The blame for all Sandy's damage is already being placed on climate
change by the media.

Could the late season storm be caused by climate change? Possibly.

But the vast majority of blame should be rightly placed on:
Developers who sell waterfront housing on the beach knowing the risks.
Developers building non-hurricane approved housing.
Home owners buying homes on the beach knowing the risks.
Developers building structures of all types at sea level.
The city building underground transportation below water levels.
The jamming up of population into a small area where evacuation is
nearly impossible.
And the list goes on....

I say that the risk takers finally lost their bet rather just a
climate problem.
And the risk takers are pleading for money to recoop their loses.
And all of us are going to have to pay it one way or the other.

"Red" wrote in message
...
The blame for all Sandy's damage is already being placed on climate
change by the media.

Could the late season storm be caused by climate change? Possibly.

But the vast majority of blame should be rightly placed on:
Developers who sell waterfront housing on the beach knowing the risks.
Developers building non-hurricane approved housing.
Home owners buying homes on the beach knowing the risks.
Developers building structures of all types at sea level.
The city building underground transportation below water levels.
The jamming up of population into a small area where evacuation is
nearly impossible.
And the list goes on....

I say that the risk takers finally lost their bet rather just a
climate problem.
And the risk takers are pleading for money to recoop their loses.
And all of us are going to have to pay it one way or the other.

How many times has the NYC subways flooded due to tidal surges?

Opps those folk who built the subways should have known better from the get
go.

On 11/1/2012 10:43 AM, Red wrote:
The blame for all Sandy's damage is already being placed on climate
change by the media.

Could the late season storm be caused by climate change? Possibly.

But the vast majority of blame should be rightly placed on:
Developers who sell waterfront housing on the beach knowing the risks.
Developers building non-hurricane approved housing.
Home owners buying homes on the beach knowing the risks.
Developers building structures of all types at sea level.
The city building underground transportation below water levels.
The jamming up of population into a small area where evacuation is
nearly impossible.
And the list goes on....

I say that the risk takers finally lost their bet rather just a
climate problem.
And the risk takers are pleading for money to recoop their loses.
And all of us are going to have to pay it one way or the other.



Yes but corporations are cleaning up (pun intended). There is big money
to be made in disaster restoration. The rich get richer.

It's the little consumer/tax payer that will pay the final bill.

On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 18:00:43 -0400, Joe Sixpack wrote:




Yes but corporations are cleaning up (pun intended). There is big money
to be made in disaster restoration. The rich get richer.

It's the little consumer/tax payer that will pay the final bill.

Don't complain, join them. You can get started surprisingly cheap.
Buy a van, some tools, get going. Have a pickup? People will pay you
to haul off their damaged stuff.

With a little initiative, small risk, you can be one of the rich too.
Surely, you have the balls to do it don't you?

Red wrote:

The blame for all Sandy's damage is already being placed on climate
change by the media.

I haven't heard that and I've been watching for it. Perfect
opportunity for the tree huggers to gloat, "See, told you..."

Could the late season storm be caused by climate change? Possibly.

Don't think so. Most of those 10 jillion scientists who froth at the
mouth about our profligate energy waste seem to espouse the idea that
the big storms are simply natural cycle and are unrelated to climate
change. The temperature increase that feeds the hurricanes is so
slight as to be unnoticeable (yet) and the increase in sea level (up
to now) is trivial.

But the vast majority of blame should be rightly placed on:
Developers who sell waterfront housing on the beach knowing the risks.
Developers building non-hurricane approved housing.

I thought hurricane approved housing, much like earthquake approved
focused on keeping the outer shell of the building intact. Basically a
wind problem for hurricanes. But for Sandy although wind affected
trees and hence electricity supply, most of the damage was storm
surge.

The key here is indeed greedy developers but probably equally us and
our elected officials. I thought we'd stopped allowing building of
anything more than beach shacks on barrier islands but that's where
lots of the damage occurred in NJ. You don't get sand dunes washing
into your front yard if you don't build on the beach.

Even government sponsored construction appeared on landfill (Battery
Park City (on the tip of Manhattan) and quasi-barrier islands such as
Coney Island (not really an island now and has many large public
housing projects). You could even consider much of Long Island as
barrier island, at least the low-lying areas (lots of it).

Very hard to resist the temptation to build in those areas and
probably the kiss of death for any politician who tried in the past or
who tries now. But that's exactly the sort of bitter medicine we have
to take if we don't want these problems to recur.

Home owners buying homes on the beach knowing the risks.
Developers building structures of all types at sea level.
The city building underground transportation below water levels.

Note the word "underground". Very difficult to build that type of
transportation system above water levels especially when it has to go
under two major rivers. The solution is actually twofold: large
watertight doors and large capacity pumps. But the problem is still
our unwillingness to be taxed to afford them and the benefit (or lack
thereof) that would accrue to any politician who succeeded in forcing
us to cough up the money.

The jamming up of population into a small area where evacuation is
nearly impossible.

Evacuation is/was not the problem.

And the list goes on....

I say that the risk takers finally lost their bet rather just a
climate problem.
And the risk takers are pleading for money to recoop their loses.
And all of us are going to have to pay it one way or the other.

Just as we're all paying for Joplin, New Orleans, etc. and will
continue to do so for others unless of course you want to consider
secession.

On Nov 1, 9:03*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 23:20:14 -0400, wrote:
But the vast majority of blame should be rightly placed on:
Developers who sell waterfront housing on the beach knowing the risks.
Developers building non-hurricane approved housing.

I thought hurricane approved housing, much like earthquake approved
focused on keeping the outer shell of the building intact. Basically a
wind problem for hurricanes. But for Sandy although wind affected
trees and hence electricity supply, most of the damage was storm
surge.

Part of "hurricane proof" is building above the likely flood level.
A Florida beach house might be 14 or 15 feet off the sand

I already linked this picture in another thread but this is what
happens in a Cat 4 storm (Ike) when you build a 150 MPH rated house.
Sandy was a weak Cat 1.

*http://gfretwell.com/electrical/art....house.irpt.jpg

I tried googling for it and found only that one picture. It looks
suspiciously photo shopped.

Harry K

On 11/1/2012 9:43 AM, Red wrote:
The blame for all Sandy's damage is already being placed on climate
change by the media.

Could the late season storm be caused by climate change? Possibly.

But the vast majority of blame should be rightly placed on:
Developers who sell waterfront housing on the beach knowing the risks.
Developers building non-hurricane approved housing.
Home owners buying homes on the beach knowing the risks.
Developers building structures of all types at sea level.
The city building underground transportation below water levels.
The jamming up of population into a small area where evacuation is
nearly impossible.
And the list goes on....

I say that the risk takers finally lost their bet rather just a
climate problem.
And the risk takers are pleading for money to recoop their loses.
And all of us are going to have to pay it one way or the other.



I thought it was all the fault of George Bush? O_o

TDD

In article ,
wrote:

On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 21:48:02 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

On Nov 1, 9:03Â*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 23:20:14 -0400, wrote:
But the vast majority of blame should be rightly placed on:
Developers who sell waterfront housing on the beach knowing the risks.
Developers building non-hurricane approved housing.

I thought hurricane approved housing, much like earthquake approved
focused on keeping the outer shell of the building intact. Basically a
wind problem for hurricanes. But for Sandy although wind affected
trees and hence electricity supply, most of the damage was storm
surge.

Part of "hurricane proof" is building above the likely flood level.
A Florida beach house might be 14 or 15 feet off the sand

I already linked this picture in another thread but this is what
happens in a Cat 4 storm (Ike) when you build a 150 MPH rated house.
Sandy was a weak Cat 1.

Â*http://gfretwell.com/electrical/art....house.irpt.jpg

I tried googling for it and found only that one picture. It looks
suspiciously photo shopped.

Harry K

If you look around enough you will find the story of the helicopter
crew that shot the picture and before and after shots of the house.

Yeah, do a google IMAGE search for "house survives hurricane." The
owners lost a previous home to a hurricane, so had this one built to
withstand the next one.

On Nov 2, 12:03*am, wrote:
On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 23:20:14 -0400, wrote:
But the vast majority of blame should be rightly placed on:
Developers who sell waterfront housing on the beach knowing the risks.
Developers building non-hurricane approved housing.

I thought hurricane approved housing, much like earthquake approved
focused on keeping the outer shell of the building intact. Basically a
wind problem for hurricanes. But for Sandy although wind affected
trees and hence electricity supply, most of the damage was storm
surge.

Part of "hurricane proof" is building above the likely flood level.
A Florida beach house might be 14 or 15 feet off the sand

I already linked this picture in another thread but this is what
happens in a Cat 4 storm (Ike) when you build a 150 MPH rated house.
Sandy was a weak Cat 1.

*http://gfretwell.com/electrical/art....house.irpt.jpg

This a quote from: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/09/18/ike...ouse.standing/

"Although the house is there, it might not continue to stand. Huge
storm surges walloped the interior, making it uninhabitable and
destroying many belongings. "

At this site, the text says:

"He cleaned up, rebuilt, and opened a BBQ restaurant across the
street, further planting his roots near the sea and shore that he
loves."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZQyYl8ETtY

Granted, he didn't have to start from scratch, but I wonder how much
had to be rebuilt. If you look at the house after the storm and then
again 4 years later, there has been some significant changes,
including new decking and what appear to be garages underneath.

I wonder how much of the original house was salvageable and if the new
stuff are just bolt-ons or if they were part of a major reconstruction
of the original structure.

On Nov 2, 7:35*am, Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,





wrote:
On Thu, 1 Nov 2012 21:48:02 -0700 (PDT), Harry K
wrote:

On Nov 1, 9:03*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 23:20:14 -0400, wrote:
But the vast majority of blame should be rightly placed on:
Developers who sell waterfront housing on the beach knowing the risks.
Developers building non-hurricane approved housing.

I thought hurricane approved housing, much like earthquake approved
focused on keeping the outer shell of the building intact. Basically a
wind problem for hurricanes. But for Sandy although wind affected
trees and hence electricity supply, most of the damage was storm
surge.

Part of "hurricane proof" is building above the likely flood level.
A Florida beach house might be 14 or 15 feet off the sand

I already linked this picture in another thread but this is what
happens in a Cat 4 storm (Ike) when you build a 150 MPH rated house.
Sandy was a weak Cat 1.

*http://gfretwell.com/electrical/art....house.irpt.jpg

I tried googling for it and found only that one picture. *It looks
suspiciously photo shopped.

Harry K

If you look around enough you will find the story of the helicopter
crew that shot the picture and before and after shots of the house.

Yeah, do a google IMAGE search for "house survives hurricane." The
owners lost a previous home to a hurricane, so had this one built to
withstand the next one.

Thanks. I'm always interested in oddities like that.

Harry K

On Nov 1, 11:03*pm, wrote:
On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 23:20:14 -0400, wrote:
But the vast majority of blame should be rightly placed on:
Developers who sell waterfront housing on the beach knowing the risks.
Developers building non-hurricane approved housing.

I thought hurricane approved housing, much like earthquake approved
focused on keeping the outer shell of the building intact. Basically a
wind problem for hurricanes. But for Sandy although wind affected
trees and hence electricity supply, most of the damage was storm
surge.

Part of "hurricane proof" is building above the likely flood level.
A Florida beach house might be 14 or 15 feet off the sand

I already linked this picture in another thread but this is what
happens in a Cat 4 storm (Ike) when you build a 150 MPH rated house.
Sandy was a weak Cat 1.

*http://gfretwell.com/electrical/art....house.irpt.jpg

When Andrew hit Homestead, FL back in '92 many of the least damaged
homes were those built by Habitat for Humanity. They found out that
the volunteers, not knowing what they were doing, drove a lot more
nails in each joint than a normal contractor would use. Unintentional
hurricane proofing.

On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 17:15:19 -0700 (PDT), Red
wrote:

When Andrew hit Homestead, FL back in '92 many of the least damaged
homes were those built by Habitat for Humanity. They found out that
the volunteers, not knowing what they were doing, drove a lot more
nails in each joint than a normal contractor would use. Unintentional
hurricane proofing.

Are you sure?! I lived in Dade County (Homestead/Redlands/Kendall)
before Andrew. I had already moved north in '86. I just don't recall
habitat homes in the areas. The better homes in Homestead were built
in the '50s or '60s.

On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 17:31:35 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 17:15:19 -0700 (PDT), Red
wrote:

When Andrew hit Homestead, FL back in '92 many of the least damaged
homes were those built by Habitat for Humanity. They found out that
the volunteers, not knowing what they were doing, drove a lot more
nails in each joint than a normal contractor would use. Unintentional
hurricane proofing.

Are you sure?! I lived in Dade County (Homestead/Redlands/Kendall)
before Andrew. I had already moved north in '86. I just don't recall
habitat homes in the areas. The better homes in Homestead were built
in the '50s or '60s.

http://www.miamihabitat.org/miami-habitat-history

Begun in '89- Andrew was '92.

They don't say it was accidental that their homes survived;
"In 1992, Hurricane Andrew, a massive category-5 hurricane, roared
through South Florida, becoming the costliest disaster in US history
to date. The 165mph winds proved to be no match for the 27 well-built
Habitat homes in South Dade at the time: none sustained any structural
damage."

This page quotes them as saying;
http://activerain.com/blogsview/2133...ter-than-many-
"Habitat attributes the sturdiness of their homes to the
organization's practice of going beyond the stated building code by
using extra studs and braces, plywood instead of weaker substitutes,
and hand-driven nails instead of staples in their construction.
Accordingly, one of the changes in the new building code since the
hurricane was to require nails in all new construction."

Jim

On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 10:20:22 -0400, Jim Elbrecht
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 17:31:35 -0700, Oren wrote:

On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 17:15:19 -0700 (PDT), Red
wrote:

When Andrew hit Homestead, FL back in '92 many of the least damaged
homes were those built by Habitat for Humanity. They found out that
the volunteers, not knowing what they were doing, drove a lot more
nails in each joint than a normal contractor would use. Unintentional
hurricane proofing.

Are you sure?! I lived in Dade County (Homestead/Redlands/Kendall)
before Andrew. I had already moved north in '86. I just don't recall
habitat homes in the areas. The better homes in Homestead were built
in the '50s or '60s.

http://www.miamihabitat.org/miami-habitat-history

Begun in '89- Andrew was '92.

They don't say it was accidental that their homes survived;
"In 1992, Hurricane Andrew, a massive category-5 hurricane, roared
through South Florida, becoming the costliest disaster in US history
to date. The 165mph winds proved to be no match for the 27 well-built
Habitat homes in South Dade at the time: none sustained any structural
damage."

This page quotes them as saying;
http://activerain.com/blogsview/2133...ter-than-many-
"Habitat attributes the sturdiness of their homes to the
organization's practice of going beyond the stated building code by
using extra studs and braces, plywood instead of weaker substitutes,
and hand-driven nails instead of staples in their construction.
Accordingly, one of the changes in the new building code since the
hurricane was to require nails in all new construction."

Jim

Thanks. I see only 66 habitat home have been built in Homestead. One
in Florida City.

http://www.miamihabitat.org/where-we-build

Liberty City, er, uh, um (Pork-N-Beans) had 289.