Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote:

OTOH, the mistakes of one generation (like pollution) *can*
affect following generations. (Why the heck did anyone
ever decide to build a major city on ground that is *below*
sea level and right next to three major bodies of water? And
in a hurricane zone?!)

It must be remembered that New Orleans has been sinking
at the rate of
3 feet per century. This has been accelerated due to the
deterioration of the Mississippi Delta.

Agreed!


When the city was founded, it was a low lying
coastal city, just like
most coastal cities. At that time, there was plenty of Delta,
and it
looked like a fine place to build a port city.

Sure - but that was centuries ago.

Over the years, as the geology changed, it was not at
such as fast rate
that relocation seemed necessary. Then as we learned
more, we found out
that essentially the city was doomed.

But how long has the sinking been known? How long ago did NO
go below sea level?

It's been known for years - decades - that if a big enough
storm came ashore in the right place, NO would be in big
trouble. A little more than a week ago it looked like
Katrina would hit NO dead-on with full Category 5 force.
Had that happened - and it was a real possibility - things
would probably be even worse there than today.

Yet even with all that warning, the levee system was only good
for a Category 3 storm. People kept building there. even as the ground
kept sinking. Why?

Most of all, why wasn't everyone evacuated *before* the storm?
I know some refused to go, but many more simply did not have
the means to go. Why wasn't there a better plan in place beforehand?
Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico aren't a new or
unusual thing.

Or is that sort of thing too "liberal" for this era?

Meanwhile, Americans keep building big expensive homes and
buildings in lowlying coastal areas. And in places where the
ground shakes every so often. Why?

btw, it was just about 105 years ago that the big hurricane hit
Galveston, Texas - with no advance warning. Look that one up....

73 de Jim, N2EY

"Wasn't That A Mighty Storm" (with kudos to Tom Rush)

On 5 Sep 2005 18:27:06 -0700, wrote in
.com:

snip
It's been known for years - decades - that if a big enough
storm came ashore in the right place, NO would be in big
trouble. A little more than a week ago it looked like
Katrina would hit NO dead-on with full Category 5 force.
Had that happened - and it was a real possibility - things
would probably be even worse there than today.


The first hurricane to flood the city happened in 1927. Hurricane
Betsy hit the city in 1965, flooded half the city and left 60,000
homeless. It's not like they didn't know this could happen.


Yet even with all that warning, the levee system was only good
for a Category 3 storm. People kept building there. even as the ground
kept sinking. Why?


Because of better weather prediction technology, and assurances from
the state and federal governments that they would provide assistance
in such a disaster. And because a thriving economy had already been
established -- i.e, "thar's gold in them thar swamps".


Most of all, why wasn't everyone evacuated *before* the storm?
I know some refused to go, but many more simply did not have
the means to go. Why wasn't there a better plan in place beforehand?


That's a question that will need to be answered by the state and
federal governments in the coming months.


Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico aren't a new or
unusual thing.

Or is that sort of thing too "liberal" for this era?

Meanwhile, Americans keep building big expensive homes and
buildings in lowlying coastal areas. And in places where the
ground shakes every so often.


And around active volcanoes, in tornado hot-zones, at the bottom of
steep mountain slopes, on muddy hillsides, etc.


Why?


Because people think "it can't happen to me".








----== 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 =----

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
On 5 Sep 2005 18:27:06 -0700, wrote in
.com:

snip
It's been known for years - decades - that if a big enough
storm came ashore in the right place, NO would be in big
trouble. A little more than a week ago it looked like
Katrina would hit NO dead-on with full Category 5 force.
Had that happened - and it was a real possibility - things
would probably be even worse there than today.


The first hurricane to flood the city happened in 1927. Hurricane
Betsy hit the city in 1965, flooded half the city and left 60,000
homeless. It's not like they didn't know this could happen.


Yet even with all that warning, the levee system was only good
for a Category 3 storm. People kept building there. even as the ground
kept sinking. Why?


Because of better weather prediction technology, and assurances from
the state and federal governments that they would provide assistance
in such a disaster. And because a thriving economy had already been
established -- i.e, "thar's gold in them thar swamps".


Most of all, why wasn't everyone evacuated *before* the storm?
I know some refused to go, but many more simply did not have
the means to go. Why wasn't there a better plan in place beforehand?


That's a question that will need to be answered by the state and
federal governments in the coming months.


Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico aren't a new or
unusual thing.

Or is that sort of thing too "liberal" for this era?

Meanwhile, Americans keep building big expensive homes and
buildings in lowlying coastal areas. And in places where the
ground shakes every so often.


And around active volcanoes, in tornado hot-zones, at the bottom of
steep mountain slopes, on muddy hillsides, etc.


Tornado "hot zones" just happen to coincide with some of the best farmland
in this country.


Why?


Because people think "it can't happen to me".

Besides there is no place on earth that isn't subject to some type of
natural disaster or another.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

On Tue, 6 Sep 2005 18:31:50 -0400, "Dee Flint"
wrote in
:

snip
Why?


Because people think "it can't happen to me".

Besides there is no place on earth that isn't subject to some type of
natural disaster or another.


Some places are better than others. Look how many times a SoE has been
declared in Florida as compared to, say, Idaho.








----== 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 =----

From: "Dee Flint" on Tues 6 Sep 2005 18:31


"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
On 5 Sep 2005 18:27:06 -0700, wrote in


Tornado "hot zones" just happen to coincide with some of the best farmland
in this country.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. FACTUAL ERROR!

The San Joaquin Valley of California is NOT in "tornado alley"
of the midwest. :-)

wrote:


Tornado "hot zones" just happen to coincide with some of the best farmland
in this country.


Tsk, tsk, tsk. FACTUAL ERROR!

The San Joaquin Valley of California is NOT in "tornado alley"
of the midwest. :-)





She said "some", not "all" of the best farmland lennieboy, do try to
keep up.

"Cmdr Buzz Corey" wrote in message
...
wrote:


Tornado "hot zones" just happen to coincide with some of the best
farmland
in this country.


Tsk, tsk, tsk. FACTUAL ERROR!

The San Joaquin Valley of California is NOT in "tornado alley"
of the midwest. :-)





She said "some", not "all" of the best farmland lennieboy, do try to keep
up.

He does that all the time. And he overlooks that the San Joaquin Valley was
not particularly good until it was irrigated and fertilized. However with
those changes it is quite fertile. Personally, I like the land of the tall
corn (Iowa). Just punch a seed in the ground and step back quick before it
hits you in the eye (grin)!

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

From: Dee Flint on Sep 6, 7:36 pm


"Cmdr Buzz Corey" wrote in message
wrote:

Tornado "hot zones" just happen to coincide with some of the best
farmland in this country.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. FACTUAL ERROR!

The San Joaquin Valley of California is NOT in "tornado alley"
of the midwest. :-)

She said "some", not "all" of the best farmland lennieboy, do try to keep
up.

He does that all the time.

INCORRECT. FACTUAL ERROR multiplied.

Dee, you have me on your "killfile" so therefore you cannot see
what I wrote. Tsk, tsk, tsk.

And he overlooks that the San Joaquin Valley was
not particularly good until it was irrigated and fertilized.

Incorrect again. Refer to the "oakies'" plight when they moved
to California to get away from the midwest droughts. Irrigation
was added LATER to increase the bountiful harvests. It is HUGE.
Takes at least 8 hours of continuous driving on I-5 from north to
south to go the length of just the San Joaquin Valley. California
is the biggest cotton grower of all the states and has been for
decades.

However with those changes it is quite fertile.

MORE fertile. The San Joaquin Valley can feed ALL the western,
mountain states with enough left over for those in the midwest.

Personally, I like the land of the tall corn (Iowa).

Personally, I don't think you know Agribusiness from a DeKalb
Hybrid Seed poked in the ground.

I spent my first 19 years in Illinois and got to know all of
its bordering states. IN THE BEGINNING, Iowa, Illinois, Nebraska
were all PRARIE and grew little else but prarie vegetation.
Missouri isn't much better off although they have more
waterways. Without continuous fertilization, crop rotation, and
wind-shelter trees ADDED later, the midwest would have reverted
to just prarie again.

Iowa restaurants are excellent midwest-style eating places and
most will serve free seconds on entrees. Do you wish to know
more about the Amana Colonies? Cedar Rapids? [home of Collins
Radio] It's a fine place to visit and shop (as my wife and I
expect to do soon, again) but we wouldn't want to live there.

Just punch a seed in the ground and step back quick before it
hits you in the eye (grin)!

Yes, yes, ha, ha, clap, clap...good one...but ancient.

Try OKLAHOMA for that...easterners still think that Oklahoma is
the heart of the cornbelt. Oklahoma chiefly grows truck drivers
and oil derricks.

Tell us about the terrible tornados we have in California. We'd
like to know as we are the most populous and prosperous state in
the union.

Tell us also why you are responding to an anony-mousie whose handle
is that of a DEFUNCT TV hero of the 1950s?

wrote:
From: "Dee Flint" on Tues 6 Sep 2005 18:31



"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message

On 5 Sep 2005 18:27:06 -0700, wrote in



Tornado "hot zones" just happen to coincide with some of the best farmland
in this country.


Tsk, tsk, tsk. FACTUAL ERROR!

The San Joaquin Valley of California is NOT in "tornado alley"
of the midwest. :-)

The San Joaquin Valley is some of the best farmland too! 8^)

Did Dee say *all* of the best farmland?

- mike KB3EIA -

Dee Flint wrote:
"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...

On 5 Sep 2005 18:27:06 -0700, wrote in
ps.com:

snip

It's been known for years - decades - that if a big enough
storm came ashore in the right place, NO would be in big
trouble. A little more than a week ago it looked like
Katrina would hit NO dead-on with full Category 5 force.
Had that happened - and it was a real possibility - things
would probably be even worse there than today.


The first hurricane to flood the city happened in 1927. Hurricane
Betsy hit the city in 1965, flooded half the city and left 60,000
homeless. It's not like they didn't know this could happen.



Yet even with all that warning, the levee system was only good
for a Category 3 storm. People kept building there. even as the ground
kept sinking. Why?


Because of better weather prediction technology, and assurances from
the state and federal governments that they would provide assistance
in such a disaster. And because a thriving economy had already been
established -- i.e, "thar's gold in them thar swamps".



Most of all, why wasn't everyone evacuated *before* the storm?
I know some refused to go, but many more simply did not have
the means to go. Why wasn't there a better plan in place beforehand?


That's a question that will need to be answered by the state and
federal governments in the coming months.



Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico aren't a new or
unusual thing.

Or is that sort of thing too "liberal" for this era?

Meanwhile, Americans keep building big expensive homes and
buildings in lowlying coastal areas. And in places where the
ground shakes every so often.


And around active volcanoes, in tornado hot-zones, at the bottom of
steep mountain slopes, on muddy hillsides, etc.



Tornado "hot zones" just happen to coincide with some of the best farmland
in this country.


Why?


Because people think "it can't happen to me".


Besides there is no place on earth that isn't subject to some type of
natural disaster or another.

True. Even here in the woods of PA, there are occasional flirtations
with disaster. In 1985 a tornado touched down in Penfield near Parker
Dam State Park, and continued on the ground for 99 minutes in a 60 mile
long path to just north of Lock Haven PA. Blew down 26K of forest in a
path that varied from 300 yards to 1.5 miles wide. A real monster that
happened on some of the more mountainous terrain in PA. Fortunately, it
was in a virtually uninhabited area.

So it can happen anywhere. The odds are a little better here than in
the alley tho'.

- Mike KB3EIA -