Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Hurricane Katrina

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film-Yak » Hurricane Katrina (Page 3)

This topic comprises 10 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10

Author

Topic: Hurricane Katrina

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 08-30-2005 11:27 PM

They didn't build New Orleans below sea level, it just wound up that way for reasons previously described.

The north side of Lake Ponchatrain will eventually be the edge of the Gulf Coast for that part of Louisiana. The rest of it is going to disappear. That includes New Orleans.

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 08-31-2005 02:32 AM

The impression I get from the BBC reports (which may not be entirely accurate, given that they're relying on just one or two correspondents in the area) is that in the days leading up to Katrina making landfall, everyone was entirely focused on the likelihood of immediate storm damage to New Orleans and that the towns further east along the coast which ended up taking the brunt of it were working in the belief that they'd escape serious damage. The coverage I've seen also suggests that no-one was really expecting floods in New Orleans to start several hours after Katrina had passed, i.e. that if the levees were still intact after the eye had passed, the worst had been escaped.

Admittedly this was on a far smaller scale, but I do remember that when the 1987 'hurricane' hit the south-east of England, most of the deaths and injuries didn't happen during the night of the storm itself but in the days and weeks following it - trees that had been weakened by the storm falling on people; that sort of thing.

The victims of this storm are going to need help and support long after the TV crews have packed up and left town.

| IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 08-31-2005 09:46 AM

I was channel surfing last night and stopped on MS-NBC's excellent coverage. I saw that helicopter tour of the devastation. It was pretty amazing video, shocking actually. They let the camera do the talking, mimimal voiceover. Fox's coverage was abominable in comparison, talking heads, babbling news readers, flashy graphics all over the screen, just plain awful, at least what I saw last night.

I haven't heard anything about other nations offering to rush money, supplies or other assistance to us. Guess they must all be preoccupied with other things.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 08-31-2005 09:53 AM

The damage from flooding into New Orleans is making the damage suffered in S. Florida from Hurricane Andrew pale in comparison. The New Orleans area, as well as parts of Mississippi have been plunged into the dark ages. No power, no water, no sewage or trash removal.

Countless thousands of homes in the Big Easy are a total loss. That includes a good number of old, historic homes. Couple this with the fact a great deal of people had no flood insurance (in parts of Mississippi only 1 in 5 residents were insured). My early prediction is New Orleans may see at least 100,000 to 250,000 people leave that area, if not more.

| IP: Logged

Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002

posted 08-31-2005 10:48 AM

quote: Bobby Henderson
They didn't build New Orleans below sea level, it just wound up that way for reasons previously described.

Unless the land is actually sinking, it had to be built below sea level. Sea level has certainly not risen 12 feet in the last 100 years. Perhaps it wasn't below lake level (which does not have to be the same as sea level) and the lake has risen but it had to have been below sea level when it was settled.

| IP: Logged

Stephen Furley
Film God

Posts: 3059
From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England
Registered: May 2002

posted 08-31-2005 11:05 AM

quote: David Stambaugh
I haven't heard anything about other nations offering to rush money, supplies or other assistance to us. Guess they must all be preoccupied with other things.

I haven't been able to catch much news for the last couple of days; the last I heard before today was that New Orleans was likely to miss the worst of it, but that two smaller towns would be badly hit. From what I've heard so far today that seems not to be the case; New Orleans itself does seem to have been very badly hit. I'll try to catch up on the news tonight. This looks far worse than anything the area has seen in the past.

I don't know if help *has* been offered, but it certainly *should* be, by all countries able to do so.

As if the last couple of days have not been bad enough there is news today that somewhere between 600 and 1000 people have been killed in a disaster in Baghdad. The accident hapened on a bridge over the Tigris; people were crushed or drowned.

I do hope that bad news doesn't come in threes.

My thoughts are with all those affected by the events in both countries.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 08-31-2005 11:10 AM

quote: Bobby Henderson
They didn't build New Orleans below sea level, it just wound up that way for reasons previously described.

Uhhh, no. They built it below sea level unless you are insinuating that the entire city sank after it was built. They didn't need to build it right where they did. They knew that area was below sea level and thought that was cool. You could say "Twas a foolish man who built his house upon the sand." They built the city below sea level. They should have left well enough alone 100 years ago. Who needs a city right there anyway? They should have used their brains and built it elsewhere.

| IP: Logged

Leo Enticknap
Film God

Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000

posted 08-31-2005 02:17 PM

quote: Bobby Henderson
Couple this with the fact a great deal of people had no flood insurance (in parts of Mississippi only 1 in 5 residents were insured).

The figure of $25 billion which has been widely quoted in the media referred, if I'm remembering right, to insured losses. If that means that the actual economic damage, factoring in uninsured losses too, could potentially be three or four times that, it's going to mean a huge bill.

Agreed entirely with Bobby and Stephen - it's about time Kofi Annan announced UN help for the Gulf [of Mexico, not Persia] states. The US usually stumps up vastly more in international aid, both cash and manpower, than any other nation in response to natural disasters, the tsunami being the most recent example. I'm sure Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama would be very grateful for any helicopters, medical supplies and building materials the outside world could spare.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 08-31-2005 05:22 PM

quote: Lyle Romer
Unless the land is actually sinking, it had to be built below sea level.

quote: Joe Redifer
Uhhh, no. They built it below sea level unless you are insinuating that the entire city sank after it was built.

That is EXACTLY what I am insinuating. And really, it doesn't need to be insinuated, implied or whatever. It is a scientific fact. New Orleans has indeed sank anywhere from 6 to 12 feet or more in the decades following the containment of the Mississippi River.

The phenomenon is called subsidance. Ground water is constantly eating away underneath the city. The dry soil on top literally sinks down where previous eroded soil used to be. The pumps that were working had to be used very often to pump away rain water and water that seeped up through the ground.

The entire delta in Southern Louisiana was created by soil deposits left by the Mississippi River. By damming the river up with levees from Baton Rouge on down to the mouth of the river south of Venice, LA, that has interrupted the periodic flooding and beneficial soil depositing that should have been allowed to occur.

Marshlands throughout southeastern Louisiana are being eaten away by the salt water of the Gulf of Mexico. Before the levees were built, the Mississippi would regular overrun its boundaries and flush away salt water, put down more soil and allow the marshlands to flourish. We have exactly the reverse happening now.

Many thousands of people have seen this disaster coming. When I lived in New Orleans it was a popular topic of conversation. If the city got a significant rainfall it created lots of problems and got the conversation going. But in typical American fashion, we chose to be cheap and do little to nothing about the situation. Lots of business people even popped off comments like the problem didn't even exist. Well it sure exists now.

I wonder how NFL fans are going to adjust to the "San Antonio Saints"?

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 08-31-2005 06:15 PM

Still, my point remains that they were complete morons for building a city there. What dumb fucks. The city had to go eventually, I guess now is the time. Sucks for all of the people there, for sure. But honestly, twas foolish of the original "settlers" to build it there. In fact, I am having a hard time even comprehending such stupidity. Did Jack Valenti decide to put the city there? If so, then it would make sense because a decision that stupid would fit right in with Jack's complete lack of rationality.

| IP: Logged

Mike Heenan
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1896
From: Scottsdale, AZ, USA
Registered: Mar 2000

posted 08-31-2005 07:03 PM

Did the original settlers know about the sea level business when they settled the area? Was that sort of technology/level of thinking around in that era or did they just say "Hey this looks like a kickass place to build a house".

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 08-31-2005 07:21 PM

And now people are too emtionally attached to the place to even consider nixing the city and relocating elsewhere. Like has been said previously in this thread, it's not exactly a surprise here. Bit no.. we'll rebuild on the same spot and keep the city like the bunch o' morons we be.

| IP: Logged

Richard Fowler
Film God

Posts: 2392
From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA
Registered: Jun 2001

posted 08-31-2005 07:59 PM

The moron part of the equation is factored in the wrong place. Holland has been reclaiming "below " sea level land for hundreds of years by the use of windmills for pumping. The silt accumilation caused by the Mississippi has been happening for 100 years since the start of the use of leeves to protect the city. New Orleans is the transit point of much of the food crops we sell for export that is transported down the Mississippi and is in the center of 25% of the fuel delivery for parts of the USA. Leeves need constant mantinence to insure integrity.....it appears some real federal morons cut the leeve
funds in the past two years; a situation which has not been done since 1964....the estimated $11,000,000 that was diverted for other dubious uses will now be repaid in the multiple billions and an estimate of hundreds if not thousands of lives lost in these decisions. I have a large family in Lousiana but they are safe in Baton Rouge. New Orleans is and was an endangered city that requires a balanced apprasal due to the importance of the location. There are other endangered locations; Miami is considered one of them.

| IP: Logged

Jason Burroughs
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 654
From: Allen, TX
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-31-2005 11:01 PM

quote: Joe Redifer
And now people are too emtionally attached to the place to even consider nixing the city and relocating elsewhere. Like has been said previously in this thread, it's not exactly a surprise here. Bit no.. we'll rebuild on the same spot and keep the city like the bunch o' morons we be.

Joe, you make it sound as if the city was built in the last 50 years. New Orleans is infact a very old, and historic city, dating back to the time that France held the land (pre Lousiana purchase).

People live where their jobs are.

| IP: Logged

Randy Stankey
Film God

Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99

posted 08-31-2005 11:35 PM

Yes, New Orleans has always been pretty much below sea level but it wasn't as FAR below sea level until humans started tinkering around.

Then levees were built and pumps started pumping out water. Buildings were built and the general flow of natural water in and out of the delta was interrupted.

By a combination of natural and man-made processes, the areas in the middle of New Orleans started to sink and the areas around the edges got built up.

The event that just occurred was simply Mother Nature saying, "It's time to fill up the middle and flatten out the edges.

What kind of a bone head would build a city in a place like that? Well, New Orleans was originally settled by French people. That about answers it right there. Doesn't it? [Wink]

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 10 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.