Hurricane relief

gregg wrote:
john smith wrote:

While I sympathize and agree with you: seems to be so many people doing
nothing but sitting waiting for Uncle to save them, one buddy of mine did
suggest that maybe that's all we're seeing because that's all the media
outlets are reporting.

Has anyone seen any reporting of some people improvising, adapting,
overcoming?

I haven't. But I bet they are there.

I have seen news reports of it. Several of them, in fact. I never
ceased to be amazed at the ingenuity of some people.

I suppose that some of the scavengers who are out to make a buck by
recycling the garbage will be looked down on by some, but it seems
better to me than just adding to landfills.

Speaking of which, Seattle once was below sea level like New Orleans.
Instead of levees to keep water out, though, early Seattlites just used
boats to navigate streets when the tide was in. After the great Seattle
Fire, though, the rubble and material from some neighboring hills was
used to raise the level of the whole city. I wonder how much of the
rubble from Katrina could be used for that in New Orleans, assuming it
is not all too contaminated to be useful? Biloxi, Slidell, and several
smaller towns have an awful lot of garbage they are going to have to
find a home for.

In article .com,
"cjcampbell" wrote:

Speaking of which, Seattle once was below sea level like New Orleans.
Instead of levees to keep water out, though, early Seattlites just used
boats to navigate streets when the tide was in. After the great Seattle
Fire, though, the rubble and material from some neighboring hills was
used to raise the level of the whole city. I wonder how much of the
rubble from Katrina could be used for that in New Orleans, assuming it
is not all too contaminated to be useful?

How far down would you have to go to get to solid rock/ground suitable
for a foundation in New Orleans vs Seattle? For some reports I've seen
the land around New Orleans has been sinking for years and it would be
difficult to raise up the level of the land.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

Bob Noel wrote:
In article .com,
"cjcampbell" wrote:

Speaking of which, Seattle once was below sea level like New Orleans.
Instead of levees to keep water out, though, early Seattlites just used
boats to navigate streets when the tide was in. After the great Seattle
Fire, though, the rubble and material from some neighboring hills was
used to raise the level of the whole city. I wonder how much of the
rubble from Katrina could be used for that in New Orleans, assuming it
is not all too contaminated to be useful?

How far down would you have to go to get to solid rock/ground suitable
for a foundation in New Orleans vs Seattle? For some reports I've seen
the land around New Orleans has been sinking for years and it would be
difficult to raise up the level of the land.

It would be no further than they have to go now. Seattle did not raise
its level of bedrock. In fact, they did not even raise the whole level
of the ground. They just raised the streets above sea level until the
whole area looked like a giant waffle. Then they built the buildings at
the original ground level. Over time the sidewalks at the old ground
level fell into disuse. They were covered over with street level
sidewalks (complete with glass insets to let light into the lower
levels) and eventually all the buildings built new entrances at street
level. Gradually the lower level was completely abandoned and forgotten
until Bill Speidel popularized the "Seattle Underground." His book,
"Sons of the Profits," details the whole thing and is fascinating
reading.

This could be a great new tourist attraction for New Orleans (as if it
needed another one). I can envision a whole "New Orleans Underground"
filled with coffee shops and jazz venues, interesting churches and
maybe even a cemetary or two. It could be more popular than the
catacombs of Rome or the sewers of Paris. The more I think about it,
the more I think I could be onto something.

wrote:
Bob Noel wrote:

In article .com,
"cjcampbell" wrote:


Speaking of which, Seattle once was below sea level like New Orleans.
Instead of levees to keep water out, though, early Seattlites just used
boats to navigate streets when the tide was in. After the great Seattle
Fire, though, the rubble and material from some neighboring hills was
used to raise the level of the whole city. I wonder how much of the
rubble from Katrina could be used for that in New Orleans, assuming it
is not all too contaminated to be useful?

How far down would you have to go to get to solid rock/ground suitable
for a foundation in New Orleans vs Seattle? For some reports I've seen
the land around New Orleans has been sinking for years and it would be
difficult to raise up the level of the land.


It would be no further than they have to go now. Seattle did not raise
its level of bedrock. In fact, they did not even raise the whole level
of the ground. They just raised the streets above sea level until the
whole area looked like a giant waffle. Then they built the buildings at
the original ground level. Over time the sidewalks at the old ground
level fell into disuse. They were covered over with street level
sidewalks (complete with glass insets to let light into the lower
levels) and eventually all the buildings built new entrances at street
level. Gradually the lower level was completely abandoned and forgotten
until Bill Speidel popularized the "Seattle Underground." His book,
"Sons of the Profits," details the whole thing and is fascinating
reading.

This could be a great new tourist attraction for New Orleans (as if it
needed another one). I can envision a whole "New Orleans Underground"
filled with coffee shops and jazz venues, interesting churches and
maybe even a cemetary or two. It could be more popular than the
catacombs of Rome or the sewers of Paris. The more I think about it,
the more I think I could be onto something.


Not a bad idea. I took a tour of the Seattle "underground" when I
vacationed there back in the late 80s and it was very cool.

Matt

"Bob Noel" wrote:

How far down would you have to go to get to solid rock/ground suitable
for a foundation in New Orleans vs Seattle? For some reports I've
seen
the land around New Orleans has been sinking for years and it would be
difficult to raise up the level of the land.

That's because New Orleans used to be kept in place by the precarious
balance of two opposing forces. The city is constructed on 100 feet of
soft silt, sand and clay, and it naturally subsides several feet a
century. Historically, that subsidence has been counteracted by
sedimentation: new silt, sand and clay that are deposited when the river
floods. But since the levees went up-mostly after the great flood of
1927-the river has not been flooding, and sedimentation has stopped. In
addition, oil and gas explorers have cut numerous straight access canals
through the marshes around the city that speed drainage and reduce silt
deposition.

Marshes are not wasteland; they serve important hydrological and
biological purposes that make them worth preserving. If we do not learn
this, we will continue to create these intractable, slow motion
catastrophes.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

In article ,
"Dan Luke" wrote:

[snip]
Marshes are not wasteland; they serve important hydrological and
biological purposes that make them worth preserving. If we do not learn
this, we will continue to create these intractable, slow motion
catastrophes.

I caught part of a Discovery Channel show about the marshes around
New Orleans - very interesting stuff about silt/sand/"filtering", etc.
Fighting Mother Nature isn't a simple thing at all.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

"Bob Noel" wrote:
[snip]
Marshes are not wasteland; they serve important hydrological and
biological purposes that make them worth preserving. If we do not
learn
this, we will continue to create these intractable, slow motion
catastrophes.

I caught part of a Discovery Channel show about the marshes around
New Orleans - very interesting stuff about silt/sand/"filtering", etc.
Fighting Mother Nature isn't a simple thing at all.

It usually turns out to be trading short term gain for long term loss.

Humans will be truly smart when we learn to adapt our activities to
natural systems, rather than the other way around.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"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

"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