On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 16:11:27 -0800, Oren wrote:

On 04 Jan 2013 21:17:45 GMT, Han wrote:

I find interesting is that when Sandy made landfall was it a hurricane
or was it a noreaster storm. The national hurricane service stopped
reporting Sandy as a hurricane just prior to landfall? Folks depended
on local news and forecast with little regard to the dangers.

I think there was enough warning of what was coming for most people, but,
yes, the federal weather service stopped issuing warnings because Sandy
wasn't a real hurricane anymore, and the local weathercasters were
supposed to take over. I think this is being addressed for future
events.

It is being addressed by the national hurricane center in Miami.
Things will change in that area, but folks need to understand the
nature of a hurricane, rapidly failing barometric pressure.

A show, maybe PBS or the like showed that the Empire State building in
NYC could not withstand some hurricane forces. Forecasters in the
north may not be thinking about that aspect.

The original architects agreed with the student. Modification was made
in the structure.

I believe you're talking about the WTC. The Empire State Building is
quite a pile of steel and stone. It will take a direct strike from a
bomber. ;-)

On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 09:52:33 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

Hurricane Katrina hit Republican
strongholds like Louisiana and Mississippi;

You are wrong on both counts.

NOLA is NOT dominated by Republicans. Mississippi was not landfall.

Care to try some more?

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 10:30:05 -0600, " Attila Iskander"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 18:44:02 +0000, DA
wrote:



I live not too far from a creek that does swell from time to time,
although it 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.

I suppose there's always Noah.


I live near the very top of a rise, probably 3rd house down, with my
property and driveway sloping down and away to the street.
The nearest creek is 75' below my basement.
Yet I did have a couple of insurance guys tell me that I absolutely need
flood insurance above and beyond coverage from a burst pipe.

I told them that If they could demonstrate recent history of a storm surge
higher than 75', I would buy their insurance.
Oh, and the nearest like is about 1 mile away, and it feeds the creek.

OMG, the lake is higher than the creek, so it might even be above your
head!

LOL
But ONLY if I lie down in the creek.
Which during the fall is easy to do safely.
Spring/summer, you can happily kayak the thing
Fall/winter, is all portage...



If the dam breaks, YOU MIGHT DROWN! Be *very* worried! Buy
the insurance!

ONLY if the water surge from the dam is 80' high does it even have a chance
of coming through my basement door..

Yeah, I think I lost some sleep on this about 14 years ago, when we first
moved into the house
Or maybe that was the baby keeping me awake
Or maybe the dog...
Or not, maybe the snake...
Nope, it was the damn goldfish splashing in the tank...
That was it
That damn goldfish splashing around it's tank gave me nightmares of
being flooded..
Damn goldfish.


snicker

On Saturday, January 5, 2013 3:53:12 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 09:52:33 -0800 (PST),

wrote:



On Friday, January 4, 2013 5:30:26 AM UTC-8, AngryOldWhiteGuy wrote:

The individuals that had property damage resulting from hurricane Sandy -



living in a flood prone area, shouldn't they have had insurance to cover



their losses - if they made the choice not to have insurance, or skimped and



didn't get enough insurance, why is it a taxpayer problem now?



I’m sure you’re a fair and just person

and that you posted a similar statement

when Hurricane Katrina hit Republican

strongholds like Louisiana and Mississippi;

so please post the link where you made a similar comment

in 2005 so that we can all see

what a noble and principled person you are.



I suppose if anyone has archived things that far back you could look

but I thought New Orleans was a huge rip off too.

We should have never let them rebuild that city below sea level.

They should have barged in enough dirt to build New Orleans on a hill.



On Saturday, January 5, 2013 3:53:12 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 09:52:33 -0800 (PST),

wrote:



On Friday, January 4, 2013 5:30:26 AM UTC-8, AngryOldWhiteGuy wrote:

The individuals that had property damage resulting from hurricane Sandy -



living in a flood prone area, shouldn't they have had insurance to cover



their losses - if they made the choice not to have insurance, or skimped and



didn't get enough insurance, why is it a taxpayer problem now?



I’m sure you’re a fair and just person

and that you posted a similar statement

when Hurricane Katrina hit Republican

strongholds like Louisiana and Mississippi;

so please post the link where you made a similar comment

in 2005 so that we can all see

what a noble and principled person you are.



I suppose if anyone has archived things that far back you could look

but I thought New Orleans was a huge rip off too.

We should have never let them rebuild that city below sea level.

They should have barged in enough dirt to build New Orleans on a hill.

FYI Google Groups search goes as far back as 1981.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 09:52:33 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

On Friday, January 4, 2013 5:30:26 AM UTC-8, AngryOldWhiteGuy wrote:
The individuals that had property damage resulting from hurricane
Sandy -

living in a flood prone area, shouldn't they have had insurance to cover

their losses - if they made the choice not to have insurance, or skimped
and

didn't get enough insurance, why is it a taxpayer problem now?

I'm sure you're a fair and just person
and that you posted a similar statement
when Hurricane Katrina hit Republican
strongholds like Louisiana and Mississippi;
so please post the link where you made a similar comment
in 2005 so that we can all see
what a noble and principled person you are.

I suppose if anyone has archived things that far back you could look
but I thought New Orleans was a huge rip off too.
We should have never let them rebuild that city below sea level.
They should have barged in enough dirt to build New Orleans on a hill.

Or 'they' whomever they are could have done it like the Dutch and engineered
a system that works.

It's not like the bean counters and politicans didn't have sufficent advance
notice.

On Saturday, January 5, 2013 9:59:20 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Jan 5, 12:52*pm, wrote:

On Friday, January 4, 2013 5:30:26 AM UTC-8, AngryOldWhiteGuy wrote:

The individuals that had property damage resulting from hurricane Sandy -



living in a flood prone area, shouldn't they have had insurance to cover



their losses - if they made the choice not to have insurance, or skimped and



didn't get enough insurance, why is it a taxpayer problem now?



I’m sure you’re a fair and just person

and that you posted a similar statement

when Hurricane Katrina hit Republican

strongholds like Louisiana and Mississippi;

so please post the link where you made a similar comment

in 2005 so that we can all see

what a noble and principled person you are.



What BS. As I recall, Katrina also hit New Orleans. They

got plenty of aid too and it was no "Republican stronghold".

It isn't an issue of Republican or Democrat. It's an issue

of how much the govt should reward bad behavior. Who's

problem is it when someone irresponsible doesn't buy

the proper insurance? Why should others who have paid

for their insurance have to shell out tax dollars and pay

for others? That is a legitimate question and it comes up

every time one of these things happens.

Then I’m sure YOU ALSO have some posts from 2005 as well; put your words where your post is.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 18:25:05 -0600, "NotMe" wrote:


wrote in message
. ..

I suppose if anyone has archived things that far back you could look
but I thought New Orleans was a huge rip off too.
We should have never let them rebuild that city below sea level.
They should have barged in enough dirt to build New Orleans on a hill.

Or 'they' whomever they are could have done it like the Dutch and
engineered
a system that works.

It's not like the bean counters and politicans didn't have sufficent
advance
notice.


The Dutch have a different situation than what exists in Southern
Louisiana.

They do? I'd be interested in the specifics as friends I went to
engineering school (LSU/Tulane BTW) with spent considerable time over the
pond reviewing what the Dutch did to address their problems.

Basics as I understand both areas: High energy storms, land below sea
level, very similar pumping systems, water has to be pumped up hill. What
have I missed?

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 20:14:33 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:14:09 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 16:11:27 -0800, Oren wrote:

On 04 Jan 2013 21:17:45 GMT, Han wrote:

I find interesting is that when Sandy made landfall was it a hurricane
or was it a noreaster storm. The national hurricane service stopped
reporting Sandy as a hurricane just prior to landfall? Folks depended
on local news and forecast with little regard to the dangers.

I think there was enough warning of what was coming for most people, but,
yes, the federal weather service stopped issuing warnings because Sandy
wasn't a real hurricane anymore, and the local weathercasters were
supposed to take over. I think this is being addressed for future
events.

It is being addressed by the national hurricane center in Miami.
Things will change in that area, but folks need to understand the
nature of a hurricane, rapidly failing barometric pressure.

A show, maybe PBS or the like showed that the Empire State building in
NYC could not withstand some hurricane forces. Forecasters in the
north may not be thinking about that aspect.

The original architects agreed with the student. Modification was made
in the structure.

I believe you're talking about the WTC. The Empire State Building is
quite a pile of steel and stone. It will take a direct strike from a
bomber. ;-)

A little bomber anyway (B-25)

A Do little bomber. ;-)


Seriously, the building was built like the proverbial brick ****house.
The mast on its roof was designed to dock Zeppelins.

On 1/5/2013 11:30 AM, Attila Iskander wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 18:44:02 +0000, DA
wrote:



I live not too far from a creek that does swell from time to time,
although it 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.

I suppose there's always Noah.


I live near the very top of a rise, probably 3rd house down, with my
property and driveway sloping down and away to the street.
The nearest creek is 75' below my basement.
Yet I did have a couple of insurance guys tell me that I absolutely need
flood insurance above and beyond coverage from a burst pipe.


The official determination as to if you can get flood insurance and what
rate will be used is per the FEMA flood insurance rate maps:

https://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stor...01&lang Id=-1




I told them that If they could demonstrate recent history of a storm
surge higher than 75', I would buy their insurance.
Oh, and the nearest like is about 1 mile away, and it feeds the creek.

wrote in
:

On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 20:26:13 -0600, "NotMe" wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 18:25:05 -0600, "NotMe" wrote:


wrote in message
m...

I suppose if anyone has archived things that far back you could
look but I thought New Orleans was a huge rip off too.
We should have never let them rebuild that city below sea level.
They should have barged in enough dirt to build New Orleans on a
hill.

Or 'they' whomever they are could have done it like the Dutch and
engineered
a system that works.

It's not like the bean counters and politicans didn't have sufficent
advance
notice.


The Dutch have a different situation than what exists in Southern
Louisiana.

They do? I'd be interested in the specifics as friends I went to
engineering school (LSU/Tulane BTW) with spent considerable time over
the pond reviewing what the Dutch did to address their problems.

Basics as I understand both areas: High energy storms, land below sea
level, very similar pumping systems, water has to be pumped up hill.
What have I missed?


The EPA and the Bayou.
We would all be long dead before you ever got permits.
You also are talking about an island, not a shoreline.
Water can come towards NOLA from any direction.
When they had the opportunity (large areas with houses more than 50%
damaged), it would have been a lot cheaper to just fill the bowl.
I am not even sure how FEMA allowed anyone to rebuild below the datum
plane. You sure can't do that in Florida. 50% damage based on the tax
assessment of the building, not including the land, you tear it down,
fill above the datum plan and build or build back on pilings.

The remedy to the 1953 floods was the socalled Deltaplan. Because, like
NOLA, the most affected part of Holland is the delta of the Rhine, Meuse
and Scheldt rivers. Much of Holland's economy depends on activities
below sea level. The defense is to keep improving (and often increasing
the height) of dikes, and generating ways to divert water. Same types of
things could be done around the world, especially NOLA.

The 1953 storm in Holland was very similar to Sandy - extra-ordinary high
tides, and a big storm that pushed up the sea against the funnel formed
by the land: In 1953 the funnel was the North Sea between the southern
parts of the English and Dutch coasts, leading to the English Channel.
With 2012 Sandy, it was the funnel of the coasts of NJ and Long Island.

Building codes were changed in Holland (no more homes built into the
dikes as was customary in some places) and a very much shortened primary
defense was built to replace the hundreds of miles of dikes around
smallish islands. That isn't quite possible in NY/NJ, but is done to
some extent around Lake Pontchartrain.

Around Rotterdam waterways were protected with movable locks/dams, as was
done as well near London. Something like that ought to be done in New
York to protect the infrastructure around Staten Island, in Manhattan and
up the Hudson, etc. But it won't be done, because it is cheaper to react
to disasters than to prevent them, certainly in the short run.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 20:26:13 -0600, "NotMe" wrote:
Hurricane Sandy will be returning this January. It's estimated to
return on or near Sunday January 13, 2013. It has developed at least
five times the power it had the last time it passed through, so there
will be much more damage this time. It will affect all 50 states and
other parts of the world.

Prepare now!

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 23:47:48 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 20:14:33 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:14:09 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 16:11:27 -0800, Oren wrote:

On 04 Jan 2013 21:17:45 GMT, Han wrote:

I find interesting is that when Sandy made landfall was it a hurricane
or was it a noreaster storm. The national hurricane service stopped
reporting Sandy as a hurricane just prior to landfall? Folks depended
on local news and forecast with little regard to the dangers.

I think there was enough warning of what was coming for most people, but,
yes, the federal weather service stopped issuing warnings because Sandy
wasn't a real hurricane anymore, and the local weathercasters were
supposed to take over. I think this is being addressed for future
events.

It is being addressed by the national hurricane center in Miami.
Things will change in that area, but folks need to understand the
nature of a hurricane, rapidly failing barometric pressure.

A show, maybe PBS or the like showed that the Empire State building in
NYC could not withstand some hurricane forces. Forecasters in the
north may not be thinking about that aspect.

The original architects agreed with the student. Modification was made
in the structure.

I believe you're talking about the WTC. The Empire State Building is
quite a pile of steel and stone. It will take a direct strike from a
bomber. ;-)

A little bomber anyway (B-25)

A Do little bomber. ;-)


Seriously, the building was built like the proverbial brick ****house.
The mast on its roof was designed to dock Zeppelins.

I looked around a little about the hurricane I mention and the Empire
State Building. I found it was the 1938 hurricane.

They made some modifications related to wind forces. Wish I could find
the show I watched. sigh

Oren wrote in
:

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 23:47:48 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 20:14:33 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:14:09 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 16:11:27 -0800, Oren wrote:

On 04 Jan 2013 21:17:45 GMT, Han wrote:

I find interesting is that when Sandy made landfall was it a
hurricane or was it a noreaster storm. The national hurricane
service stopped reporting Sandy as a hurricane just prior to
landfall? Folks depended on local news and forecast with little
regard to the dangers.

I think there was enough warning of what was coming for most
people, but, yes, the federal weather service stopped issuing
warnings because Sandy wasn't a real hurricane anymore, and the
local weathercasters were supposed to take over. I think this is
being addressed for future events.

It is being addressed by the national hurricane center in Miami.
Things will change in that area, but folks need to understand the
nature of a hurricane, rapidly failing barometric pressure.

A show, maybe PBS or the like showed that the Empire State building
in NYC could not withstand some hurricane forces. Forecasters in
the north may not be thinking about that aspect.

The original architects agreed with the student. Modification was
made in the structure.

I believe you're talking about the WTC. The Empire State Building
is quite a pile of steel and stone. It will take a direct strike
from a bomber. ;-)

A little bomber anyway (B-25)

A Do little bomber. ;-)


Seriously, the building was built like the proverbial brick ****house.
The mast on its roof was designed to dock Zeppelins.

I looked around a little about the hurricane I mention and the Empire
State Building. I found it was the 1938 hurricane.

They made some modifications related to wind forces. Wish I could find
the show I watched. sigh

See also http://www.celebrateboston.com/strange/plywood-palace.htm
In addition to replacing the glass, I think they needed to add internal
bracing ... Seems to happen rather often with big high rise buildings.
Insufficient wind tunnel modeling has been the usual blame.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 06 Jan 2013 21:09:36 GMT, Han wrote:

Oren wrote in
:

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 23:47:48 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 20:14:33 -0500, wrote:

On Sat, 05 Jan 2013 17:14:09 -0500, wrote:

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 16:11:27 -0800, Oren wrote:

On 04 Jan 2013 21:17:45 GMT, Han wrote:

I find interesting is that when Sandy made landfall was it a
hurricane or was it a noreaster storm. The national hurricane
service stopped reporting Sandy as a hurricane just prior to
landfall? Folks depended on local news and forecast with little
regard to the dangers.

I think there was enough warning of what was coming for most
people, but, yes, the federal weather service stopped issuing
warnings because Sandy wasn't a real hurricane anymore, and the
local weathercasters were supposed to take over. I think this is
being addressed for future events.

It is being addressed by the national hurricane center in Miami.
Things will change in that area, but folks need to understand the
nature of a hurricane, rapidly failing barometric pressure.

A show, maybe PBS or the like showed that the Empire State building
in NYC could not withstand some hurricane forces. Forecasters in
the north may not be thinking about that aspect.

The original architects agreed with the student. Modification was
made in the structure.

I believe you're talking about the WTC. The Empire State Building
is quite a pile of steel and stone. It will take a direct strike
from a bomber. ;-)

A little bomber anyway (B-25)

A Do little bomber. ;-)


Seriously, the building was built like the proverbial brick ****house.
The mast on its roof was designed to dock Zeppelins.

I looked around a little about the hurricane I mention and the Empire
State Building. I found it was the 1938 hurricane.

They made some modifications related to wind forces. Wish I could find
the show I watched. sigh

See also http://www.celebrateboston.com/strange/plywood-palace.htm
In addition to replacing the glass, I think they needed to add internal
bracing ... Seems to happen rather often with big high rise buildings.
Insufficient wind tunnel modeling has been the usual blame.

I know the WTC had some pretty serious modifications made to withstand
hurricane force winds (and fire, BTW) but I'd never heard the ESB had
undergone such. It was built before there was wind tunnel modeling
for buildings, and as I said, overbuilt.

Please be a bit more careful on you sniping and mis-quoting.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 20:26:13 -0600, "NotMe" wrote:
Hurricane Sandy will be returning this January. It's estimated to
return on or near Sunday January 13, 2013. It has developed at least
five times the power it had the last time it passed through, so there
will be much more damage this time. It will affect all 50 states and
other parts of the world.

Prepare now!

Man,that was confusing!

Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"NotMe" wrote in message ...
Please be a bit more careful on you sniping and mis-quoting.

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 20:26:13 -0600, "NotMe" wrote:
Hurricane Sandy will be returning this January. It's estimated to
return on or near Sunday January 13, 2013. It has developed at least
five times the power it had the last time it passed through, so there
will be much more damage this time. It will affect all 50 states and
other parts of the world.

Prepare now!

wrote in :

I know the WTC had some pretty serious modifications made to withstand
hurricane force winds (and fire, BTW) but I'd never heard the ESB had
undergone such. It was built before there was wind tunnel modeling
for buildings, and as I said, overbuilt.

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 ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

In article ,
Han wrote:

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 ...

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)
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

On Fri, 04 Jan 2013 18:44:02 +0000, DA
wrote:

responding to http://www.homeownershub.com/mainten...ce-730649-.htm
DA wrote:
AngryOldWhiteGuy wrote:

And I keep wondering why (as a taxpayer) I\'m forced to subsidize soemoen
else\'s bad decisions - like living in a flood or hurricane zone and not
getting enough insurance.

My understanding of how flood insurance (here in the US at least) works is the 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.

I live not too far from a creek that does swell from time to time, although it 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.

On 07 Jan 2013 15:57:44 GMT, Han wrote:

wrote in :

I know the WTC had some pretty serious modifications made to withstand
hurricane force winds (and fire, BTW) but I'd never heard the ESB had
undergone such. It was built before there was wind tunnel modeling
for buildings, and as I said, overbuilt.

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.

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

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 ...

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.

Kurt Ullman wrote in
m:

In article ,
Han wrote:

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 ...

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)

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

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

wrote in message
...
On Sat, 5 Jan 2013 20:26:13 -0600, "NotMe" wrote:


I suppose if anyone has archived things that far back you could look
but I thought New Orleans was a huge rip off too.
We should have never let them rebuild that city below sea level.
They should have barged in enough dirt to build New Orleans on a hill.

Or 'they' whomever they are could have done it like the Dutch and
engineered a system that works.

It's not like the bean counters and politicians didn't have sufficient
advance notice.


The Dutch have a different situation than what exists in Southern
Louisiana.

They do? I'd be interested in the specifics as friends I went to
engineering school (LSU/Tulane BTW) with spent considerable time over the
pond reviewing what the Dutch did to address their problems.

Basics as I understand both areas: High energy storms, land below sea
level, very similar pumping systems, water has to be pumped up hill. What
have I missed?


The EPA and the Bayou.
We would all be long dead before you ever got permits.
You also are talking about an island, not a shoreline.
Water can come towards NOLA from any direction.
When they had the opportunity (large areas with houses more than 50%
damaged), it would have been a lot cheaper to just fill the bowl.
I am not even sure how FEMA allowed anyone to rebuild below the datum
plane. You sure can't do that in Florida. 50% damage based on the tax
assessment of the building, not including the land, you tear it down,
fill above the datum plan and build or build back on pilings.

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.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 19:33:11 -0600, "NotMe" wrote:

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

... 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.

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.

On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 22:33:50 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 20:22:12 -0600, "NotMe" wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 19:33:11 -0600, "NotMe" wrote:

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

... 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.

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.


It is hard to beat elevation unless gravity fails..

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

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 20:22:12 -0600, "NotMe" wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 19:33:11 -0600, "NotMe" wrote:

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

... 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.

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.


It is hard to beat elevation unless gravity fails..

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.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 22:33:50 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 20:22:12 -0600, "NotMe" wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 19:33:11 -0600, "NotMe" wrote:

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

... 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.

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.


It is hard to beat elevation unless gravity fails..

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

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.

On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 22:01:19 -0600, "NotMe" wrote:

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

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.



And grains, other products move south along the river.

On Tue, 08 Jan 2013 23:34:12 -0500, wrote:

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.



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.

This all gets complicated in my mind. The Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) have messed up many projects. The *******s have all but killed
the natural flow of the Everglades. spit

They can't fix NOLA at a cheap cost. Let the river take over.

Billions were promised decades ago to reclaim the Everglades. Not a
damn thing happened. spit again

On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 22:01:19 -0600, "NotMe" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 07 Jan 2013 22:33:50 -0500, wrote:

On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 20:22:12 -0600, "NotMe" wrote:


wrote in message
m...
On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 19:33:11 -0600, "NotMe" wrote:

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

... 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.

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.


It is hard to beat elevation unless gravity fails..

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

Good idea but move to where?

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

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

The Mississippi River isn't small.

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)

So?

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

So what?

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 09 Jan 2013 10:55:38 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 8 Jan 2013 22:01:19 -0600, "NotMe" wrote:


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

Good idea but move to where?

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

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

The Mississippi River isn't small.

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)

So?

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

So what?

He is only pointing out why NOLA is actually losing significance as a
port city.

Where did you get that wild idea?

The river is also too low for barge traffic up north.
If the barges can't get down river, what will they be shipping?

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.

If you have to truck the products, truck them to Galveston.

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.

In article , "NotMe"
wrote:


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.

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.
--
America is at that awkward stage. It's too late
to work within the system, but too early to shoot
the *******s."-- Claire Wolfe

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:02:36 -0600, "NotMe" wrote:


wrote in message

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

Elevation always works? Memphis is a bit above sea level (194 to 335 ft)
yet it too floods ...



Only at the bottom of a hill.

Which is where the (water born) river traffic is locate ... what's your
point?

wrote in
:

On Fri, 11 Jan 2013 00:32:09 -0600, "NotMe" wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:02:36 -0600, "NotMe" wrote:


wrote in message

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

Elevation always works? Memphis is a bit above sea level (194 to
335 ft) yet it too floods ...



Only at the bottom of a hill.

Which is where the (water born) river traffic is locate ... what's
your point?


Build the warehouses and residences ABOVE the river, not below it.
Actually from what's I understood, the oldest part of the city were
above the flood, it was the lower 9th ward that went under.

There is no need for all that. What you do need is good sea defenses.
Rotterdam is the biggest port (at least according to some measures) and
it is largely below sea level. Centrally located for river barge traffic
up into Germany and even Basel Switzerland. A new freight railroad was
built from Rotterdam to the German Ruhr industrial area. Through an area
called Betuwe. Almost totally below the levels of the rivers surrounding
the area for 75 to 100 miles east. So this can be done. Costs a lot of
money, though.


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid