quote:

ORIGINAL: GoddessManko

Honestly, these natural disasters will continue to get worse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
a 40 meter tsunami is a 40 meter tsunami

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

"For example, Alabama points out that when the big floods hit the midwest, that people in
California chided people for living in a flood plane, and it is the pot calling the kettle black.
What he left out is that the federal government, thanks to pressure from both congressmen
in that area and the river shipping industry, had the army corps of engineers reroute the
mississippi, both to make it more navigable, and also ironically to reduce flooding in certain
areas to make them more attractive to build houses..and what happened was they created
an even bigger mess (by moving the river, they took away the natural means of the river to
handle high water, and all the levees in the world won't stop it). Since then they have bought
out people in the area they stupidly allowed to live there, and have let the river go back to
more its natural banks. "


Funny, my family (they live within sight of the Mississippi in Missouri) said that they rebuilt
and reinforced the levees. There are whole towns that would have to be abandoned.
When the levees opposite my home town broke it flooded towns as much as 10 miles
from the river and inundated some that were closer to the river.
One levee, north of Hannibal was the victim of sabotage (not my opinion there was a
conviction in the case. The one across the river was in poor repair.
You are clearly unfamiliar with the Mississippi. The only thing to change it's course
was the New Madrid earthquakes of 1820 (directly responsible for the founding of
my home town). They didn't change it's course they contained it till a 1000 year flood hit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

"For example, Alabama points out that when the big floods hit the midwest, that people in
California chided people for living in a flood plane, and it is the pot calling the kettle black.
What he left out is that the federal government, thanks to pressure from both congressmen
in that area and the river shipping industry, had the army corps of engineers reroute the
mississippi, both to make it more navigable, and also ironically to reduce flooding in certain
areas to make them more attractive to build houses..and what happened was they created
an even bigger mess (by moving the river, they took away the natural means of the river to
handle high water, and all the levees in the world won't stop it). Since then they have bought
out people in the area they stupidly allowed to live there, and have let the river go back to
more its natural banks. "


Funny, my family (they live within sight of the Mississippi in Missouri) said that they rebuilt
and reinforced the levees. There are whole towns that would have to be abandoned.
When the levees opposite my home town broke it flooded towns as much as 10 miles
from the river and inundated some that were closer to the river.
One levee, north of Hannibal was the victim of sabotage (not my opinion there was a
conviction in the case. The one across the river was in poor repair.
You are clearly unfamiliar with the Mississippi. The only thing to change it's course
was the New Madrid earthquakes of 1820 (directly responsible for the founding of
my home town). They didn't change it's course they contained it till a 1000 year flood hit.

They did in some places, in others they bought out land and let the Mississippi go back to its natural channels. There was an entire episode on NOVA on PBS about the big floods and how the Mississippi's path had been diverted and what it caused .The fact that one town was rebuilt doesn't mean they all were, and the point is that even if we let the Mississippi alone, it would flood. The fact that they need levees in the first place says they are building in areas prone to flood.

It also proves my point, because guess who likely builds and maintains those levees? Federal money and probably Army Corps of Engineers, which reinforces my point, that we pay to have people live in areas prone to flooding, and pay to rebuild them, too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

"For example, Alabama points out that when the big floods hit the midwest, that people in
California chided people for living in a flood plane, and it is the pot calling the kettle black.
What he left out is that the federal government, thanks to pressure from both congressmen
in that area and the river shipping industry, had the army corps of engineers reroute the
mississippi, both to make it more navigable, and also ironically to reduce flooding in certain
areas to make them more attractive to build houses..and what happened was they created
an even bigger mess (by moving the river, they took away the natural means of the river to
handle high water, and all the levees in the world won't stop it). Since then they have bought
out people in the area they stupidly allowed to live there, and have let the river go back to
more its natural banks. "


Funny, my family (they live within sight of the Mississippi in Missouri) said that they rebuilt
and reinforced the levees. There are whole towns that would have to be abandoned.
When the levees opposite my home town broke it flooded towns as much as 10 miles
from the river and inundated some that were closer to the river.
One levee, north of Hannibal was the victim of sabotage (not my opinion there was a
conviction in the case. The one across the river was in poor repair.
You are clearly unfamiliar with the Mississippi. The only thing to change it's course
was the New Madrid earthquakes of 1820 (directly responsible for the founding of
my home town). They didn't change it's course they contained it till a 1000 year flood hit.

They did in some places, in others they bought out land and let the Mississippi go back to its natural channels. There was an entire episode on NOVA on PBS about the big floods and how the Mississippi's path had been diverted and what it caused .The fact that one town was rebuilt doesn't mean they all were, and the point is that even if we let the Mississippi alone, it would flood. The fact that they need levees in the first place says they are building in areas prone to flood.

It also proves my point, because guess who likely builds and maintains those levees? Federal money and probably Army Corps of Engineers, which reinforces my point, that we pay to have people live in areas prone to flooding, and pay to rebuild them, too.

Do you have any idea how much farmland would be sacrificed by getting rid of the levees?

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

"For example, Alabama points out that when the big floods hit the midwest, that people in
California chided people for living in a flood plane, and it is the pot calling the kettle black.
What he left out is that the federal government, thanks to pressure from both congressmen
in that area and the river shipping industry, had the army corps of engineers reroute the
mississippi, both to make it more navigable, and also ironically to reduce flooding in certain
areas to make them more attractive to build houses..and what happened was they created
an even bigger mess (by moving the river, they took away the natural means of the river to
handle high water, and all the levees in the world won't stop it). Since then they have bought
out people in the area they stupidly allowed to live there, and have let the river go back to
more its natural banks. "


Funny, my family (they live within sight of the Mississippi in Missouri) said that they rebuilt
and reinforced the levees. There are whole towns that would have to be abandoned.
When the levees opposite my home town broke it flooded towns as much as 10 miles
from the river and inundated some that were closer to the river.
One levee, north of Hannibal was the victim of sabotage (not my opinion there was a
conviction in the case. The one across the river was in poor repair.
You are clearly unfamiliar with the Mississippi. The only thing to change it's course
was the New Madrid earthquakes of 1820 (directly responsible for the founding of
my home town). They didn't change it's course they contained it till a 1000 year flood hit.

They did in some places, in others they bought out land and let the Mississippi go back to its natural channels. There was an entire episode on NOVA on PBS about the big floods and how the Mississippi's path had been diverted and what it caused .The fact that one town was rebuilt doesn't mean they all were, and the point is that even if we let the Mississippi alone, it would flood. The fact that they need levees in the first place says they are building in areas prone to flood.

It also proves my point, because guess who likely builds and maintains those levees? Federal money and probably Army Corps of Engineers, which reinforces my point, that we pay to have people live in areas prone to flooding, and pay to rebuild them, too. The levees themselves are problematic, they are built high and tend to narrow the river's width, which in turn causes the water to be in a smaller area and has nowhere to go.

This is from one website:
Human Causes of the 1993 Floods

Urbanisation of the Flood Plain - reducing infiltration rates etc

Poorly built non-federal levees

The development of unsuitable sites for development

The channelisation of the river - especially at St Louis

The last is one of the biggies.

One note, that 1993 was called 'a once in 500 year flood'..yet in 2008, 15 years later, a second 500 year event happened, which should tell us a lot, that something is causing these events to happen more, and human activitity is probably part of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
It's just stupid to let people live anywhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
It's just stupid to let people live anywhere.

Yep. We should pack them all tightly together in strictly controlled cities where everyone uses public transportation and common services, so infectious disease can come along and kill them more efficiently.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

First off, "we as a nation" aren't in the business of building homes. That's the old super-authoritarian liberal mindset screwing up perceptions of reality. This ain't a dictatorship, Dude.

Second, do please tell me of anyplace on the planet where Mama Nature doesn't have some means at hand of killing people, should the mood strike her?

Third, let's point out that the Northridge earthquake in LA happened on a fault nobody knew existed, until it busted loose hard, one morning, 20 years ago. How do you zone around that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

"For example, Alabama points out that when the big floods hit the midwest, that people in
California chided people for living in a flood plane, and it is the pot calling the kettle black.
What he left out is that the federal government, thanks to pressure from both congressmen
in that area and the river shipping industry, had the army corps of engineers reroute the
mississippi, both to make it more navigable, and also ironically to reduce flooding in certain
areas to make them more attractive to build houses..and what happened was they created
an even bigger mess (by moving the river, they took away the natural means of the river to
handle high water, and all the levees in the world won't stop it). Since then they have bought
out people in the area they stupidly allowed to live there, and have let the river go back to
more its natural banks. "


Funny, my family (they live within sight of the Mississippi in Missouri) said that they rebuilt
and reinforced the levees. There are whole towns that would have to be abandoned.
When the levees opposite my home town broke it flooded towns as much as 10 miles
from the river and inundated some that were closer to the river.
One levee, north of Hannibal was the victim of sabotage (not my opinion there was a
conviction in the case. The one across the river was in poor repair.
You are clearly unfamiliar with the Mississippi. The only thing to change it's course
was the New Madrid earthquakes of 1820 (directly responsible for the founding of
my home town). They didn't change it's course they contained it till a 1000 year flood hit.

They did in some places, in others they bought out land and let the Mississippi go back to its natural channels. There was an entire episode on NOVA on PBS about the big floods and how the Mississippi's path had been diverted and what it caused .The fact that one town was rebuilt doesn't mean they all were, and the point is that even if we let the Mississippi alone, it would flood. The fact that they need levees in the first place says they are building in areas prone to flood.

It also proves my point, because guess who likely builds and maintains those levees? Federal money and probably Army Corps of Engineers, which reinforces my point, that we pay to have people live in areas prone to flooding, and pay to rebuild them, too.

Do you have any idea how much farmland would be sacrificed by getting rid of the levees?

Actually it would be improved. It would get flooded each spring and that would be free fertilizer. Perfect for rice and some other crops.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

"For example, Alabama points out that when the big floods hit the midwest, that people in
California chided people for living in a flood plane, and it is the pot calling the kettle black.
What he left out is that the federal government, thanks to pressure from both congressmen
in that area and the river shipping industry, had the army corps of engineers reroute the
mississippi, both to make it more navigable, and also ironically to reduce flooding in certain
areas to make them more attractive to build houses..and what happened was they created
an even bigger mess (by moving the river, they took away the natural means of the river to
handle high water, and all the levees in the world won't stop it). Since then they have bought
out people in the area they stupidly allowed to live there, and have let the river go back to
more its natural banks. "


Funny, my family (they live within sight of the Mississippi in Missouri) said that they rebuilt
and reinforced the levees. There are whole towns that would have to be abandoned.
When the levees opposite my home town broke it flooded towns as much as 10 miles
from the river and inundated some that were closer to the river.
One levee, north of Hannibal was the victim of sabotage (not my opinion there was a
conviction in the case. The one across the river was in poor repair.
You are clearly unfamiliar with the Mississippi. The only thing to change it's course
was the New Madrid earthquakes of 1820 (directly responsible for the founding of
my home town). They didn't change it's course they contained it till a 1000 year flood hit.

They did in some places, in others they bought out land and let the Mississippi go back to its natural channels. There was an entire episode on NOVA on PBS about the big floods and how the Mississippi's path had been diverted and what it caused .The fact that one town was rebuilt doesn't mean they all were, and the point is that even if we let the Mississippi alone, it would flood. The fact that they need levees in the first place says they are building in areas prone to flood.

It also proves my point, because guess who likely builds and maintains those levees? Federal money and probably Army Corps of Engineers, which reinforces my point, that we pay to have people live in areas prone to flooding, and pay to rebuild them, too.

Do you have any idea how much farmland would be sacrificed by getting rid of the levees?

Actually it would be improved. It would get flooded each spring and that would be free fertilizer. Perfect for rice and some other crops.

None of which are grown there.
Corn and wheat don't do that well in marshes. And even when the river is low the areas on the
river side of the levee is marsh.
Don't tell me it's because the river is there because it isn't.
But then who cares as long as we remember that people are intruders on the earth and as Heritic
pointed out need to be restricted to as little space as possible so they can be controlled and protected,
and if an epidemic gets them that is their fault too.

quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/30/opinion/sunday/egan-at-home-when-the-earth-moves.html?_r=0
25 dead and 90 still missing. When are we as a nation going to stop trying to put homes in areas prone to mudslides, wildfires or without enough fresh water simply because someone would like to live there?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/30/opinion/sunday/egan-at-home-when-the-earth-moves.html?_r=0
25 dead and 90 still missing. When are we as a nation going to stop trying to put homes in areas prone to mudslides, wildfires or without enough fresh water simply because someone would like to live there?

In this particular case you may have a point since there have been warnings about a potential mudslide for so long but as for the larger question of why people live in dangerous areas I can see two answers:

1. Because every spot on Earth is prone to one form of natural disaster or another. Some areas, granted, are more prone to others but no spot is entirely free of risk.

2. It is home. The place we were born in exerts a powerful hold on most of us. I know - objectively - that my region (the Niagara Falls Region of New York) is no more or less desirable (climate and scenic wise) a place to live than any other on Earth. I also know that it is the greatest place on Earth (despite the risks of blizzard, flooding, and wild Canadians swarming our malls and doctor's offices) and that I wouldn't want to live anywhere else . . . because it is home.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

For example, Alabama points out that when the big floods hit the midwest, that people in California chided people for living in a flood plane, and it is the pot calling the kettle black. What he left out is that the federal government, thanks to pressure from both congressmen in that area and the river shipping industry, had the army corps of engineers reroute the mississippi, both to make it more navigable, and also ironically to reduce flooding in certain areas to make them more attractive to build houses..and what happened was they created an even bigger mess (by moving the river, they took away the natural means of the river to handle high water, and all the levees in the world won't stop it). Since then they have bought out people in the area they stupidly allowed to live there, and have let the river go back to more its natural banks.

I'd sure like to see some documentation of these claims, I have lived in st Louis for aprox 50 years.

fact is the flood you are referring to was a FREAK OF NATURE, the area you refer to being bought out had that happen all of THAT ONE TIME even though people had been living there for over 200 years

as for them letting the river go back to is more NATURAL course, where did you get THAT FROM?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin

For example, Alabama points out that when the big floods hit the midwest, that people in California chided people for living in a flood plane, and it is the pot calling the kettle black. What he left out is that the federal government, thanks to pressure from both congressmen in that area and the river shipping industry, had the army corps of engineers reroute the mississippi, both to make it more navigable, and also ironically to reduce flooding in certain areas to make them more attractive to build houses..and what happened was they created an even bigger mess (by moving the river, they took away the natural means of the river to handle high water, and all the levees in the world won't stop it). Since then they have bought out people in the area they stupidly allowed to live there, and have let the river go back to more its natural banks.

I'd sure like to see some documentation of these claims, I have lived in st Louis for aprox 50 years.

fact is the flood you are referring to was a FREAK OF NATURE, the area you refer to being bought out had that happen all of THAT ONE TIME even though people had been living there for over 200 years

as for them letting the river go back to is more NATURAL course, where did you get THAT FROM?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2003-07-07/news/0307070177_1_higher-ground-valmeyer-great-flood