In article t,
Larry Caldwell wrote:

In article , dh0496
@i*neb%&rsinvalid.com (Dean Hoffman) says...

There is a list here of the deadliest hurricanes that hit the U.S.
I wonder what Galveston looked like in 1900.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/gifs/table2.gif

Galveston was wiped out, but it was a small town by comparison.

"wiped out" he says... chuckle There's an understatement

According to all accounts I've ever heard, it wasn't just "wiped out" -
It was, with only a *VERY* small number of exceptions, literally
*COMPLETELY GONE* - As in *NOTHING* but bare dirt and a few patches of
concrete left to mark where a city used to stand. Nothing - not even
rubble - The island was washed almost completely clean of any sign that
humans had ever set foot on it.

--
Don Bruder - - New Email policy in effect as of Feb. 21, 2004.
Short form: I'm trashing EVERY E-mail that doesn't contain a password in the
subject unless it comes from a "whitelisted" (pre-approved by me) address.
See http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd/main/contact.html for full details.

In article t,
Larry Caldwell wrote:

In article , (Gort)
says...

That's the problem. Politicos think of them as people rather than
taxpayers. They just don't realize where the money actually comes from.
LA lost a lot of revenue, but they haven't figured that out yet.

I think everyone knows that the City of New Orleans is bankrupt. It
won't be paying any bills any time soon.

I heard the mayor of Baton Rouge on the radio saying that the population
of Baton Rouge was going to double or triple in the next 30 days. With
winter coming, I don't know how they will manage to provide shelter for
that many people.

true, but...i would sure rather do winter in Baton Rouge in this
situation, than in central Illinois, e.g.

Linda H.

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 09:43:49 -0700, Dave Jefford wrote:

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 09:29:08 -0400, "YouKidding?" wrote:

Who is Benny Hine? Isn't his name Benny Hinn?

OK I goof, it's BENNY HINN. I just love watching
him on TV. Imagine the huge crowd of followers
and more all over the world, and hundred of
millions tax free dollars?

Personally, I prefer Ernest Aingley. "Y'all want the 50 dollar cure or the 200
dollar cure?"

I used to think that "Reverend Ike" was a character Flip Wilson made up, until I
got a letter from the rev. He was selling "prayer rugs"; the bigger the rug you
buy, the quicker your prayers would be answered.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Now I can do what I enjoy: Large Format Photography
Web Page: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

"Robert Allison" wrote in message
news:1QESe.12892$B34.3611@trnddc09...
TURTLE wrote:

This is Turtle

I don't need all this bandwide to explain New Orleans and how it got cought
with it's draws down. When a Small bar owners can clear $1,000.00 a nite , a
General contractor make good money fixing up falling down building, a Pan
Handler can make him $500.00 a day coning visitors to the city with cons, and
a good looking Hooker can clear about $2,000.00 a nite. WELL , Your not
getting these people to leave work and loose that kind of money because of
some stupid hurrican warning issued by the Mayor who we don't even know his
name.

The same thing happen to Camereon , Louisiana back in 1957 when Audrew hit
there. It kill 400+ but was extimated at about 600. I remember going down
there after the storm in a 1957 Chevy of my grand fathers and they had cows
hanging in the electric wires coming into the city. When there is a hurrican
warning there now days . hey, They move their asses out of there. When they
tell them to move out. They town is a ghost town in about 6 hours. they leave
everything to flood insurance and move out.

TURTLE

Turtle,

I was wondering if you were OK. I don't know exactly where you are in LA, but
I was hoping that you didn't get hit by this. Glad to hear from you.

Having lived in NO for a couple of years back in the 70s, this has been pretty
personal. The first refugees have arrived here in Austin last night. I am
currently under the weather, but intend to go down and serve as a volunteer as
soon as I am well.

Hoping that you and yours are doing well and hoping for the best for the
southeast, Miss. and Alabama.

--
Robert Allison Rimshot, Inc.
Georgetown, TX

This is Turtle.

Awwwwww , I don't live on the coast for this one reason. I live about 100 miles
off the coast.

We have a few people here in town who got out early here but none of the late
ones that will be getting out because they are very disrespectiable peoples. So
watch out for the late ones that are getting out for they are the ones that will
be the drug dealers and drug heads who will create the trouble. The early ones
that got out will be the ones your getting for the late ones / Drug dealers are
just being moved out now. The Red Cross knows who they are dealing with and will
try to seperate the low life from the regular people. the Low Life is starting
out today 9/4/05 Sunday .

Thanks for thinking about me but i'm OK.

TURTLE

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 13:26:22 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

enigma wrote:

huh? what natural disasters happen in the eastern US with any
regularity?

Democrats? In aggregate, over time, they may cost you more than Katrina
costs New Orleans.

But the money will be spent here, rather than building infrastructure in
Iraq for the insurgents to blow up.

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 13:46:30 -0500, Duane Bozarth wrote:

Ann wrote:
...
Hurricanes kill many and cost millions and millions every year in the
south.

Not "every" year...

Note: I didn't write the sentence you quoted.

enigma wrote:

huh? what natural disasters happen in the eastern US with any
regularity?

Democrats? In aggregate, over time, they may cost you more than Katrina
costs New Orleans.

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 13:48:27 -0500, Duane Bozarth wrote:

Ann wrote:
....
Not all hurricanes kill many and the cost doesn't necessarily reflect
the severity. The cost depends on the value of the buildings it takes
out.

In fact, cost is a very poor indicator of actual severity. The penchant
of news services in reporting dollar damage estimates is peculiar imo.
Simply the inflation factor between now and the Galveston event, for
example, would increase it's "severity" by orders of magnitued...

That I did write. g

On 09/03/05 04:13 pm Don Bruder tossed the following ingredients into
the ever-growing pot of cybersoup:

There are probably many people that would have loved to move away from NO or
southern Louisiana; a lot of them probably knew that the possibility of
disaster was there.

But most poor people don't have a choice of where to live.

HORSE****!

No matter how rich or poor, we all (Err... well, there are *SOME*
unfortunate exceptions, but that's exactly what they a exceptions)
come equipped with two feet and can start walking and/or hitchhiking to
get someplace else. Don't even *TRY* to give me the bull**** "They were
too poor to leave" whine. The *ONLY* ones who can't leave anytime they
want to bad enough are those with broken bodies, and those under
restraint. (Thinking specifically of prison/jail inmates, though there
may be the rare "other reason for being restrained" types) Everybody
else, no matter how rich or poor, is free to come and go by whatever
method happens to work, whether that means a private jet, a luxury motor
home, a 20 year old, oil-belching Datsun clunker that calls making 35
MPH a damn fine run, a bicycle, or shank's mare.

Where were they going to go to? Oh yes! The feds or their state welfare
department would within five minutes have given them vouchers for a few
weeks' free accommodation at a motel, I suppose -- and bus tickets to
get there for the ones who were too ill to walk.

Dream on.

Perce

Offbreed wrote:

Ann wrote:

Of course I was mainly thinking of hurricanes, but there sure are faults
in the eastern US. I experienced a small earthquake when I was living in
DE.

Interesting subject. A quick search yielded these two sites:

http://neic.usgs.gov/neis/states/new_york/

http://mceer.buffalo.edu/infoservice/faqs/eqlist.asp

"Nonetheless, between 1730 and 1986, more than 400 earthquakes for which
location could be determined occurred in New York State. These
earthquakes had a magnitude greater than about 2.0. During this period,
New York State has had the third highest earthquake activity of states
east of the Mississippi River. Only South Carolina and Tennessee have
been more seismically active."

Yes, most of the east is fairly active seismically but of low
magnitude. New Madrid, otoh, is moderately active and prone to high
amplitude as well.

Ann wrote:
....
Hurricanes kill many and cost millions and millions every year in the
south.

Not "every" year...

Ann wrote:
.....
Not all hurricanes kill many and the cost doesn't necessarily reflect the
severity. The cost depends on the value of the buildings it takes out.

In fact, cost is a very poor indicator of actual severity. The penchant
of news services in reporting dollar damage estimates is peculiar imo.
Simply the inflation factor between now and the Galveston event, for
example, would increase it's "severity" by orders of magnitued...

Don Bruder wrote:
....
The Blizzard of '78 was ...

Don't get me going on spring of '57...

FDR wrote:
....

The problem is tha there's a concentration of refineries without substantial
redundancy. But anyway, they still make money from jacking up the price.

A. So they're supposed to have excess capacity just scattered around
waiting, too?

B. As noted ad nauseum, oil and gasoline prices are set on open
commodity markets.

In article ,
"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:

On 09/03/05 04:13 pm Don Bruder tossed the following ingredients into
the ever-growing pot of cybersoup:

There are probably many people that would have loved to move away from NO
or
southern Louisiana; a lot of them probably knew that the possibility of
disaster was there.

But most poor people don't have a choice of where to live.

HORSE****!

No matter how rich or poor, we all (Err... well, there are *SOME*
unfortunate exceptions, but that's exactly what they a exceptions)
come equipped with two feet and can start walking and/or hitchhiking to
get someplace else. Don't even *TRY* to give me the bull**** "They were
too poor to leave" whine. The *ONLY* ones who can't leave anytime they
want to bad enough are those with broken bodies, and those under
restraint. (Thinking specifically of prison/jail inmates, though there
may be the rare "other reason for being restrained" types) Everybody
else, no matter how rich or poor, is free to come and go by whatever
method happens to work, whether that means a private jet, a luxury motor
home, a 20 year old, oil-belching Datsun clunker that calls making 35
MPH a damn fine run, a bicycle, or shank's mare.

Where were they going to go to?

Anyplace you can get to that puts more distance between you and "the
problem", whatever it happens to be, than where you're standing right
now. If that means you start hoofing for Alaska, then so be it, but the
main point is *GET THE HELL OUT* by any means possible.

Oh yes! The feds or their state welfare department

If you're relying on the government - ANY government, be it federal,
state, county, city, or some other coutnry's government - for your
survival, then quite frankly, you're too stupid to be allowed to
continue drawing breath, and should be summarily shot as the worthless
drain on society you are.

And no, I don't give a flying **** how ill you may think of me for
saying so. Think of it as evolution in action.

--
Don Bruder - - New Email policy in effect as of Feb. 21, 2004.
Short form: I'm trashing EVERY E-mail that doesn't contain a password in the
subject unless it comes from a "whitelisted" (pre-approved by me) address.
See http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd/main/contact.html for full details.

HeatMan stubbornly clings to his ignorance:

Once they pex tubes are where they heat, they will be in
aluminum heat transfer plates stapled to the subfloor...

Sounds more expensive than warm air under the floor...

It is more expensive. But the comfort level is much higher.

If the floor temp's equal in each case, who would feel the difference???

....10 Btu/h-ft^2 might come from an 80 F floor with PEX and spreaders
beneath or an 80 F R1 floor with 90 F air beneath. An unfinished basement
ceiling might have warm air from a woodstove or gas heater under foil
or foil-faced foamboard stapled or screwed under the joists with some
holes in the foil to let air flow between the foil and the floor above.
The foil would lower the heat loss from the floor to the basement.

As an alternative, you might put 8' fin-tubes with 40 Btu/h-F of thermal
conductance between L' joists on 16" centers with (T-90)40 = Lx16/12x10
and water temp T = 90+L/3 F and cost C = $12/L per square foot of floor.
For instance, L = 24' makes T = 98 F and C = 50 cents/ft^2.

A basement with a suspended ceiling might have 8' fin-tubes below and
perpendicular to the joists on W' centers, with T = 90+2W = 98 F and
C = $2/W = 50 cents per square foot for W = 4'.

What's the cost of an equivalent PEX and heat spreader plate solution?

Floors are fairly good heat conductors. An 80 F R1 floor with an R1
airfilm resistance to 70 F room air above moves 10 Btu/h-ft^2, no?
So it only needs 90 F air beneath. Here's a diagram:

80 F
R1 | R1
T -----www-----*-----www----- 70 F

What's T? :-) 10 Btu/h--

Nick

In article ,
(Don Bruder) says...

According to all accounts I've ever heard, it wasn't just "wiped out" -
It was, with only a *VERY* small number of exceptions, literally
*COMPLETELY GONE* - As in *NOTHING* but bare dirt and a few patches of
concrete left to mark where a city used to stand. Nothing - not even
rubble - The island was washed almost completely clean of any sign that
humans had ever set foot on it.

I hear that there are several small communities along the coast of
Mississippi in that condition - towns that have been wiped off the face
of the earth by Katrina.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

PaPaPeng wrote:

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 18:18:40 GMT, Shiver
wrote:


This was published in National Geographic in October of 2004. The full
text of the article is available at

http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature5/



I was in New Orleans for a week in July last year. I read the Nat
Geo when it came out end September but forgot all about it. I had
my full attention on the telly for the past week and while mesmerized
I wasn't surprised. So that's why I had a strange uneasy feeling of
déjà vu about Katrina.

The Nat Geo article is pretty much what the locals said about their
city. There was kind of nonchalance to the effect that "If it happens
it'll happen. But will live through it."

How much more an accurate prediction can you make than


As the whirling maelstrom approached the coast, more than a million people evacuated to higher ground.
Some 200,000 remained, however—the car-less, the homeless, the aged and infirm,
and those die-hard New Orleanians who look for any excuse to throw a party.

The storm hit Breton Sound with the fury of a nuclear warhead, pushing a deadly storm surge into Lake Pontchartrain.
The water crept to the top of the massive berm that holds back the lake and then spilled over.
Nearly 80 percent of New Orleans lies below sea level—more than eight feet below in places—
so the water poured in. A liquid brown wall washed over the brick ranch homes of Gentilly,
over the clapboard houses of the Ninth Ward, over the white-columned porches of the Garden District,
until it raced through the bars and strip joints on Bourbon Street like the pale rider of the Apocalypse.
As it reached 25 feet (eight meters) over parts of the city, people climbed onto roofs to escape it.


Thousands drowned in the murky brew that was soon contaminated by sewage and industrial waste.
Thousands more who survived the flood later perished from dehydration and disease
as they waited to be rescued. It took two months to pump the city dry,
and by then the Big Easy was buried under a blanket of putrid sediment,
a million people were homeless, and 50,000 were dead.
It was the worst natural disaster in the history of the United States.


And yet when it happened no one was prepared for the consequences.
"Some 200,000 remained, however, the car-less, the homeless, the aged
and infirm, .." makes one ask why wasn't there a plan to evacuate
them. Why wasn't there a plan to house and feed them in the
evacuation zone? Why wasn't there any survival literature on what to
do should they chose to remain and face the flood? . Its obvious that
thousands would remain for the reasons already known.

Something is terribly amiss when disaster management officials could
predict so accurately the consequences of a levee breach, a breach as
a consequence of a devasting storm, and yet no one thought through as
what to do with the people.

Worse, imo. There _was_ a plan...
(repeat quote, in case this posted to misc.rural only didn't reach your
attention)


"Using information developed as part of the Southeast Louisiana
Hurricane Task Force and other research, the City of New Orleans has
established a maximum acceptable hurricane evacuation time standard for
a Category 3 storm event of 72 hours. This is based on clearance time or
is the time required to clear all vehicles evacuating in response to a
hurricane situation from area roadways. Clearance time begins when the
first evacuating vehicle enters the road network and ends when the last
evacuating vehicle reaches its destination.
Clearance time also includes the time required by evacuees to secure
their homes and prepare to leave (mobilization time); the time spent by
evacuees traveling along the road network (travel time); and the time
spent by evacuees waiting along the road network due to traffic
congestion (delay time). Clearance time does not refer to the time a
single vehicle spends traveling on the road network. Evacuation notices
or orders will be issued during three stages prior to gale force winds
making landfall.
Precautionary Evacuation Notice: 72 hours or less
Special Needs Evacuation Order: 8-12 hours after Precautionary
Evacuation Notice issued
General Evacuation Notice: 48 hours or less ”

Special Needs means people in wheelchairs, nursing homes, hospitals, and
without transportation (defined upwards in the plan). that means by LATE
THURSDAY when there was a 70% chance of NO being hit, Nagin had UNDER
HIS OWN PLAN the responsibility to get say, the 80 nursing home
residents who drowned, out of the city and to an evacuation zone. Given
that the plan defines about 100,000 people who meet this criteria the
biggest responsibility for the deaths lies with Ray Nagin (a man whom I
otherwise admire and is basically a Louisiana Republican).
What else can be said?"

SueK

No ****... Well at least you're not advocating compiling an arsenal of
weapons, water and toilet paper and moving into a hole somewhere in
Idaho as many did for the 2K scare. Or did you? '-)


Anyone who *DID* compile an arsenal of weapons,
water, and toilet paper (and presumeably, food)
probably didn't die in NO because of the flood.

On 03 Sep 2005 23:29:26 -0400, Philip Lewis
wrote:

Duane Bozarth writes:
I actually was meaning the assertion mostly in sarcastic vein...implying
that having ports for ocean-going vessels anywhere near the ocean was
obviously poor planning.
No, what is poor planning is not building things in a manner that
allowed for floods to take them out.

If *I* wanted to build something near the ocean, and the ground was 9
feet below seal level, I'd seriously consider building on 13 foot
stilts anchored in bedrock, or at least a honking big slab of
concrete.

I wouldn't. I'd build it on a barge.

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 , "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

"Offbreed" wrote in message
I sure wouldn't be able to tell where that was. I thought the whole city
was below sea level.
Most of it is, but there are a few high spots.

http://hurricane.lsu.edu/floodpredic...Elevation2.jpg
that has detailed elevations, very revealing

The announcement that was widespread, that the whole city was going to
fill to 10 -15' after the levee break, was wrong, but nobody seemed to
be thinking clearly. The lake was at about 5' at the time, so only
maybe 3 more feet max was going to come in. This lack of thinking may
have hampered rescue efforts. Many areas were clearly not in danger
.... from more flooding at least.

Bill

on the only major fault line in NH or Mass, we haven't had a
noticable earthquake in over 50 years. there is no geothermal
activity (volcanoes). even Nor'Easters aren't common. no
plagues of locusts lately (although were due for tent
caterpillers again). it's generally too wet for a major forest
fire & floods aren't common either...
lee


You probably shouldn't discount the possibility of a major
regional wildfire, and the EPA rules against clearing
underbrush aren't calculated to make that less likely.
Admittedly, it would take a significant drought first,
so they're not likely to sneak up on you.

There's also ice-storms and blizards, co-incident or not
with major flooding.

A good ice-storm followed by 10' of snow and a period
of high winds could easily cut people off from government
and municiple services for a couple weeks at a time.

On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 , Dean Hoffman wrote:

There is a list here of the deadliest hurricanes that hit the U.S.
I wonder what Galveston looked like in 1900.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/gifs/table2.gif

Dean

http://www.digitalglobe.com/images/k...31_2005_dg.jpg

that has an overhead pic with flooding, really large file though

It is surprising how much stayed dry. I used to lived by the lake for
15 years, I would have been fine, it is land that was dredged from the
lake. Still, so many houses will need new guts, at least. Some
friends in older homes, the main level was up 6 to 8 feet. Many
friends are under water to the gutters. Really sad, but the pic made
me feel better, actually, except for the shear number of homes in
water. Not like the surge type damage in MS tho'.

Bill

While you are technically correct, it just does not work that way in
society. Many of the poor, uneducated, were born in the city and just don't
know any better. Y

THAT, I think is the root of the problem. That they don't (didn't)
know any better. They didn't know how to get themselves moved,
they didn't know how to prepare, and they weren't (and still aren't)
in the habbit of being responsible for themselves and their neighbors.
Like farm-raised chickens, they have become completely dependant on
the support of the institution(s) that feed off them, and when that
support goes away, they die.

whereas other people, put in the same situation with EXACTLY the
same physical and financial resources would have done just fine.


our simplistic answer will probably come true for tens of
thousands with no place to go, but many will return if for no other reason
than the fear of the unknown.

It is well known that, given a choice between doing what they have
always done, and surviving, many people will choose to do what they
have always done.

--goedjn
--Goedjn

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
FDR wrote:
...

The problem is tha there's a concentration of refineries without
substantial
redundancy. But anyway, they still make money from jacking up the price.

A. So they're supposed to have excess capacity just scattered around
waiting, too?

We've been told over and over about how refiberies are working at their near
maximum. Why haven't they built anymore? Maybe because they are greedy.


B. As noted ad nauseum, oil and gasoline prices are set on open
commodity markets.

Uhm, who do you think sells the contracts for the gas? Refineries. And
they sure as hell have market hedges in place, as well as insurance. You
think they are dumb????? They are making money no matter what. Well, that
would sure answer why they don't invest any capital into adding refinement
capability.

But if you think these refineries are losing money, maybe you can start a
collection for them. I'm sure they would take your charity, sucker.

FDR wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
FDR wrote:
...

The problem is tha there's a concentration of refineries without
substantial
redundancy. But anyway, they still make money from jacking up the price.

A. So they're supposed to have excess capacity just scattered around
waiting, too?

We've been told over and over about how refiberies are working at their near
maximum. Why haven't they built anymore? Maybe because they are greedy.

Maybe, but not really. Prime reasons include-
1. High costs of investment in mandated environmental abatement
programs.
2. Very low ROI over the period of time until the recent upsurge.
3. The NIMB syndrome and other difficulties in siting.


B. As noted ad nauseum, oil and gasoline prices are set on open
commodity markets.

Uhm, who do you think sells the contracts for the gas? Refineries. And
they sure as hell have market hedges in place, as well as insurance. You
think they are dumb????? They are making money no matter what. Well, that
would sure answer why they don't invest any capital into adding refinement
capability.

No, they're not dumb. They're in business just like any other. That
they buy and sell contracts still doesn't set the price, they simply
respond as best they can to market forces. Their hedges are mostly on
the cost of the raw material, of course.

They have insurance on the facilities, granted. That doesn't mean they
still won't be out significant direct costs of rebuilding and cleanup
and the lost revenue.

But if you think these refineries are losing money, maybe you can start a
collection for them. I'm sure they would take your charity, sucker.

I know they were'nt losing money over the last couple of years. I do
know that the ROI wasn't all that great during a long period of time
until relatively recently.

I don't like the high cost of energy at present any more than you, I
just understand the underlying problems are more complex than many would
like to wish and that the policies of the country and world demand and
supplies have more to do with it than simply blaming avarice on the part
of "big oil".

Goedjn wrote:

On 03 Sep 2005 23:29:26 -0400, Philip Lewis
wrote:

Duane Bozarth writes:
I actually was meaning the assertion mostly in sarcastic vein...implying
that having ports for ocean-going vessels anywhere near the ocean was
obviously poor planning.
No, what is poor planning is not building things in a manner that
allowed for floods to take them out.

If *I* wanted to build something near the ocean, and the ground was 9
feet below seal level, I'd seriously consider building on 13 foot
stilts anchored in bedrock, or at least a honking big slab of
concrete.

I wouldn't. I'd build it on a barge.

Neither of the pprevious were my suggestions--I simply pointed out it's
hard to imagine not building docks and other facilities dependent upon
large ocean-going freighters at least near a deep water port.

As for barges, they've been bandied around for years--in general, they
appear to have been rejected by those in a better position to make the
decision than a landlocked usenet positor...

FDR wrote:
Why haven't they built anymore?

Environmentalists and NIMBY.

PaPaPeng wrote:

And yet when it happened no one was prepared for the consequences.
"Some 200,000 remained, however, the car-less, the homeless, the aged
and infirm, .." makes one ask why wasn't there a plan to evacuate
them. Why wasn't there a plan to house and feed them in the
evacuation zone? Why wasn't there any survival literature on what to
do should they chose to remain and face the flood? .

There was at least one plan. I cannot reach the sites I found on Google,
though.

Some people who lived in the area say the public is informed of the
danger every year when the hurricanes start. What do you suggest? Strap
people down and put megaphones against each ear and blast the info into
their heads at a million watts?

The person who was supposed to set the evacuation plan in motion was
Mayor C. Ray Nagin. He dropped the ball. His backup was Gov. Kathleen
Babineaux Blanco, she dropped the ball.

Bush suggested they start evacuating.

They refused.

Bush requested they start evacuating.

They refused.

Bush begged them to start evacuating.

Finally, they started. Too late.

FEMA? They fill a role something like a building contractor. They have
to be called in by the people authorized to call them in. That's the
Mayor and the Governor. The President can put them to work, but he is
supposed to let the people on the spot handle the problem as they are in
the best position to know what needs to be done.

The National Guard, is under the control of the Governor, unless the NG
is called up by the feds. The Governor did nothing. The Governor and the
Mayor actually blocked emergency procedures.

The Democrats, the News Media, the Governor, and the Mayor are trying to
deflect blame on Bush and FEMA.

As for barges, they've been bandied around for years--in general, they
appear to have been rejected by those in a better position to make the
decision than a landlocked usenet positor...


Evacuating from the city was also rejected by many of them, but
doesn't mean that it's not a good idea.

FDR wrote:
"Offbreed" wrote in message
...

FDR wrote:

Why haven't they built anymore?

Environmentalists and NIMBY.


Well, there's allready a ton of them there, it's not like another one is
gonna do anything.

Trying to be sensible?

Goog Dod, man, what are you? Some sort of freak?

Expect to see demonstrators dressed as oil soaked geese in front of your
house shortly.

(The nerve of some people. Harrumph.)

"Offbreed" wrote in message
...
FDR wrote:
Why haven't they built anymore?

Environmentalists and NIMBY.

Well, there's allready a ton of them there, it's not like another one is
gonna do anything.

In article , "FDR" wrote:

We've been told over and over about how refiberies are working at their near
maximum. Why haven't they built anymore? Maybe because they are greedy.

No, because every time anybody wants to build one, the environmental nutjobs
come out of the woodwork, screaming HORRIBLE, HORRIBLE!

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Goedjn wrote:


As for barges, they've been bandied around for years--in general, they
appear to have been rejected by those in a better position to make the
decision than a landlocked usenet positor...

Evacuating from the city was also rejected by many of them, but
doesn't mean that it's not a good idea.

I doubt it was rejected by many of those in position to have actually
made decisions regarding the building of major industrial facilities on
barges as opposed to land...

I was quite aware of plans for building offshore nuclear islands back in
the 60s and 70s...had some advantages, but the cost and disadvantages
were just more than what could be justified by any engineering study.

HeyBub said (on or about) 09/04/2005 14:28:
stevie wrote:

There are probably many people that would have loved to move away
from NO or southern Louisiana; a lot of them probably knew that the
possibility of disaster was there.

But most poor people don't have a choice of where to live.


Eek! I'm in Texas. We've got almost a quarter million of them.

If, as you say, they didn't have the resources to leave, they won't have the
resources to go back!

Woe.


The poor you will have always with you. The Urban Poor from N.O. will feel
right at home in Houston. They'll rent places in the southeast and fit
right in.

"Ann" wrote in
news
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 20:04:51 +0000, enigma wrote:

"Ann" wrote in
news
I'm only speaking for what I know about, but the rules
out living in the eastern US.

huh? what natural disasters happen in the eastern US with
any regularity? or matbe a better question would be to ask
you to define "eastern US"?

New Orleans doesn't flood "with regularity" either.

not since they put levees on the river

I'm not saying that the New England states are a hot bed of
tropical storms, but snow runoff can cause flooding too.
And NH's earthquake history does include some serious ones.

obviously not bad enough to stop them from building a nuclear
power plant directly on the fault line...

New Hampshire Department of Safety
http://www.nhoem.state.nh.us/Natural...turalHazards.s
htm " ...In 1978 another great blizzard hit New England.*
The Blizzard of '78 dumped 24 to 38 inches of the white
stuff immobilizing the infrastructure and blocking major
interstate highways. *Thousands of motorists abandoned
their automobiles on the highways and in some areas upwards
of 2 weeks were required to clear the snow. More recent
blizzards and snowstorms occurred in March of 1993 and
February of 1996. These events killed scores of people,
caused millions of dollars in damage and left thousands of
people without power for days."

i've been here for all three of those blizzards. the one in
78 caused *much* more trouble to Boston than NH. i think i had
to wait 20 hours before i could get out & back to work.
the one in 93, i was at work in Manchester & had to work a
double shift because my relief person had a sportscar & was
afraid to drive. i drove home in it. it did take me an extra
45 minutes to get home (on an average 45 minute trip). i took
the back (state) road instead of the interstate because i know
those are plowed better & have fewer stupid drivers.
i lived in Manchester for the 98 one. i got to work & home
just fine. i think we did lose power a few hours with that one
(if we had lost power at the house in 93 i wouldn't have
noticed. i was heating with wood & using oil lamps)
the 'scores' that died in those blizzards were mainly stupid
drivers & a few people that didn't understand kerosene heaters
either give off carbon monoxide or need to be kept away from
drapes.
lee i'll take a blizard over a hurricane any day!
--
war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength
1984-George Orwell

Larry Caldwell wrote in
k.net:

In article ,
(FDR) says...

Well, why don't you start telling us about highway
accident fatalities and drug fatalities too. Yeah,
there's danger everywhere. However, there are safer
places to live than others. And this type of disaster
parses the danger level really well. I'd take NH anyday
compared to FL or LA when you see the intensity of the
storms that hit.

Ah, but in New Hampshire you have to wear clothes in the
winter, and houses cost twice as much as they do in LA.

only twice as much? real estate here is obscene! good for the
sellers, but sheesh!
i have 62 acres & no real estate agent can give me a sales
price because there are no comps available. similar houses,
yeah...but they're all on less than 10 acres (2 or 3 usually).
the best they seem to do is give me a "range", like 550k-850k.

lee


--
war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength
1984-George Orwell

Bill wrote in message ...
On Sun, 04 Sep 2005 , "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

"Offbreed" wrote in message
I sure wouldn't be able to tell where that was. I thought the whole city
was below sea level.
Most of it is, but there are a few high spots.

http://hurricane.lsu.edu/floodpredic...Elevation2.jpg
that has detailed elevations, very revealing

The announcement that was widespread, that the whole city was going to
fill to 10 -15' after the levee break, was wrong, but nobody seemed to
be thinking clearly. The lake was at about 5' at the time, so only
maybe 3 more feet max was going to come in. This lack of thinking may
have hampered rescue efforts. Many areas were clearly not in danger
... from more flooding at least.

Bill

This is Turtle.

there was some parts of New Orleans with 8 feet of water in them but how high
the water would get had nothing to do with the rescue effort for there was NO
effort going on at all. after all of this is over you will find out there was NO
efford to get the people out of N.O. at all. till Saturday when Bush and FEMA
got permission from Blanco and the Mayor to start the federal Aid to start
coming , there was no efford to get anybody out of anywhere. Bush and FEMA ask
the Governor Blanco and the Mayor of N.O. if they wanted federal Aide to move in
and bush and FEMA was told stay out we will handle this. If the Governor and
Mayor could have handled it theirself. the State and Governor would be getting
the $14Billion check to do the job of cleaning up, but if FEMA and Federal Aid
come in the money would be used by them to clean up and fix the city. The
governor want that money to devid up and just do very little as possible and to
keep the rest of it. the Governor and Mayor tried for a good retirement stab at
the money and lost big time. In a few months you will see or hear about this
stab at fame but failed.

TURTLE

I found the article hard to read online - extremely small print. I'm
pasting it in here, where people will have better control of the font
and size (in their email and/or newsgroup software).

Dan
- - - -
It was a broiling August afternoon in New Orleans, Louisiana, the Big
Easy, the City That Care Forgot. Those who ventured outside moved as if
they were swimming in tupelo honey. Those inside paid silent homage to
the man who invented air-conditioning as they watched TV "storm teams"
warn of a hurricane in the Gulf of Mexico. Nothing surprising the
Hurricanes in August are as much a part of life in this town as
hangovers on Ash Wednesday.

But the next day the storm gathered steam and drew a bead on the city.
As the whirling maelstrom approached the coast, more than a million
people evacuated to higher ground. Some 200,000 remained, however-the
car-less, the homeless, the aged and infirm, and those die-hard New
Orleanians who look for any excuse to throw a party.

The storm hit Breton Sound with the fury of a nuclear warhead, pushing a
deadly storm surge into Lake Pontchartrain. The water crept to the top
of the massive berm that holds back the lake and then spilled over.
Nearly 80 percent of New Orleans lies below sea level-more than eight
feet below in places-so the water poured in. A liquid brown wall washed
over the brick ranch homes of Gentilly, over the clapboard houses of the
Ninth Ward, over the white-columned porches of the Garden District,
until it raced through the bars and strip joints on Bourbon Street like
the pale rider of the Apocalypse. As it reached 25 feet (eight meters)
over parts of the city, people climbed onto roofs to escape it.

Thousands drowned in the murky brew that was soon contaminated by sewage
and industrial waste. Thousands more who survived the flood later
perished from dehydration and disease as they waited to be rescued. It
took two months to pump the city dry, and by then the Big Easy was
buried under a blanket of putrid sediment, a million people were
homeless, and 50,000 were dead. It was the worst natural disaster in the
history of the United States.

When did this calamity happen? It hasn't-yet. But the doomsday scenario
is not far-fetched. The Federal Emergency Management Agency lists a
hurricane strike on New Orleans as one of the most dire threats to the
nation, up there with a large earthquake in California or a terrorist
attack on New York City. Even the Red Cross no longer opens hurricane
shelters in the city, claiming the risk to its workers is too great.

"The killer for Louisiana is a Category Three storm at 72 hours before
landfall that becomes a Category Four at 48 hours and a Category Five at
24 hours-coming from the worst direction," says Joe Suhayda, a retired
coastal engineer at Louisiana State University who has spent 30 years
studying the coast. Suhayda is sitting in a lakefront restaurant on an
actual August afternoon sipping lemonade and talking about the chinks in
the city's hurricane armor. "I don't think people realize how precarious
we are,"
Suhayda says, watching sailboats glide by. "Our technology is great when
it works. But when it fails, it's going to make things much worse."

The chances of such a storm hitting New Orleans in any given year are
slight, but the danger is growing. Climatologists predict that powerful
storms may occur more frequently this century, while rising sea level
from global warming is putting low-lying coasts at greater risk. "It's
not if it will happen," says University of New Orleans geologist Shea
Penland. "It's when."

Yet just as the risks of a killer storm are rising, the city's natural
defenses are quietly melting away. From the Mississippi border to the
Texas state line, Louisiana is losing its protective fringe of marshes
and barrier islands faster than any place in the U.S. Since the 1930s
some 1,900 square miles (4,900 square kilometers) of coastal wetlands-a
swath nearly the size of Delaware or almost twice that of
Luxembourg-have vanished beneath the Gulf of Mexico. Despite nearly half
a billion dollars spent over the past decade to stem the tide, the state
continues to lose about 25 square miles (65 square kilometers) of land
each year, roughly one acre every 33 minutes.

A cocktail of natural and human factors is putting the coast under.
Delta soils naturally compact and sink over time, eventually giving way
to open water unless fresh layers of sediment offset the subsidence. The
Mississippi's spring floods once maintained that balance, but the annual
deluges were often disastrous. After a devastating flood in 1927, levees
were raised along the river and lined with concrete, effectively
funneling the marsh-building sediments to the deep waters of the Gulf.
Since the 1950s engineers have also cut more than 8,000 miles (13,000
kilometers) of canals through the marsh for petroleum exploration and
ship traffic. These new ditches sliced the wetlands into a giant jigsaw
puzzle, increasing erosion and allowing lethal doses of salt water to
infiltrate brackish and freshwater marshes.

While such loss hits every bayou-loving Louisianan right in the heart,
it also hits nearly every U.S. citizen right in the wallet. Louisiana
has the hardest working wetlands in America, a watery world of bayous,
marshes, and barrier islands that either produces or transports more
than a third of the nation's oil and a quarter of its natural gas, and
ranks second only to Alaska in commercial fish landings. As wildlife
habitat, it makes Florida's Everglades look like a petting zoo by
comparison.

Such high stakes compelled a host of unlikely bedfellows-scientists,
environmental groups, business leaders, and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers-to forge a radical plan to protect what's left. Drafted by the
Corps a year ago, the Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) project was initially
estimated to cost up to 14 billion dollars over 30 years, almost twice
as much as current efforts to save the Everglades. But the Bush
Administration balked at the price tag, supporting instead a plan to
spend up to two billion dollars over the next ten years to fund the most
promising projects. Either way, Congress must authorize the money before
work can begin.

To glimpse the urgency of the problem afflicting Louisiana, one need
only drive 40 minutes southeast of New Orleans to the tiny bayou village
of Shell Beach. Here, for the past 70 years or so, a big, deeply tanned
man with hands the size of baseball gloves has been catching fish,
shooting ducks, and selling gas and bait to anyone who can find his
end-of-the-road marina. Today Frank "Blackie" Campo's ramshackle place
hangs off the end of new Shell Beach. The old Shell Beach, where Campo
was born in 1918, sits a quarter mile away, five feet beneath the
rippling waves. Once home to some 50 families and a naval air station
during World War II, the little village is now "ga'an pecan," as Campo
says in the local patois. Gone forever.

Life in old Shell Beach had always been a tenuous existence. Hurricanes
twice razed the community, sending houses floating through the marsh.
But it wasn't until the Corps of Engineers dredged a 500-foot-wide
(150-meter-wide) ship channel nearby in 1968 that its fate was sealed.
The Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, known as "Mr. Go," was supposed to
provide a shortcut for freighters bound for New Orleans, but it never
caught on. Maybe two ships use the channel on a given day, but wakes
from even those few vessels have carved the shoreline a half mile wide
in places, consuming old Shell Beach.

Campo settles into a worn recliner, his pale blue eyes the color of a
late autumn sky. Our conversation turns from Mr. Go to the bigger issue
affecting the entire coast. "What really screwed up the marsh is when
they put the levees on the river," Campo says, over the noise of a
groaning air-conditioner. "They should take the levees out and let the
water run; that's what built the land. But we know they not going to let
the river run again, so there's no solution."

Denise Reed, however, proposes doing just that-letting the river run. A
coastal geomorphologist at the University of New Orleans, Reed is
convinced that breaching the levees with a series of gated spillways
would pump new life into the dying marshes. Only three such diversions
currently operate in the state. I catch up with Reed at the most
controversial of the lot-a 26-million-dollar culvert just south of New
Orleans named Caernarvon.

"Caernarvon is a prototype, a demonstration of a technique," says Reed
as we motor down a muddy canal in a state boat. The diversion isn't
filling the marsh with sediments on a grand scale, she says. But the
effect of the added river water-loaded as it is with fertilizer from
farm runoff-is plain to see. "It turns wetlands hanging on by the
fingernails into something quite lush," says Reed.

To prove her point, she points to banks crowded with slender willows,
rafts of lily pads, and a wide shallow pond that is no longer land, no
longer liquid. More like chocolate pudding. But impressive as the
recovering marsh is, its scale seems dwarfed by the size of the problem.
"Restoration is not trying to make the coast look like a map of 1956,"
explains Reed. "That's not even possible. The goal is to restore healthy
natural processes, then live with what you get."

Even that will be hard to do. Caernarvon, for instance, became a
political land mine when releases of fresh water timed to mimic spring
floods wiped out the beds of nearby oyster farmers. The oystermen sued,
and last year a sympathetic judge awarded them a staggering 1.3 billion
dollars. The case threw a major speed bump into restoration efforts.

Other restoration methods-such as rebuilding marshes with dredge spoil
and salt-tolerant plants or trying to stabilize a shoreline that's
eroding 30 feet (10 meters) a year-have had limited success. Despite the
challenges, the thought of doing nothing is hard for most southern
Louisianans to swallow. Computer models that project land loss for the
next 50 years show the coast and interior marsh dissolving as if
splattered with acid, leaving only skeletal remnants. Outlying towns
such as Shell Beach, Venice, Grand Isle, and Cocodrie vanish under a sea
of blue pixels.

Those who believe diversions are the key to saving Louisiana's coast
often point to the granddaddy of them all: the Atchafalaya River. The
major distributary of the Mississippi River, the Atchafalaya, if left
alone, would soon be the Mississippi River, capturing most of its flow.
But to prevent salt water from creeping farther up the Mississippi and
spoiling the water supply of nearby towns and industries, the Corps of
Engineers allows only a third of the Mississippi's water to flow down
the Atchafalaya. Still, that water and sediment have produced the
healthiest wetlands in Louisiana. The Atchafalaya Delta is one of the
few places in the state that's actually gaining ground instead of losing
it. And if you want to see the delta, you need to go crabbing with
Peanut Michel.

"Peanut," it turns out, is a bit of a misnomer. At six foot six and 340
pounds, the 35-year-old commercial fisherman from Morgan City wouldn't
look out of place on the offensive line of the New Orleans Saints. We
launch his aluminum skiff in the predawn light, and soon we're skimming
down the broad, café au lait river toward the newest land in Louisiana.
Dense thickets of needlegrass, flag grass, cut grass, and a big-leafed
plant Michel calls elephant ear crowd the banks, followed closely by
bushy wax myrtles and shaggy willows.

Michel finds his string of crab pots a few miles out in the broad
expanse of Atchafalaya Bay. Even this far from shore the water is barely
five feet deep. As the sun ignites into a blowtorch on the horizon,
Michel begins a well-oiled ritual: grab the bullet-shaped float, shake
the wire cube of its clicking, mottled green inhabitants, bait it with a
fish carcass, and toss. It's done in fluid motions as the boat circles
lazily in the water.

But it's a bad day for crabbing. The wind and water are hot, and only a
few crabs dribble in. And yet Michel is happy. Deliriously happy.
Because this is what he wants to do. "They call 'em watermen up in
Maryland," he says with a slight Cajun accent. "They call us lunatics
here. You got to be crazy to be in this business."

Despite Michel's poor haul, Louisiana's wetlands are still a prolific
seafood factory, sustaining a commercial fishery that most years lands
more than 300 million dollars' worth of finfish, shrimp, oysters, crabs,
and other delicacies. How long the stressed marshes can maintain that
production is anybody's guess. In the meantime, Michel keeps at it. "My
grandfather always told me, Don't live to be rich, live to be happy," he
says. And so he does.

After a few hours Michel calls it a day, and we head through the braided
delta, where navigation markers that once stood at the edge of the boat
channel now peek out of the brush 20 feet (six meters) from shore. At
every turn we flush mottled ducks, ibis, and great blue herons. Michel,
who works as a hunting guide during duck season, cracks an enormous grin
at the sight. "When the ducks come down in the winter," he says,
"they'll cover the sun."

To folks like Peanut Michel, the birds, the fish, and the rich coastal
culture are reason enough to save Louisiana's shore, whatever the cost.
But there is another reason, one readily grasped by every American whose
way of life is tethered not to a dock, but to a gas pump: These wetlands
protect one of the most extensive petroleum infrastructures in the
nation.

The state's first oil well was punched in south Louisiana in 1901, and
the world's first offshore rig went into operation in the Gulf of Mexico
in 1947. During the boom years in the early 1970s, fully half of the
state's budget was derived from petroleum revenues. Though much of the
production has moved into deeper waters, oil and gas wells remain a
fixture of the coast, as ubiquitous as shrimp boats and brown pelicans.

The deep offshore wells now account for nearly a third of all domestic
oil production, while Louisiana's Offshore Oil Port, a series of
platforms anchored 18 miles (29 kilometers) offshore, unloads a nonstop
line of supertankers that deliver up to 15 percent of the nation's
foreign oil. Most of that black gold comes ashore via a maze of
pipelines buried in the Louisiana muck. Numerous refineries, the
nation's largest natural gas pipeline hub, even the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve are all protected from hurricanes and storm surge by Louisiana's
vanishing marsh.

You can smell the petrodollars burning at Port Fourchon, the offshore
oil industry's sprawling home port on the central Louisiana coast.
Brawny helicopters shuttle 6,000 workers to the rigs from here each
week, while hundreds of supply boats deliver everything from toilet
paper to drinking water to drilling lube. A thousand trucks a day keep
the port humming around the clock, yet Louisiana 1, the two-lane highway
that connects it to the world, seems to flood every other high tide.
During storms the port becomes an island, which is why port officials
like Davie Breaux are clamoring for the state to build a 17-mile-long
(27-kilometer-long) elevated highway to the port. It's also why Breaux
thinks spending 14 billion dollars to save the coast would be a bargain.

"We'll go to war and spend billions of dollars to protect oil and gas
interests overseas,"
Breaux says as he drives his truck past platform anchors the size of
two-story houses. "But here at home?" He shrugs. "Where else you gonna
drill? Not California. Not Florida. Not in ANWR. In Louisiana. I'm third
generation in the oil field. We're not afraid of the industry. We just
want the infrastructure to handle it."

The oil industry has been good to Louisiana, providing low taxes and
high-paying jobs. But such largesse hasn't come without a cost, largely
exacted from coastal wetlands. The most startling impact has only
recently come to light-the effect of oil and gas withdrawal on
subsidence rates. For decades geologists believed that the petroleum
deposits were too deep and the geology of the coast too complex for
drilling to have any impact on the surface. But two years ago former
petroleum geologist Bob
Morton, now with the U.S. Geological Survey, noticed that the highest
rates of wetland loss occurred during or just after the period of peak
oil and gas production in the 1970s and early 1980s. After much study,
Morton concluded that the removal of millions of barrels of oil,
trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, and tens of millions of barrels
of saline formation water lying with the petroleum deposits caused a
drop in subsurface pressure-a theory known as regional depressurization.
That led nearby underground faults to slip and the land above them to
slump.

"When you stick a straw in a soda and suck on it, everything goes down,"
Morton explains. "That's very simplified, but you get the idea." The
phenomenon isn't new: It was first documented in Texas in 1926 and has
been reported in other oil-producing areas such as the North Sea and
Lake Maracaibo in Venezuela. Morton won't speculate on what percentage
of wetland loss can be pinned on the oil industry. "What I can tell you
is that much of the loss between Bayou Lafourche and Bayou Terrebonne
was caused by induced subsidence from oil and gas withdrawal. The
wetlands are still there, they're just underwater." The area Morton
refers to, part of the Barataria-Terrebonne estuary, has one of the
highest rates of wetland loss in the state.

The oil industry and its consultants dispute Morton's theory, but
they've been unable to disprove it. The implication for restoration is
profound. If production continues to taper off in coastal wetlands,
Morton expects subsidence to return to its natural geologic rate, making
restoration feasible in places. Currently, however, the high price of
natural gas has oil companies swarming over the marshes looking for deep
gas reservoirs. If such fields are tapped, Morton expects regional
depressurization to continue. The upshot for the coast, he explains, is
that the state will have to focus whatever restoration dollars it can
muster on areas that can be saved, not waste them on places that are
going to sink no matter what.

A few days after talking with Morton, I'm sitting on the levee in the
French Quarter, enjoying the deep-fried powdery sweetness of a beignet
from the Café du Monde. Joggers lumber by in the torpid heat, while tugs
wrestle their barges up and down the big brown river. For all its
enticing quirkiness, for all its licentious pleasures, for all its
geologic challenges, New Orleans has been luckier than the wetlands that
lined its pockets and stocked its renowned tables. The question is how
long Lady Luck will shine. It brings back something Joe Suhayda, the LSU
engineer, had said during our lunch by Lake Pontchartrain.

"When you look at the broadest perspective, short-term advantages can be
gained by exploiting the environment. But in the long term you're going
to pay for it. Just like you can spend three days drinking in New
Orleans and it'll be fun. But sooner or later you're going to pay."

I finish my beignet and stroll down the levee, succumbing to the hazy,
lazy feel of the city that care forgot, but that nature will not.

On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 13:46:56 -0400, "Ann" wrote:

:On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 18:23:22 +0000, The Watcher wrote:
:...
: I'm not looking to avoid all and every catastrophe, but I do try to get
: out of the way of the really obvious ones. The way to do that is pretty
: easy. Don't play on the highway. Don't live in an OBVIOUS flood-prone
: area(especially one that experiences hurricanes). Stay away from
: earthquake faults. Others are pretty obvious to rational people.
:
:I'm only speaking for what I know about, but the rules out living in the
:eastern US.

And the West Coast and Alaska. You might as well through in Hawaii there
because they do get hit with hurricanes from time to time (Kauai was
pretty devestated not long ago). When it comes down to it I guess you
can rule out 1/2 the country in terms of area if you insist on not
living where it's dangerous. Actually, maybe less than that. In the
Midwest and much of the South you are in danger from tornados. Since the
coasts are too dangerous, you have to live inland (not everyone's cup of
tea - not mine, I'll tell you.).