Una:
Actually, I made that up. The Cap locks did get stuck.
However…
It has always been my suspicion that Una is a designation for Ms. Persson rather than a proper name.
Other than the obvious name pun (which attracted my selection), with Moorcock, you never know, because he’ll often say one thing in an interview or in author’s notes, then reverse it later on. Not that he’s being inconsistent, but more that the story is changing. OK, that makes me sound like a Josh Whedon apologist - he probably is just being internally inconsistent. But hijacking a thread on New Orleans further makes me feel uncomfortable, so I’ll shut up now.
Yep, I sure do. And I’m not going to lose it. You’re gonna end up owing me two bucks. Wait and see.
No backpedal.
How do you know?
I mean, how do you know that some parts of it weren’t? Now you go spend your time wandering through Google for a change.
Several other points come into play here:
- Not all of Kansas City was under water since Kansas City isn’t built in a bathtub.
- The water came up and then receded. It didn’t sit there for months.
- Kansas City was able to dry out since it’s not a humid, Gulf Coast city.
- There weren’t 140 petrochemical plants upstream of Kansas City. (That link ruins part of the last chapter I’m writing, but what the hell.)
- Remember, this was 1951. Knowing what we know today about the nasty stuff in a river as well as what’s in the nasty left behind *after the flood water recedes/is drained, *we might make a different decision as to what’s inhabitable and what’s not.
Here are some pictures of the 1951 flood. I think they lend some credence to the link I posted that referred to collapse from “silt sag.”
As long as we’re at it, I need to clear something up. The weight or volume of the silt isn’t the important thing here. If that’s all it was, then there would actually be a minute positive advantage to NO because the city constantly requires the addition of land fill due to subsidence. (No, I’m not posting links. There are tons of links regarding subsidence and land fill in New Orleans, and you can find and wander through them yourself.)
The critical factor that seems to have been overloooked in the wake of all of the splashing houses (black humor joke) is the stuff that’s in the silt as well as in the water that carried it in. That’s the kicker. If it was just the volume of the silt you had to worry about, you could scoop it up and carry it off. What’s left you could sweep out when it dried.
But that’s not it. Even a house that survived the water and the weight of the silt now has another severe problem–the stuff left behind. It went into where the silt went (everywhere, down to the smallest cracks and surface imperfections). And, it’s not just coated with the deadly stuff, it absorbed the deadly stuff. The sheet rock, the joists, the insulation, the cupboards, the closets, they’re all harboring nasty little bugs in places where those bugs thrive: damp, dark, warm spaces. You can’t just wipe them off; you have to get at them first. You’d had to tear down your house to clean it.
I’m going to insert something here that I had planned to use later, but it logically follows the above, so here we go…
Mold. Simple little mold.
And, to put this all to rest, finally and forever, read this.
That says it all. It’s the stake in the heart.
It’s not a question of allowing people back into New Orleans so that they can rebuild and carry on. No, quite the opposite. When the people that left are presented with the facts as we know them, you won’t be able to force them back. Even if they want to come back, they won’t be permitted. Not to mention the fact that there won’t be anything to come back to.
Sometime down the line, after the new stronger levees have been built to protect the part of NO that’s salvagable, some people might return. But I submit to you that, unless some indescribably massive understaking occurs and the very earth of New Orleans itself is changed, a person would have to be more than just a fool, he’d have to be a suicidal fool to want to live where that city used to be.
The culture of New Orleans wasn’t in the architecture and ambiance. The culture was in the people. Part of that culture died outright. The rest dissolved into the flood waters as well as via cars, busses, helicopters and even cruise ships. That culture is not coming back.
New Orleans is gone.
blink
What!?
I just did a double take that hurt my neck.
But I thank you for writing your post. Those two lines of yours right up there are prima facie evidence that I don’t need to respond to you or even read anything you have to say anymore because your statements originate from a completely illogical source that’s so deep into denial that reality, itself, is a foreign concept.
Understaking (n):
- A task or assignment undertaken; a venture.
- Exactly the same as undertaking except with an “s” in the middle due to lack of sleep.
<sigh>
I meant that there’s no standing water in most (or if you prefer, “many”) of New Orleans’ structures right now. Lots of exceptions, and lots of street flooding (which is largely what needs to be pumped out).
I realize that there’s beaucoup carpets, flooring, and sheetrock that’s not dry now. Dry != "in the same condition they were in two weeks ago.
BTW – much of the flooding footage you’re seeing now is from last week.
BTW2 – both my parents and my wife’s parents returned to the area Sunday to assess damage to their properties. Forgive me for believing my info is better than yours.
I do have a question re: mold. New Orleans floods all the time. Minor flooding a few times per decade … and a major flood about every 10-15 years. Ask any local what “May 3rd, 1979” or “May 1995” means to them.
Mold surely had chances to subsume the city and make structures uninhabitable after all those floods (to be fair, some structures were indeed lost). What’s different now?
If you click on that link, and you don’t have a high speed connection, you will be waiting a long, long time for it to load.
It is, though, a marvelous picture. It’s hard to get a grasp of the standing water when you’re looking at it on TV as a helicopter does a fly by. With this picture, you can pan up and down, left and right, all over the entire city of New Orleans.
It - is - amazing.
But a look at the picture will provide some insight as to what I’m about to say.
One of the arguments I’ve been running up against is, “New Orleans has to exist because it’s a huge shipping center,” or “it’s the 3rd largest shipping port in the US,” or “We need a city there just because of it’s strategic position for shipping,” or variations thereof.
Well, guess what? It still is. Unlike most other cities, the areas closest to the river are the high ground.
If you look at the picture, you’ll see that the ports are still open. There are even some tankers and barges there. No doubt that there was some damage, but it seems to be functioning.
We don’t have to rebuild them.
Now, if we refer back to the link Zebra provided earlier we see that:
the number of persons employed in Trade, Transportation, and Utilities is approximately 120,000 - which equals about 20% of the entire labor force - which equals 9% of the population of the entire Greater New Orleans area.
Again, Greater New Orleans area.
The people that worked in those areas didn’t come from New Orleans alone. They came from the suburbs and other outlying areas, too. Some of those areas weren’t underwater. Some were. I’m not even going to hazard a guess as to what percentage.
But it doesn’t matter anyway. Employment in shipping won’t be a problem. There will be a demand for employment that will be hard to resist.
(Personally, knowing what I know, I could resist it pretty well. I can pretty safely say that I wouldn’t move to that area to work for any reason nor for any rate of pay. Dying young negates the fun you can have by earning big money.)
Anyway, what I’m saying is that the shipping still exists, and there will be enough people to support it. But remember this, if it took 1,337,726 people to support an entire city, and 80% of that city is now gone, how much will it take to support 9% of that city–even if we grant that the entire Pre-Katrina Trade, Transportation and Utilities workforce returns (the most likely scenario of all of the various workforces)? You can’t start adding in the figures for the pre-existing numbers of people employed in the various fields, either, because a whole lot of those jobs won’t be coming back. There will be fewer schools, lesser government, less entertainment, less Professional, Financial, Information, etc., etc., etc.
If you want to say that shipping is New Orleans’ raison d’^etre, then you have to understand that the number of people needed to support that workforce is far less than previously required to run everything. The number of people needed to keep everything moving will diminish to the same percentage required to operate that profession. (Well, not exactly equally. Entertainment, and more importantly, government will probably increase percentage-wise. People gotta have bars, and government is harder to pare down than just about anything else.)
So, the shipping will continue as before.
Rysdad, you are a pretentious ass and a prevaricator. Quit telling us how you’re going to soon post some brillant argument and post the goddamn thing already. I’m predicting I’ll remain unimpressed when it finally arrives. Also, this whole bet you have going with Scylla has been based on the premise of relocating the entire city to someplace upriver, not on leaving the shipping and related industry behind.
[sub]Aw, shit, I just gotta ask because I really, really have to know something.[/sub]
Where did the water go?
Oops. :smack:
Thanks Duck Duck Goose.
I believe the answer to this is that Bordelond’s parents and in-laws weren’t actually in New Orleans. Maybe Jefferson Parish. That’s a different story since the water, I believe, was being pumped from there much sooner than from NO.
That’s what I’m guessing anyway.
Between last Wednesday and this past Sunday, the level of Lake Pontchatrain – and with it, the level of flood water in N.O. – lowered on it’s own, as it’s natural level had been raised by Katrina’s storm surge:
I’m not disputing that much of the surface area of New Orleans’ “bowl” was – and still is – “under water”. The point I was trying to make was that the water was not at or above thigh-deep in very many areas. IOW, later on last week, a significant number of structures in New Orleans no longer had standing water in them (Ninth Ward and shallower parts of Mid City excepted).
Now then, street flooding was, indeed, pervasive, apparently covering ~80% of the city. When I heard Ray Nagin say that “80% of the city is under water” late last week and this past weekend, I felt confident in NOT interpreting that as “80% of the city’s structures still have standing water within them”.
Flooding is a relative thing. It is accurate to say that an area is “under water” if only 8-12 inches worth is in the street.
Also, from where I’m sitting, the national news are showing the same areas of town over and over, making it appear that almost all of New Orleans has rooftop-level flooding. But consider some of the other shots the national news has been showing since last Friday – National Guard convoys driving throughout downtown New Orleans … on dry streets.
I’m not questoning whether or not water in general is in the city. I know that it is, and I know that it will have to be pumped out to get the streets dry. I’m questioning the reporting of just how widespread the truly high flooding really was in New Orleans proper outside of the Ninth Ward. Neighboring St. Bernard Parish (adjacent to New Orleans’ Ninth Ward) still had rooftop flooding as of this past weekend, and is about the worst-hit spot in the N.O. metro area. Yet St. Bernard is outside of New Orleans … and some national news footage has been showing the more dramatic St. Bernard and Ninth Ward flooding, and letting the viewers erroneously fill in the blanks and conclude that all the city is like that.
I am re-reading this part of the thread I wrote this past Sunday evening. It’s poorly written, lacking in essential detail. I retract the above statement as written. “Dry” was an especially poor substitute for what I meant: “no longer having standing water”.
Still not noticing silt collapse in what structures are now clear of standing water, though. Of course, the structures now free of standing water (aaargh … can’t I just write “dry” and have that be understood?) never had super-deep water to begin with. I will be interested to see what happens to the structures in the Ninth Ward of New Orleans and in St. Bernard Parish, many of which took in water on their second stories.
Jack Shafer of Slate magazine opines in an article headlined, Don’t Refloat: The case against rebuilding the sunken city of New Orleans.
There’s a flash map, available at the NYT website, that shows elevations:
Click “skip this ad” in the upper right hand corner, click “Hide Labels” and then click “Elevation Information”.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/national/2005_HURRICANEKATRINA_GRAPHIC/index.html
Generally speaking, the low-lying areas are near Lake Pontchartrain, not the Mississippi river. Low lying areas tend to have lower median household incomes (and higher nonwhite populations), though there are exceptions.
The areas that are above sea level (by like, 2-10+ feet) are closer to the Mississippi.
Note also that the Port of New Orleans is on the Mississippi:
http://www.portno.com/facts.htm
I don’t know where the refineries are.
IANAH (I am not a hydrologist). IANARAWSINO (I am not a regional analyst who specializes in New Orleans). IANASG (I am not a shoreline geologist).
If, however, there is a big difference in protecting areas that are five feet below sea level vs. protecting areas that are five feet above sea level, there may be a case for turning massive sections near Lake Pontchartrain into a Green Belt. One way to start the process would be to deny federal flood insurance to certain areas. Also, constructing levees that would make the higher elevation areas safer might assuage local concerns, as would cash payouts. Anecdotally, it’s not clear how many residents will want to return in 6 months anyway.
Or I may be offbase: locals may be gung-ho on returning to their silt-covered land. Refineries may be located in certain awkward locations. All I can say is that before we spend billions on the problem, we should consult with a few coastal storm experts.
I’ll point out (while staying out of the rest of the argument) that this is not exactly true. Much of the business done in the Twin Cities is done in the suburbs, particularly the southern suburbs such as Richfield. There are more people commuting to jobs between southern suburbs than there are commuting into the city itself. The economy in the City of Minneapolis proper is basically a few large financial services corporations and lots and lots of small local service-sector businesses (everything from eateries to car repair).
If Minneapolis were abandoned, Richfield (and Bloomington, and Edina, and etc) would take a hit but would not be utterly unsupportable by any stretch of the imagination. They’d have to start building and expanding in a more urban-ish way rather than continuing with sprawl as they wouldn’t have the redistributed taxes from the city center to underwrite the horrendous sprawl costs (the inefficient road systems, drainage, etc, etc, etc), but they’d certainly stay “afloat” pardon the pun. They’d just adapt.
What the fuck are you talking about, “with Minneapolis becoming what it is?”
I’ve lived in three different neighborhoods, all within 2 miles of downtown, for a decade. Other than a slight resurgence in crime at the moment (still nowhere near some earlier levels), and a bit more gentrification than I’d like to see in a few areas, it been getting better and better. Care to be more specific, or was that just code for “the yuppie douchebags that moved to Richfield to get away from the negros are wishing they’d had the foresight to move even further from the city.”