Quote:
Originally Posted by SWTXBelle
The Dutch have mastered the whole "land below sea level" thing. It can be done, and is no more unthinkable then sending a man to the moon. It does require modern infrastructure. The Army Corps of Engineers seems to screw up everything they touch - but others have been successful with levees.
I don't know that the Katrina/Camille comparison is valid, simply because of the difference in population and development. I'm from Texas/LA Gulf coast families on my father's side, Florida Atlantic coast on my mom's - we've been through our share of hurricanes. Carla hit my grandparents (they were two blocks from the Gulf) and my father still tells stories about Beulah. So to me, it's personal. One advantage of having a family history of dealing with hurricanes - we get the hell out of the way. After trying to sit through Carla, my grandparents learned. LEAVE.
And I'm still voting for Ron Paul.
|
I think the damage to the Mississippi gulf coast during Katrina was worse because of the larger storm surge, but the loss of life and the damage from wind may have been greater with Camille, again only in MS, I mean.
If you look at Mississippi only, I think it's an imperfect but decent comparison generally although I concede Katrina was worse; they both essentially cleared the coast from Bay St. Louis to Biloxi. I can see what you mean though that recovery with Camille might have been easier to handle because it affected a smaller segment of the overall population. Interestingly, I think for some folks in Mississippi, having survived Camille made them think they could bunker down through anything. Most of my relatives, especially the older ones and the ones with children evacuated, but a few others had to stay. Looking at some of the info. online about Mississippi and Katrina presents an interesting contrast in local and state level government response, which may taint my view of how important the federal response should have been.
As far as the Dutch, they don't get hit by hurricanes typically, and that changes the picture a lot. I think it's entirely different to compare a city on a coast with a relatively consistent (or at least somewhat predictable) water flow system to something on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, essentially surrounded by large bodies of water, which can expect storms of varying strength in the area almost annually.
I mean, Venice is hanging in there too, but I don't think much would be left if it got hit by even a Cat. 2 storm.
And think about the expense and losses involved with the space program. We did get a man on the moon, but it wasn't without cost and I'm not sure that we can really say we've triumphed.
I think human beings can do almost anything in a certain number of cases or for a certain length of time, but there's something foolish about forgetting the truly awesome, brutal and often seemingly cruel power of nature. When the off-season snow storm hits when you're climbing Mt. Everest (after more than 1,000 people have successfully summited), or the Perfect Storm comes along when you're out working as you always do, to cite a few common cultural examples, human error is only a small part of what contributes to the loss of life.
Threaded Mode
