silly, so silly to say that "BUSH didnt' upgrade our levees" or the more ridiculous (to the point of insanity) "BUSH blew up the levees" when the levees were only designed to prevent a Cat 3 storm, IIRC.  It's not Bush's fault for not upgrading the levees, it's the local and federal government's fault as a whole, because this problem has been there before Bush's time!  Unless there was specific legislation in the works to upgrade the levees under the Bush administration, it's unfair to say that Bush was the cause for levee failure. 

But I will admit, Bush is slipping, especially with this "PortGate" issue that's got parties mixed all over the place.  Hearing this on Hannity today, apparently DPWorld is supporting a boycott of Israel, which is illegal in the United States, to put it as simply as I heard it on the radio.  How could we let them take ownership of the ports if DPWorld is doing something the US Govt. considers illegal?   

worth pointing out that the federal government repeatedly cut the amount of money allocated to hurricane/flood defense, though, allocating $3m (bumped to $5.5m under pressure for Congress) in 2004 when around $11m was needed; most of the Army Engineers' money for maintaining the defenses had to go to backpay contractors owed from the previous year.  Reportedly in July, the White House  was lobbying against a wetland recreation project that would have cost $1bn but rebuild large areas of eroded coastline and wetlands (the lack of which was a key factor in the hurricane maintaining it's strength as long as it did)  The Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project requested $62.5m, and Bush offered $10.5m.  I believe a predominant factor in said budgets is cited as Homeland Security.

 This is where governmental responsibility, and that of the head of government, applies.  If the underfunding had been under Clinton, or Bush Snr, or Reagan, etc, they would have been held accountable.  If the underfunding is down a legacy of prior mismanagement, it's no excuse - the job of a government includes correcting mistakes or omissions by the prior government, not ignoring them.

[WeatherOp]

the lack of which was a key factor in the hurricane maintaining it's strength as long as it did)  T

Sorry to pick, but the wetlands had zip to do with the hurricane mantaining it's strength, a hurricane wouldn't weaken any faster over marshland then it would over shallow water. To stop a cane you need solid land or better yet mountains.

Now the wetlands would have slowed down the surge, it would'nt have did much since Kat took a more eastern track.

[NGTM-1R]

The basic deal is that for every two miles inland you need another foot of storm surge to get across it, even if it's flat. New Orleans used to be 30 miles from the sea. It's only 18 today. You see where this is going? The storm surge probably wouldn't have made the city.

The real problem though is that New Orleans is 22 feet below the level of the Mississippi River right next door. Yes, that's greater then its depth below sea level. The Mississippi wants to change its channel, see, but the city of New Orleans and the federal government don't want it to because they'd have had to spend roughly 20bil to build a ship channel from the new course of the river to New Orleans. (Which would have been a bargin, it turns out...) So they built up the levees to keep the Mississippi from changing its course. Now, let's be honest here, in the end that's not going to happen, you can't fight the damn Mississippi River and win for any length of time. They tried anyways. Poke nature with a stick, it'll poke back, and it has bigger sticks, as Katrina proved.

The other thing that bothers me is that sure, New Orleans got screwed up. It's still there though. Biloxi got wiped right off the map. It was at ground zero where Katrina came ashore. It's just not there anymore, and you don't hear jack schiznit about that.

[WeatherOp]

The basic deal is that for every two miles inland you need another foot of storm surge to get across it, even if it's flat. New Orleans used to be 30 miles from the sea. It's only 18 today. You see where this is going? The storm surge probably wouldn't have made the city.

Ummm, you're right the storm surge didn't make it to the city. Well, from the gulf anyways.



NO was on the western side of Katrina, winds would be comming from the north, and would push water back into the gulf. However it was not the gulf that got NO,due to the north winds, it was Lake Pontchartrain that gave the surge. So, umm 70 miles of wetlands wouldn't have helped NO.

But, anyways, had Katrina hit west of NO, it's 35 foot surge would have easily traveled over 30 miles of wetlands,so the result would be about the same except for 20,000 or so added to the death toll.

[aldo_14]

the lack of which was a key factor in the hurricane maintaining it's strength as long as it did)  T

Sorry to pick, but the wetlands had zip to do with the hurricane mantaining it's strength, a hurricane wouldn't weaken any faster over marshland then it would over shallow water. To stop a cane you need solid land or better yet mountains.

Now the wetlands would have slowed down the surge, it would'nt have did much since Kat took a more eastern track.

I remember (or think I remember) seeing something in a documentary about the wetlands (or rather, more land area in general) having played a key previous role in weakening hurricanes due to 'breaking' the connection (convection?) with warm ocean water.  Only found this quote (Dr. Shea Penland of the University of New Orleans describes wetlands as a coastal area's first line of defense. "They're the 'speed bump' that slows a hurricane and reduces its intensity.") from a sort of teachers site to support that, though.  But I'm sure I saw it cited as a key thing in said documentary about Katrina on either BBC2 or C4 ages ago.

[WeatherOp]

the lack of which was a key factor in the hurricane maintaining it's strength as long as it did)  T

Sorry to pick, but the wetlands had zip to do with the hurricane mantaining it's strength, a hurricane wouldn't weaken any faster over marshland then it would over shallow water. To stop a cane you need solid land or better yet mountains.

Now the wetlands would have slowed down the surge, it would'nt have did much since Kat took a more eastern track.

I remember (or think I remember) seeing something in a documentary about the wetlands (or rather, more land area in general) having played a key previous role in weakening hurricanes due to 'breaking' the connection (convection?) with warm ocean water.  Only found this quote (Dr. Shea Penland of the University of New Orleans describes wetlands as a coastal area's first line of defense. "They're the 'speed bump' that slows a hurricane and reduces its intensity.") from a sort of teachers site to support that, though.  But I'm sure I saw it cited as a key thing in said documentary about Katrina on either BBC2 or C4 ages ago.

It will except not very well, and not very fast.

The thing is, hurricanes don't need just warm water as most people think, they need deep water. They will cool the surface water pretty fast as they tap that energy.

So, wetlands about 1/2 a foot to a foot above the surface is not gonna be diferent from water that is 3 to 4 feet deep. But, in a wetland there is still of water and moisture, and it differs considerbly from the dry, true landmass of the CONUS.

And this IR shot basicly proves my point.

http://jrscience.wcp.muohio.edu/coriolis/katrina/08_29_1515_ani.gif

Notice how far the eye made it inland, it's traveled over miles and miles of wetlands but still has a well defined eye into Miss, however you can also see that the eye is really feeling the effects of dry land.

[Flipside]

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/US/Hurricane_Katrina/

Theres a link in there to an Audio/Video recording of the piece.

[aldo_14]

Well, I don't know enough climatology to debate it, and unfortunately I can't even remember the name of where I saw it nor the scientist that said so, so I'll take your word for it.  Maybe me ole mind is fuzzy and he was referring to storm surges along the rest of the (non NO) coastline.

[karajorma]

and unfortunately I can't even remember the name of where I saw it nor the scientist that said so

Fortunately, I do.

The coast is disappearing into the sea
Over the years the levees and dams stopped annual floods from the Mississippi River. As a result sediments that were brought down by the river to replenish the land were prevented from reaching their natural destination. Gradually Louisiana started to lose its coast. Today it has the highest rate of coastal land loss in North America. Every 20 minutes an area the size of Wembley stadium is swallowed up by the sea.

Shea Penland, a coastal geologist at the University of New Orleans, knows every inlet, every cove and every stretch of marsh that surrounds the city. He also knows that Louisiana's wetlands, thought of as wasteland for years, are in fact critical to the survival of the city. Providing protection against storm surges, these wetlands are a natural defence against the onslaught of hurricanes. As he says: "The first line of defence isn't the levee in your backyard, the first line of defence is that marsh in your back yard and we're learning what that means."

After the disaster, he chartered a seaplane to investigate the overnight loss to Louisiana's precious wetlands. What he discovered sounded like the death knoll for the city. In just one night, Louisiana had lost three-quarters of the wetland that it usually loses in one year. Without this protection, New Orleans is a sitting duck against future storms.

Unfortunately the BBC have stopped putting the transcripts of Horizon up on their site but you can find the page devoted to that programme here.

[Blue Lion]

I don't think one person in charge isn't to blame for this. I'm pretty sure everyone went into CYA mode before it even hit.

[Kosh]

I don't think one person in charge isn't to blame for this. I'm pretty sure everyone went into CYA mode before it even hit.

Any leader of any kind of organization is ultimately accountable for the actions of his/her underlings. The one who often takes the heat when something goes wrong is the leader.

[Nix]

Then why in the hell isn't Nagin taking any heat from not bussing people out of the 'Dome?  From what I've seen, he's gotten off scott free, if not a slap on the wrist!

[Mefustae]

You do realise that he didn't have all that many options below a state level. Sure, Nagin shouldn't be completely void of blame, but you can't simply ignore that collossal f***-up at the Federal level, which wasn't helped by Bush going on Television following Nagin's criticism of the Federal response, and effectively going "No way, man. Your city, your fault."

Anyway, why would he be punished? Seriously, he's copped some heat for the busses-sitting-idle fiasco, but do you honestly expect him to be thrown in jail or fined for a f***-up that was obviously collaborative all the way up to the White House.

[aldo_14]

Then why in the hell isn't Nagin taking any heat from not bussing people out of the 'Dome?  From what I've seen, he's gotten off scott free, if not a slap on the wrist!

I would imagine because most people saw him on TV screaming for more help.  I don't think he could have anyways, until someone sent in the national guard, as it was downtown Baghdad there.  I know of at least one medical helicopter forced to return back home after coming under fire from the ground(!).

[Grug]

Anyone else constantly hear the song "House of the Rising Sun" playing in their head whenever reading about / seeing the New Orleans disaster?

[WeatherOp]

You do realise that he didn't have all that many options below a state level. Sure, Nagin shouldn't be completely void of blame, but you can't simply ignore that collossal f***-up at the Federal level, which wasn't helped by Bush going on Television following Nagin's criticism of the Federal response, and effectively going "No way, man. Your city, your fault."

Anyway, why would he be punished? Seriously, he's copped some heat for the busses-sitting-idle fiasco, but do you honestly expect him to be thrown in jail or fined for a f***-up that was obviously collaborative all the way up to the White House.

Yet, it is very easy to see, it wouldn't been such a huge messup if Nagin had got the poeple out like he was suposed to.

[aldo_14]

You do realise that he didn't have all that many options below a state level. Sure, Nagin shouldn't be completely void of blame, but you can't simply ignore that collossal f***-up at the Federal level, which wasn't helped by Bush going on Television following Nagin's criticism of the Federal response, and effectively going "No way, man. Your city, your fault."

Anyway, why would he be punished? Seriously, he's copped some heat for the busses-sitting-idle fiasco, but do you honestly expect him to be thrown in jail or fined for a f***-up that was obviously collaborative all the way up to the White House.

Yet, it is very easy to see, it wouldn't been such a huge messup if Nagin had got the poeple out like he was suposed to.

You'd have a flooded ruined city rather than a flooded, ruined anarchy.  There's a multitude of responsibility, of course.

Reportedly the failure to evacuate was partially down to the results of an evacuation in 2004 when there was no 'hit'.  That's not an excuse, of course - it does raise the question IMO whether disaster response/anticipation should always be in political hands, though (how you'd replace it in some fair way that didn't pander to reelection nor fail to represent peoples' wishes in terms of priorities, is another question).