OT - Hurricane Sandy damage assistance

[Stormin Mormon]

Man,that was confusing!

Christ> Hurricane Sandy will be returning this January. It's estimated to

[Han]

[e-mail] wrote in news: [e-mail]:

The WTC fireproofing turned out to have defects, as I recall from the reports I read after 9/11. I think the defects were in both design and execution. Possibly wouldn't have made a difference, but still.

Over-engineering/building used to be a given. See the reports on the Brooklyn bridge (to take into account the expected shenanigans in material quality). The Titanic wasn't sufficiently overbuilt ...

[Kurt Ullman]

Talk to the guys from Controlled Demolition and other imploders about their adventures in Las Vegas. They said that pretty much every building they dealt with over the years was a royal PITA because they were not only overengineered, but also overbuilt. The concrete in the floors of the Sands, for instance, was much thicker than the original plans had lead them to believe. It seems about the last thing anyone wanted to do was explain to the Mob why their building fell down. (grin)>

[Gordon Shumway]

AngryOldWhiteGuy wrote:

same as yours - it's so risky that no private insurance company would touch it so the government has so step in. But the last time I've spoken to an insurance agent (of a private insurance company, perhaps it's important to note), their explanation sounded more graceful than \"subsidizing someone else's bad decisions\". She was basically saying that noone is ever completely safe from flood, regardless of where the house is located (i.e. middle of corn fields or beach front) and so it's everyone's problem, hence it's the government's problem.

never actually reaches anywhere close to my house, but the last time it did, the explanation that \"noone is ever safe\" sounded somewhat reasonable to me.

"No one is ever safe" may be a stretch but the government has gone way too far in subsidizing individuals that build in areas that are prone to frequent weather disasters.

If one chooses to build in these locations that's fine with me. But let them be responsible for their own actions. Let them buy their own insurance. If private insurance companies won't touch it because of the risk that should be a good indicator to the individual they should live elsewhere.

It does NOT mean the government "has to step in." It does NOT mean it's "everyone's problem." It does NOT mean "it's the government's problem." Only a liberal would think that way.

[krw]

Possibly? It lasted longer than expected, given the magnitude of the fire.

It was a "given" because they didn't have the tools we do today. Things are over-engineered now, too, except that the margins can be trimmed because of the technology.

The Titanic *was* overbuilt. It wasn't designed very well and the metallurgy sucked.

[Han]

Kurt Ullman wrote in news:1v2dna3g3pmUYHfNnZ2dnUVZ [e-mail]:

They don't drill to get a real world sample??

[NotMe]

You clearly don't understand the dynamics of NOLA, The COE or the local waterways.

Done right the area can be secure. Bean counters chose not to do what was necessary and bet on the come (aka a sucker bet). LSU predicted years before exactly what played out during Katrina. COE/government big wigs walked out of that conference.

The same computer model (with appropriate adjustments for local conditions) was used on NYC area and the result predicted exactly what transpired with Sandy.

BTW I grew up in NOLA (my family has been there since almost the time of the French settled the area) and ran the river, the waterways and the marshes since I was old enough to swim.

FWIW less than 10% of NOLA is above the datum plane if by that you are referring to sea level.

[gfretwell]

... and 300 years ago that was a deal breaker but today we have the equipment to move a mountain down there and build a city on a hill.

[NotMe]

That is not a simple as you would want others to believe. (And no I don't plan to go into the engineering)

Regardless there are other alternatives that are both cheaper and more appropriate/effective responce to the problem.

[gfretwell]

It is hard to beat elevation unless gravity fails..

[krw]

Moving the whole damned city is a better solution. Stop building under water!

[NotMe]

You have no idea how much raising the entire area to an elevation that would protect the city would cost do you? Hint: the bean counters had a heart attack when folk wanted the levees, along, built up to that level.

[NotMe]

Good idea but move to where?

The key to why NOLA is were it is is the Mississippi River. A fact that has been known for several hundred years.

NOLA is the most inland port available on the Gulf Coast. Seagoing ships can make it to NOLA with a lot of work on the part of the COE. Much further north and that access is only part of the year (Like RIGHT NOW) often with partial loads. (Like RIGHT NOW)

No boat drawing more then 10 ft of water can go beyond Baton Rough.

[gfretwell]

Yes I do but they have raised vast areas in Florida above flood level with dump trucks. NOLA has the advantage of the river and barges. Trust me,m it is chump change compared to what Katrina cost and what the next one will cost. That assumes lives are free.

[krw]

Above water. There is plenty of that stuff called "land" around.

The Mississippi River isn't small.

So?

So what?

[gfretwell]

He is only pointing out why NOLA is actually losing significance as a port city. The river is also too low for barge traffic up north. If the barges can't get down river, what will they be shipping? If you have to truck the products, truck them to Galveston.

[NotMe]

Where did you get that wild idea?

Low water (and high water) happens every year on the Mississippi to various degrees, been that way for eons. Typically not a problem as the system adjust the barge loads to deal with the eventuality. An aside high water has been known to causes more problems than low water but that's a subject for another discussion.

The point I made and you seem to want to ignore is that deep draft ocean going commerce carriers can't get up river beyond Baton Rough. It's not a political thing, it;s not an economic thing it's a physical fact of nature. So the idea of moving the city is not practical either physically or economically.

Have you been to the port facilities in Galveston? Despite what the Chamber of Commencer might promote it's not that big and is not geared for bulk cargo.

Even though the Mississippi has a limited draft inland water, barges are much much cheaper to move bulk cargo than any other transport available. (for some product pipelines are a very close second) That's not rocket science but pure hard economic fact.

[Kurt Ullman]

Can you move the people to higher ground and leave the water the same (or maybe even deeper if you dredge the channels for the fill)? I am not that familiar with the ins and outs of this.

[gfretwell]

I am only hearing what they have on TV about it. If you think it is not a problem I will believe you.

I was trying to make the place more secure. Elevation always works. Dikes, levees and gates can fail ,,, again

[gfretwell]

Only at the bottom of a hill.