Hurricane relief

"cjcampbell" wrote in message
oups.com...
Our missionaries use water filters, or they buy sealed bottled water
from a known source. It is very inconvenient. The water filters cost
P15,000 apiece (about $275). They are finicky and require frequent
maintenance and changing filters. They would, however, render your
water sample potable -- something even boiling would not do. Solar
stills would also work, but they produce distilled water which is not
as readily absorbed by the body as water that has some mineral content.

One problem that we see a lot is that water that has been purified is
very easily re-contaminated. Any dirty water that gets splashed into
the clean water, people who touch the water with unclean hands, cooking
utensils, or who just inadvertantly kick dirt into it, stray animals
that come over to investigate it, playing children who knock it over,
covering it with a dirty lid, whatever -- you end up having to do it
all over again. Standing water, even with the depth of only the
thickness of a quarter, is a breeding ground for mosquitoes and a
source of dengue fever, yellow fever, and malaria. Some 90% of the
health problems we see in our missionaries are from drinking
contaminated water, or from not drinking enough water. We get a lot of
dehydration, heat related disease, and gastroenteritis. More rarely
they get typhoid or dengue fever. We get these problems with just under
100 missionaries who are subject to far greater supervision than anyone
in New Orleans would get.

I guess everyone has an opinion, but the problems of purifying water
for 20,000 people seem to me to be a logistical nightmare. The only
solution is to get them out of there.

Yup. The survivalist skills and supplies that've been discussed here are
unfamiliar to most Americans of *all* levels of education--and for good
reason, I think. In a wealthy civilization, it is likely just not
cost-effective for everyone to invest individually in the training and
equipment to deal with extremely unlikely events, rather than relying on the
centralized rescue efforts that will need to occur anyway in the wake of a
major disaster.

Sure, it makes sense to stock up on a few days' food and water (which many
of those stranded in the hurricane presumably did, though they may not have
been able to carry much of it as they swam from their flooded homes). But it
would be an unwise use of scarce (or non-existent) resources for
impoverished city residents--who have much more pressing daily survival
needs--to invest in the esoteric and expensive training and equipment
discussed here, just to prepare for the remote possibility of a
once-in-a-century storm followed by a long delay in relief efforts despite
what was supposed to be an unprecedented level of government preparedness to
respond to a major disaster.

Look at it this way: in my experience, most pilots do not routinely carry
expensive, extensive survival gear when they fly. Instead, at best, they
file flight plans and rely on being rescued if they survive a crash.
Nonetheless, pilots are (probably accurately) perceived as being, on the
whole, exceptionally self-reliant. Yet a comparable reliance on rescuers,
when exhibited by the hurricane victims, is extolled by some here as
evidence of the "gimme mentality" of the "welfare class" (without a shred of
evidence that most of the victims in question actually lacked employment).
People filter their perceptions through their prejudices, and see what they
expect to see. (These remarks aren't directed at your comments, CJ; I'm just
using your post as a hook.)

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in
Yup. The survivalist skills and supplies that've been discussed here are
unfamiliar to most Americans of *all* levels of education--and for good
reason, I think. In a wealthy civilization, it is likely just not
cost-effective for everyone to invest individually in the training and
equipment to deal with extremely unlikely events, rather than relying on
the centralized rescue efforts that will need to occur anyway in the wake
of a major disaster.

It sure is "cost-effective" if you're at risk. Like these people were. And
the cost is minimal. Really minimal. In a "wealthy civilization", this
kind of preparation is a leisure activity. Show it isn't? chirp

Sure, it makes sense to stock up on a few days' food and water (which many
of those stranded in the hurricane presumably did, though they may not
have been able to carry much of it as they swam from their flooded homes).
But it would be an unwise use of scarce (or non-existent) resources for
impoverished city residents--who have much more pressing daily survival
needs--to invest in the esoteric and expensive training and equipment
discussed here, just to prepare for the remote possibility of a
once-in-a-century storm followed by a long delay in relief efforts despite
what was supposed to be an unprecedented level of government preparedness
to respond to a major disaster.

Yeah, better to a) do nothing then b) complain that you're not properly
being cared for. It doesn't seem to occur to you that the level of
self-education and preparation needed by most people to survive a natural
disaster is, for most people, doable. And, they've managed to get lots of
armed troops into affected areas, no? Could *you* survive?

Look at it this way: in my experience, most pilots do not routinely carry
expensive, extensive survival gear when they fly. Instead, at best, they
file flight plans and rely on being rescued if they survive a crash.

At best? Your evidence of this? Most I know carry equipment appropriate to
the area their flying in. How many pilots die for a lack of it?

Nonetheless, pilots are (probably accurately) perceived as being, on the
whole, exceptionally self-reliant.

Trained to be, mostly. In any case, your analogy is banal and stupid. Do
you fly toward thunderstorms or fly away from them? What area of GA flying
do you think needs more government intervention?

Yet a comparable reliance on rescuers, when exhibited by the hurricane
victims, is extolled by some here as evidence of the "gimme mentality" of
the "welfare class" (without a shred of evidence that most of the victims
in question actually lacked employment).

OK. Let's wait and see.

People filter their perceptions through their prejudices, and see what
they expect to see.

Pot, kettle, etc.

I expect you think you're original.

moo

In article ,
"Dan Luke" wrote:

I'm going nuts.

My airplane's at BFM, fueled up and ready to go, with a fresh annual.
I'm on crutches, grounded by a ruptured tendon and scheduled for surgery
that will keep me grounded for at least eight weeks.

ouch. I hope it goes well for you.

Maybe other pilots in the area would be willing to fly it for ya. :-)

(.golf group trimmed - hope no one minds).

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

"Bob Noel" wrote:

ouch. I hope it goes well for you.

Thanks.

Maybe other pilots in the area would be willing to fly it for ya. :-)

Ha! I'm sure.

Not only can I not fly my airplane, I'm missing the chance to fly my
buddy Lamar's Mooney while he's gone.

This really sucks.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
"Gary Drescher" wrote in
Look at it this way: in my experience, most pilots do not routinely carry
expensive, extensive survival gear when they fly. Instead, at best, they
file flight plans and rely on being rescued if they survive a crash.

At best? Your evidence of this? Most I know carry equipment appropriate
to the area their flying in.

I don't have evidence about the practices of pilots generally, which is why
I carefully restricted the scope of my remark to pilots "in my experience".
That is, among pilots I know, there are few if any who, when they make
cross-country flights, carry extra food, water, medical supplies, or other
equipment found in a standard hundred-dollar survival kit. (I myself carry
just a compass, rescue whistle, signal mirror, rope, and aluminum blankets.)

Yes, I consider this equipment appropriate to the area I'm flying in--but
only *because* I'd expect to be rescued promptly (at least within a couple
of days, even in a large wooded area, and probably much sooner). If I
couldn't reasonably rely on being rescued, I'd have to go to much more
expense to be much better prepared.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in
"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
"Gary Drescher" wrote in
Look at it this way: in my experience, most pilots do not routinely
carry expensive, extensive survival gear when they fly. Instead, at
best, they file flight plans and rely on being rescued if they survive a
crash.

At best? Your evidence of this? Most I know carry equipment appropriate
to the area their flying in.

I don't have evidence about the practices of pilots generally, which is
why I carefully restricted the scope of my remark to pilots "in my
experience". That is, among pilots I know, there are few if any who, when
they make cross-country flights, carry extra food, water, medical
supplies, or other equipment found in a standard hundred-dollar survival
kit. (I myself carry just a compass, rescue whistle, signal mirror, rope,
and aluminum blankets.)

Yes, I consider this equipment appropriate to the area I'm flying in--but
only *because* I'd expect to be rescued promptly (at least within a couple
of days, even in a large wooded area, and probably much sooner). If I
couldn't reasonably rely on being rescued, I'd have to go to much more
expense to be much better prepared.

So what's your point? And how does it relate to your views on the current
topic? You seem to be backing my point that many victims are to blame for
their current situation just as you would be if you failed to properly
prepare for a flight. You feeling OK?

moo

Gary Drescher wrote:
Yes, I consider this equipment appropriate to the area I'm flying in--but
only *because* I'd expect to be rescued promptly (at least within a couple
of days, even in a large wooded area, and probably much sooner). If I
couldn't reasonably rely on being rescued, I'd have to go to much more
expense to be much better prepared.

There is a paper on an FAA website that I cited last year.
A reseacher studied rescues based on the time an ELT signal was received
by the satellite until the time until rescue was effected.
Three days is the average.

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
"Gary Drescher" wrote in
I don't have evidence about the practices of pilots generally, which is
why I carefully restricted the scope of my remark to pilots "in my
experience". That is, among pilots I know, there are few if any who, when
they make cross-country flights, carry extra food, water, medical
supplies, or other equipment found in a standard hundred-dollar survival
kit. (I myself carry just a compass, rescue whistle, signal mirror, rope,
and aluminum blankets.)

Yes, I consider this equipment appropriate to the area I'm flying in--but
only *because* I'd expect to be rescued promptly (at least within a
couple of days, even in a large wooded area, and probably much sooner).
If I couldn't reasonably rely on being rescued, I'd have to go to much
more expense to be much better prepared.

So what's your point? And how does it relate to your views on the current
topic? You seem to be backing my point that many victims are to blame for
their current situation just as you would be if you failed to properly
prepare for a flight. You feeling OK?

Fine, thanks. No, my point is that I believe I *am* preparing adequately for
my flights (as are the many other pilots who prepare similarly). But that
adequateness *depends*--perfectly reasonably--on the expectation that the
SAR apparatus will work more or less as it is supposed to. That same
expectation, on the part of the hurricane victims, is disparaged by some as
a "gimme mentality" that successful, responsible individuals wouldn't
exhibit.

In the Katrina crisis, preliminary indications are that the rescue apparatus
did *not* do its job initially, despite a supposedly unprecedented level of
disaster-relief preparedness. Part of its job was to deploy the National
Guard in a timely fashion to establish order and protect other rescuers.
Because the fact is that a dissipation of civil authority frequently
precipitates violence by some; this has happened throughout the world and
throughout human history, so it should take no one by surprise. Nor should
it be misrepresented as unusually characteristic of impoverished people or
welfare recipients; sadly, it is universal.

--Gary

"john smith" wrote in message
. ..
Gary Drescher wrote:
Yes, I consider this equipment appropriate to the area I'm flying in--but
only *because* I'd expect to be rescued promptly (at least within a
couple of days, even in a large wooded area, and probably much sooner).
If I couldn't reasonably rely on being rescued, I'd have to go to much
more expense to be much better prepared.

There is a paper on an FAA website that I cited last year.
A reseacher studied rescues based on the time an ELT signal was received
by the satellite until the time until rescue was effected.
Three days is the average.

I suspect that average may be jacked up by more challenging terrain than I
usually overfly here in the Northeast. But perhaps I'm being too optimistic.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in
So what's your point? And how does it relate to your views on the
current topic? You seem to be backing my point that many victims are to
blame for their current situation just as you would be if you failed to
properly prepare for a flight. You feeling OK?

Fine, thanks. No, my point is that I believe I *am* preparing adequately
for my flights (as are the many other pilots who prepare similarly). But
that adequateness *depends*--perfectly reasonably--on the expectation that
the SAR apparatus will work more or less as it is supposed to. That same
expectation, on the part of the hurricane victims, is disparaged by some
as a "gimme mentality" that successful, responsible individuals wouldn't
exhibit.

People were told to evacuate. The information necessary for anyone with a
grade five education to understand the magnitude of the potential ****ing
the region was possibly, even likely, in for was made available. Many
foolishly stayed. They have themselves to blame. Don't fly near
thunderstorms. Your analogy sucks. Get it?

In the Katrina crisis, preliminary indications are that the rescue
apparatus did *not* do its job initially, despite a supposedly
unprecedented level of disaster-relief preparedness. Part of its job was
to deploy the National Guard in a timely fashion to establish order and
protect other rescuers. Because the fact is that a dissipation of civil
authority frequently precipitates violence by some;

The widespread violence at the shelters and the massive looting campaign
were due to the "dissipation of civil authority"?

BWAHAHAHAHA!

this has happened throughout the world and throughout human history, so it
should take no one by surprise. Nor should it be misrepresented as
unusually characteristic of impoverished people or welfare recipients;
sadly, it is universal.

Well, we can disagree then and wait for the facts to reveal themselves. I
haven't enough faith in newspaper reports to use them as solid evidence.
But, FWIW, from the reports so far, you're losing badly.

moo