Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/13/2005 8:55:56 PM EDT
Heard this on Rush today. Did you know that Hurricane Katrina does not even make the top 10 national disasters in terms of fatalities? The liberal media would have us believe, and they are reporting this, that it is the worst national disaster in this nation's history.

What ever happened to the estimate of more than 10,000 dead? Or that 25,000 body bags lay in wait?
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 9:01:37 PM EDT
Its the worst in terms of the size of area effected, and what its going to cost us all to clean up the mess.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 9:02:53 PM EDT
It's up there with the San Francisco earthquake. It's foolish to try to trivialize this disaster, even if relatively few people died. I mean, an entire fucking city has been evacuated.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 9:04:27 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Midnight-Sniper:
The liberal media would have us believe, and they are reporting this, that it is the worst national disaster in this nation's history.

Link Posted: 9/13/2005 9:07:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Midnight-Sniper:
Heard this on Rush today. Did you know that Hurricane Katrina does not even make the top 10 national disasters in terms of fatalities? The liberal media would have us believe, and they are reporting this, that it is the worst national disaster in this nation's history.

What ever happened to the estimate of more than 10,000 dead? Or that 25,000 body bags lay in wait?



Life is cheap. It's the cities that are expensive.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 9:08:13 PM EDT
You have to look at more than body count.

Link Posted: 9/13/2005 9:10:49 PM EDT
not if you're getting ready to do a knee-jerk media bashing session.

Link Posted: 9/13/2005 9:11:00 PM EDT
You have to look at more than body count.

Why? This is what the Dems are using to determine our success or failure in Iraq.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 9:12:44 PM EDT
Rush is wrong here, by assuming the only metric to measure disasters is the death toll. If the measure is cost of recovery, Katrina is by far the worst disaster to ever hit the US, with recovery costs probably exceeding 100 Billion dollars. The total death toll figure is still out - the Galveston Hurricane killed 6,000 folks, who knows what the Katrina death toll will be? Both death tolls pale in comparison to the millions killed by the Spanish Flu outbreak in the US in 1918. Rush is correct many times, but in this case, he has oversimplified things, and his trivialization of the destruction Katrina brought indicates to me that he does not have a fucking clue of how bad things are in south Louisiana and Mississippi (outside of New Orleans) that took the brunt of a 20-30 foot high storm surge, There is mile after mile of destruction. Hearing he said that sort of pisses me off if you want to know the truth, having read the first hand account of that fellow who took the Ma Deuce down there on the relief mission.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 9:13:31 PM EDT
Well, if it's an approved Dem tactic, it's definitely in our bag too, right? I mean, we republican die hard platform pirates play to WIN.

Lol, they haven't even begun to get an accurate body count. It now stands at 640. It will go higher. I'm guessing about 2000.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 9:16:19 PM EDT
I think that right now it's number 1 in terms of national disasters. However, I think it will drop to #2 if Hillary gets elected.

Vulcan94
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 9:16:21 PM EDT
I'm saying 9/11 was a bigger national disaster than Katrina in both body count and cost to our economy . . . hell the entire world's economy!
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 9:16:43 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/13/2005 9:18:15 PM EDT by Da_Bunny]
Honorary Award for the most avoidable man-made disaster. They been skimming the levee funding for decades and probably should have spent it on the levees.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 9:18:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:
Honorary Award for the most avoidable man-made disaster. They probably should have spent all that levee money on the levees.



The vast majority of the destruction occurred outside of New Orleans. The levee failure was indeed a disaster, but look at the photos of Waveland, Gulfport, Slidell --- everything is freakin GONE.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 9:22:05 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/13/2005 9:28:51 PM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
Rush is wrong here, by assuming the only metric to measure disasters is the death toll. If the measure is cost of recovery, Katrina is by far the worst disaster to ever hit the US, with recovery costs probably exceeding 100 Billion dollars. The total death toll figure is still out - the Galveston Hurricane killed 6,000 folks, who knows what the Katrina death toll will be? Both death tolls pale in comparison to the millions killed by the Spanish Flu outbreak in the US in 1918. Rush is correct many times, but in this case, he has oversimplified things, and his trivialization of the destruction Katrina brought indicates to me that he does not have a fucking clue of how bad things are in south Louisiana and Mississippi (outside of New Orleans) that took the brunt of a 20-30 foot high storm surge, There is mile after mile of destruction. Hearing he said that sort of pisses me off if you want to know the truth, having read the first hand account of that fellow who took the Ma Deuce down there on the relief mission.



No he is not wrong he said specifically said fatalities… you can rebuild and replace things you do not get people back.

As far as raw damage goes I suspect Katrina is not the worst even in shear property damage. There is a reason this country built thousands of flood control projects. It was not unusual for whole cities to be under water as little as 80 years ago due to ANNUAL flooding.

New Orleans was flooded not burned to the ground like a large part of Chicago was, or flatten like San Francisco, or Charleston by earthquakes, or totally destroyed like Galveston. Biloxi and Gulfport and that area looks exactly like they did after hurricane Camille hit in 1969, I know I was there. It is more built up now but again you can rebuild stuff.

Link Posted: 9/13/2005 9:42:21 PM EDT
They're talking about 125 billion right now. Know of any disasters that compare? Remember, the damage of 09/11 was localized as far as property destruction, and if you want to talk about damage to the economy, its difficult to quantify and highly subjective. Estimated replacement cost of the buildings is about 10 billion dollars, and that's probably high.
Besides, they're going to build a bunch of worthless memorial crap.

Check out donald trumps proposal for two nearly identical but TALLER WTC buildings. It's got lots of popular support.

Link Posted: 9/13/2005 9:44:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
No he is not wrong he said specifically said fatalities… you can rebuild and replace things you do not get people back.



LOL. Of course he's not wrong... he only mentioned fatalities, which haven't even been counted. You would think he'd have enough sense to wait for that number to be final.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 9:48:57 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 9:55:32 PM EDT
www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/photos/


Go to that site and scroll through some of the pictures. Mostly the ones that say they are aerial photos. You'll see the -actual- disaster this storm caused. And let me tell you, it's not New Orleans. I'm sick of New Orleans.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 10:10:31 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mosesac:
www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/photos/


Go to that site and scroll through some of the pictures. Mostly the ones that say they are aerial photos. You'll see the -actual- disaster this storm caused. And let me tell you, it's not New Orleans. I'm sick of New Orleans.



+100000000000000000

New Orleans got off EASY compared to other places.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 10:11:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mosesac:
www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/photos/


Go to that site and scroll through some of the pictures. Mostly the ones that say they are aerial photos. You'll see the -actual- disaster this storm caused. And let me tell you, it's not New Orleans. I'm sick of New Orleans.



I have heard time after time "It was no worse than Camille" I have also heard numerous times home that withstood Camille are now GONE.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 10:43:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Fast_Jimmy:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
No he is not wrong he said specifically said fatalities… you can rebuild and replace things you do not get people back.



LOL. Of course he's not wrong... he only mentioned fatalities, which haven't even been counted. You would think he'd have enough sense to wait for that number to be final.





However many it ends up being it will not even be close to the largest in US history... which was the point.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 10:51:17 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/13/2005 11:08:24 PM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:

Originally Posted By mosesac:
www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/photos/


Go to that site and scroll through some of the pictures. Mostly the ones that say they are aerial photos. You'll see the -actual- disaster this storm caused. And let me tell you, it's not New Orleans. I'm sick of New Orleans.



I have heard time after time "It was no worse than Camille" I have also heard numerous times home that withstood Camille are now GONE.



And that is exactly meaningless hurricanes are random acts a matter of where the eye hit. Buildings destroyed by Camille cannot be destroyed again because they don’t exist. Camille certainly hit land with higher sustained and gust winds. And Camille kept going far longer and did a lot of damage as far north as TN and VA. The MS gulf coast is far more built up now so higher economic loss and fatalities. But Camille killed well over 100 people in TN and VA this storm did not.

You have heard "It was no worse than Camille" because it is true. I was down in there after Camille hit there is NO difference in the pictures of the damage…

This storm DID NOT cause widespread wind damage in New Orleans. Damage in New Orleans would have been light if the levee had not failed… that is where the vast majority of the economic loss from this storm comes from if not for the flooding in NO the economic damage from this storm would have almost certainly been less than Andrew... which is a moot point.

If canals had not been dredged to deepen them and barges not knocked holes it the levees then New Orleans would likely have been spared the major flooding. Or in other words the people in control of flood cotrol in NO largely did that to themselves.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 11:11:58 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:

Originally Posted By mosesac:
www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/photos/


Go to that site and scroll through some of the pictures. Mostly the ones that say they are aerial photos. You'll see the -actual- disaster this storm caused. And let me tell you, it's not New Orleans. I'm sick of New Orleans.



I have heard time after time "It was no worse than Camille" I have also heard numerous times home that withstood Camille are now GONE.



And that is exactly meaningless hurricanes are random acts a matter of where the eye hit. Buildings destroyed by Camille cannot be destroyed again because they don’t exist. Camille certainly hit land with higher sustained and gust winds. And Camille kept going far longer and did a lot of damage as far north as TN and VA. The MS gulf coast is far more built up now so higher economic loss and fatalities. But Camille killed well over 100 people in TN and VA this storm did not.

You have heard "It was no worse than Camille" because it is true. I was down in there after Camille hit there is NO difference in the pictures of the damage…

This storm DID NOT cause widespread wind damage in New Orleans. Damage in New Orleans would have been light if the levee had not failed… that is where the vast majority of the economic loss from this storm comes from if not for the flooding in NO the economic damage from this storm would have almost certainly been less than Andrew... which is a moot point.

If canals had not been dredged to deepen them and barges not knocked holes it the levees then New Orleans would likely have been spared the major flooding. Or in other words the people in control of flood cotrol in NO largely did that to themselves.



In terms of damage this storm was worse than Camille. Let me be honest here, New Orleans isn't shit when it comes to talking damage by this hurricane. The MS Gulf Coast is gone. Buildings that withstood Camille are gone. Entire bridges and roadways are destroyed along the MS Gulf Coast.

Enough with the New Orleans talk, and focus on where the real damage has been done.

Every member of my family who lived through Camille have said time after time that Camille has nothing on this storm, and I believe them. Camille was nothing compared to what Katrina did to the MS Gulf Coast.
Link Posted: 9/13/2005 11:43:35 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 12:44:30 AM EDT
a good start.



Oh wait... this isn't the punchline thread.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 5:13:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TomJefferson:
When it is said in done, it will be the worst in our lifetimes but by no means the worst in our history.

Tj



My guess is that this will probably end up costing $400 Billion before it is all over, and I agree that is the most expensive US disaster to date. I hope to live at least another 25 years, and I would not be surprised if something worse (natural or man-made) happens during that time.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:23:59 AM EDT
The Great Chicago Fire also involved rebuilding the whole city.

GunLvr
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:31:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Midnight-Sniper:
Heard this on Rush today. Did you know that Hurricane Katrina does not even make the top 10 national disasters in terms of fatalities? The liberal media would have us believe, and they are reporting this, that it is the worst national disaster in this nation's history.

What ever happened to the estimate of more than 10,000 dead? Or that 25,000 body bags lay in wait?



George Bush had them eliminated along with the passengers of United Airlines Flight 77
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 6:32:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Winston_Wolf:
www.illwillpress.com/kat.html





BigDozer66
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 7:17:43 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/14/2005 7:18:55 AM EDT by Green_Canoe]
I keep hearing this will be the most expensive disaster ever. That may be true, but has anyone adjusted that figure for inflation to get a fair comparison? Also, homes and businesses weren't nearly as large or well finished in the past as they are now. Plus, the population density has increased over time, so a storm of a given size will affect many more people than it did in the past. All these factors (and probably others as well) make it impossible to compare a disaster from the past with a present storm.

Kent
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 7:25:54 AM EDT
This will easily top $200 Billion by the time the dust settles...some folks are predicting a total hit to the economy of about 3 TRILLION dollars. There is no other disaster in the US that can come close to this in terms of cost.

As for fatalities, who knows what the final number will be. Rush may be right in what he says regarding simply counting the bodies, but that's not the only cost of a storm like this.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 12:44:04 PM EDT
Maybe this disaster which is going to happen in the next two weeks will be worse:

www.livescience.com/forcesofnature/050913_slip.html
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 2:07:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Green_Canoe:
I keep hearing this will be the most expensive disaster ever. Kent



I also hear it'll boost the economy, I assume by putting a whole lot of people to work essentially building a city.

I guess my original idea of putting student labor to work at no cost to the government as "class projects" would not be very welcome by the people who stand ot make some money on this.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 3:39:34 PM EDT

having read the first hand account of that fellow who took the Ma Deuce down there on the relief mission.
...... I am sure you know this, but a Ma Deuce is a machine gun. I think you mean Deuce and a half. That would be a truck.
Link Posted: 9/14/2005 3:42:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mushoot:

having read the first hand account of that fellow who took the Ma Deuce down there on the relief mission.
...... I am sure you know this, but a Ma Deuce is a machine gun. I think you mean Deuce and a half. That would be a truck.



I know the difference. It was a typo.
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 6:17:58 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pathfinder74:

Originally Posted By Green_Canoe:
I keep hearing this will be the most expensive disaster ever. Kent



I also hear it'll boost the economy, I assume by putting a whole lot of people to work essentially building a city.

I guess my original idea of putting student labor to work at no cost to the government as "class projects" would not be very welcome by the people who stand ot make some money on this.



All industry will benefit from this for a few years to come. Textiles, durable goods, automotive, and even the recreational equipement industries are going to have a good time resupplying hundreds of thousands of households. By the looks of it the only industry that is going to take a hit is the insurance industry.

Kent
Link Posted: 9/15/2005 6:51:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Green_Canoe:
By the looks of it the only industry that is going to take a hit is the insurance industry.



Even though I know in the end everyone ends up paying for the insurance industry taking a hit, I feel little compassion for those companies taking it up the chute. Insurance is legal racketeering.

Link Posted: 9/15/2005 3:08:21 PM EDT
Well, according to NOAA, Katrina is the most destructive storm to EVER hit the United States. Sorry, Rush.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/15/D8CKRCQG1.html

Hurricane Katrina has become the most destructive such storm ever to strike the United States, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday.

Katrina's sustained winds reached 175 mph and its minimum central pressure dropped as low as 902 millibars _ the fourth lowest on record for an Atlantic hurricane, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center reported.

The storm weakened slightly before it reached landfall and had less powerful winds than Hurricane Camille, which devastated coastal Mississippi in August, 1969.

But the size of Katrina, with hurricane force winds extending 120 miles from its center, was much larger and the destruction more widespread than Camille.

The central pressure in a hurricane is a good indicator of the strength of the winds of the storm. The strongest observed hurricane in the Atlantic basin was Gilbert in 1988 with a pressure of 888 millibars in the northwest Caribbean. Normal average sea level air pressure is 1,016 millibars.

Katrina was the 11th named storm of a busy season, first striking southern Florida on August 25 as a Category 1 storm. It quickly re- intensified once it moved west into the warm Gulf waters, which were 2 to 3 degrees Fahrenheit above normal. It's the evaporation from warm ocean waters that provides energy for hurricanes.

Estimates so far are that Katrina cost the Gulf Coast area at least $125 billion in economic damage and could cost the insurance industry up to $60 billion in claims, a leading risk assessment firm said in updated estimates released Friday.

That's significantly higher than the previous record-setting storm, Hurricane Andrew in 1992, which caused nearly $21 billion in insured losses in today's dollars.

___


Top Top