September 10th 05, 01:31 PM
|
|
|
"The Magnum" wrote in message
...
"jim" wrote in message
...
The Magnum wrote:
One thing suprises me though. Why was New Orleans built on land that
was
under sea level?? Did no-one stop to think maybe it wasnt the best
place
to
build a sprawling city... The size the USA is surely there were much
more
sensible places to build on. The land could have possibly been used
for
farming or the like, where a natural"ish" disaster like this wouldnt
have
had the devistating effect it has.. maybe theres a reason im not aware
of
but would love to know the reason why...
Still as they say, hindsight is a very handy tool
New Orleans was not built below sea level. Over the years, due to
subsidence, it sank below sea level. Many other major cities around the
world are now in the same or very similar situations. When you pump
water
and hydrocarbons from beneath you, what do you expect to happen? Duh!
I fail to see where the Duh comes from. You think it was a silly
question? I
asked to find out why as i dont know. So your saying New Orleans has
pumping
stations sucking out natural resources from beneath the city are you? I
havnt a clue as i dont live there so i ask the question as we have been
told
on numerous occasions from the News that NO is below sea level.
Besides which i thought, and i maybe wrong, that when oil was pumped
out
of
the wells in the oil fields its replaced by sea water not just left
empty.
Also id find it absolutely amazing if a city the size of NO has
suddenly
sunk over the past 100 yrs or so with the theory you propose. Or are
you
one
of these people who go on about the ozone layer and we'll all be
underwater
in the next 200 yrs as the ice caps will melt due to global
warming.....
What a load of old b$%%$cks that is. I do agree though that we need to
find
new sources of energy as our natural supplies can only last a finite
time
before anyone chucks that comment in.
its amazing that people dont realize what hydrocarbons and other
chemicals are doing to the atmosphere. the industrial revolution in the
uk caused cities (birmingham for example) to become black with soot.
since then how many millions of tons of particulates have been expended
and people believe it has no effect? the adirondack park north of me has
many lakes devoid of fish due to the acid rain from the midwest coal
firing plants. c'mon graham, fossil fuels like the iron maiden will come
and go. good riddance.
Fossil fuels will go, i agree. Im all for nucular power if theres a way it
can be handled safely. At the moment i still think were in our infancy but
because of "do gooders" continually bleating about its possible effects
the
research done on it isnt sufficiant. We all know the natural fuels like
coal
and oil will run out. My arguement is about this irreversable global
effect
everyone goes on about with doom and gloom. Many cities were inundated
with
smog and industruial plants managed by money making companys will always
happen but will recover. Think about all the crap that was thrown about in
Prehistoric times and our planet recovered. In fact it recovered perfectly
well.
Remember the long hot summer of 76.... in the UK it was so hot for weeks
it
was amazing... Apart from the odd day here and there its never repeated
itself.
The other disbelief i had was when the guy earlier said New Orleans sank
under sea level due to continual pumping.... i dont believe that for a
minute.
Nice to discuss this in a civilised way though..
Good on you Jim
http://www.geology.ucdavis.edu/~cowe...ubsidence.html
|