New Orleans???????

[Kim]

so basically you're saying you'd rather live in the caldera of an active volcano
any day rather than in New Orelans?

(just trying to figure yout what it is you are saying)

i figured if a volcano goes, that's it...

but in a flood area, your house may get damaged and flooded, but you
could probably come back and not have to start from scratch

There is some truth to that....but from what I've seen there are many in NO - or more particularly the coast - who don't have anything to go back to at all.
What I am saying though is that earthquakes/volcanoes normally have longer odds than hurricanes/typhoons, it's not really a case of a yearly near certainty of some death and destruction if not directly where you live, somewhere really close. I realize that not everyone agrees with the global warning scenarios, but the fact is that more and more 'extreme' weather events are fully predicted now so even if you don't agree with it, if and when they happen no-one can really claim there was no warning. I have to say that only protecting a city to the level of a Cat 3 hurricane while it is actually beneath sea level doesn't really strike me as adequate at all. From what I can understand it also didn't strike some of the people responsible for the NO levee system as adequate either. It leaves me with the same kind of helpless feeling that I get when I see the trailer parks etc. Having also lived in Holland for 23 years (below sea level) I can't help but contrast the measures of protection taken there by comparison - and they don't even get these kind of storms!!! In Japan I have never seen beach front property - it's always protected by large sea walls with the beaches on the outside, and the houses inside. This is not just protection against typhoons, but also tsunamis. In the end I suppose that I am not saying don't do it - I'm saying don't do it if you can't do it properly.
As for the Aso caldera it's been about 100,000 years since the whole thing was blowing. Now you have the active crater at the top of a mountain that is inside the the larger caldera - and because it erupts so often it is constantly releasing the pressure from beneath the entire area. The farm land there is incredibly rich, so the incentive is very high. For me it's a question of the odds and I'd take Aso over NO any day of the week. On the other hand there's no way you could get me to Tokyo no matter what you offered!!!!!
In the end though I very much agree with your earlier statement about the asteroids. Living is simply dangerous, no matter what.

 

[Kim]

And you have the chance to get out of the way of an oncoming hurricane... when a volcano blows, you just die.

If you are still there I agree. You normally get a little warning with volcanoes though......earthquakes are a different matter.

In terms of figures though (and without checking), I should imagine that the death toll from hurricanes and typhoons is a lot higher than from volcanoes in recorded history.

 

[PhotoTJ]

I feel some limited sympathy, but we all take risks when we choose where we live. I grew up in Texas, and have been in a F3 tornado, I was stationed in Hawaii when hurricane Ewa came through, I was stationed in McMurdo, Antarctica when Erebus had an eruption, I was also there during a 4 day blizzard, (herbie to you OAE's), and lived in Palms for the 94' earthquake, about 1/2 block from the 10 freeway collapse.

So I've missed a plague of locusts.

You have to be prepared, and not depend on someone else to save you. The lack of personal responsibility that I see really bugs me, our actions or inactions have consequences, we should be prepared to accept responsibility for them, and not blame someone, (the government), for not saving our bacon if we do something stupid. Live in tornado alley? Build a basement, stupid!

 

[KBeck]

Well said, TJ.
I living in a little concrete box of a condo. Would I have really liked that condo on the water that I considered buying? Yup. But, I couldn't carry the insurance requirements. I opted for a relatively safe place, surrounded by concrete. I am not rich. I looked and chose based on what I could afford. I take the risks of living in South Florida seriously, and made my choices accordingly.

That said, as far as New Orleans goes, I heard a commentary somewhere that sounds like a reasonable alternative (shoot, I may have read it here). Take some of the most low lying areas and allow them to fill in with water (ahem, fresher than the current stew), and allow New Orleans to function something like a more modern Venice. I'm not an engineer, and that may be so far-fetched that it's laughable, but it seems somewhat logical.

 

[clive francis]

It will be rebuilt.

Houses on cliffs that fall into the sea are rebuilt on the new edge.

only if you are stupid, a real engineer would work out the erosion rate and build it far enough back to allow a decent lifetime for the building.

Buildings that tumble from earthquakes are rebuilt on the fault.

yes but they rebuild them to new regulations allowing them to withstand earthquakes

New trailers are parked back in spaces where tornado's have removed the prior ones.

When tsunami's recede, the hotels go back up and the tourists nap peacefully on those same beaches.

N.O. will be again.

engineers look at why they were damaged and put measures in place to protect them in the future, which is generally put back natural features than man has removed.

if only everything were as simple as your comments!

at what cost?

10,000 lives and billions of dollars, practically bringing a country to its knees?

there is a point where you have to draw the line and say that it is not worth it, IMO NO well and truely crossed the line.

the low laying areas should be cleared and new flood measures put in to protect the higher areas.

 

[pipedope]

There should be no chance for disaster assistance or insurance ever again if it is rebuilt.

We relocated many cities in the midwest after the big floods a few years back and NONE of them were below river level (normal) let alone below sea level.

I am sorry but the mouth of the river has moved and it is just nuts to put NO back where it was.

 

[dtslottke]

I agree that natural processes should be allowed to occur relatively unhindered in any plan for reconstruction. This disaster may actually be a lucky break for New Orleans as an entity--a port city, a metropolitan area etc.--forcing adjustment ahead of changing climatic conditions. While as a species we find ways to live in relative comfort in the most unlikely places, Earth forces tend to treat us like parasites. So it is therefore up to us now, in a more enlightened generation, to build sensibly in a cooperative relationship with nature, as opposed to arrogant suppression of inconvenient natural land use in areas in which we want to expand. Water flows from high head to low head, and it always find a way.

 

[H2Andy]

The lack of personal responsibility that I see really bugs me, our
actions or inactions have consequences, we should be prepared to accept
responsibility for them, and not blame someone, (the government), for not saving our
bacon if we do something stupid.

what you don't understand is that there are people who don't have a
meaningful choice. they are old and ill. they are poor and without means.

those who could afford to, fled. those who couldn't, got left behind.
none of those people "chose" to be born in New Orleans. none of
those people chose to be born into the "survival," day-to-day
struggle of the working poor, who can't afford to move, to start again,
because they live paycheck to paycheck. none of those people "chose" to
be too poor, too ill, or too old to be able to help themselves.


it is a tenet of American faith that EVERYBODY HAS A CHOICE. thus, those
who stayed behind did so out of choice and free will. (thus, it's their
own damn fault for being so stupid). what we don't seem to understand
is that some people are born so far back in the race, that even if they
are geniuses at running, at best they will manage to catch up.
most people (most regular people) don't have a chance.

well, that's not the real world. a good segment of our population has no
meaningful choice (and please, let's spare the semantics. yes,
a quadraplegic has the choice to start wheeling his wheelchair out
the street to get out, but how far are they going to get?)

i know this is hard to believe for some of you. it just can't possibly be true.

well, it is. you can either believe your faith or you can believe what Katrina is showing us.

i would suggest you do some reading in the sociology of poverty. this is a good
place to start:

http://www.ablongman.com/catalog/academic/course/0,1143,72434,00.html

 

[Firebrand]

I'm not going to vote because I believe the state to which New Orleans is rebuilt is up to those who lived there during the catastrophe. It's easy for us who were unaffected to say, "Yes, because..." or "No, because..." but in reality, if you're family wasn't affected, you shouldn't have a say in the matter. If you say "No" then how are YOU going to help those people who've been removed from their homes and jobs? If you say "Yes" are YOU willing to donate your time, money, excess clothes, etc. to reputible charity organizations to help rebuild? Personally, I think this poll is very inhumane and degrading. Hindsight is great for learning, but this is not the time for that. There are still evacuations taking place. There are still literally thousands of people who don't know about lost/missing family members. Do something worthwhile instead of arguing about whether or not a city should be rebuilt.

 

[Squalus]

Just goes to show when you mess with the natural order of things, stuff happens. We have never really learned not to mess with Mother Nature and we continue to tempt fate. Always hurricanes come in, disaster strikes and we rebuild like nothing has happened. This time I hope they listen to the Dutch about building the protective Dike to protect the city.