Subj : Re: Interesting Flood Article To : alt.tv.farscape From : weirdwolf Date : Thu Sep 08 2005 16:43:10 From Newsgroup: alt.tv.farscape John I wrote in news:Xns96CB765AC8D3Doiwhnanri@66.26.32.9: > weirdwolf wrote: > >> Nick wrote in >> news:Xns96CB66811FF37ndtcm@ 68.1.17.6: >> >>> weirdwolf wrote: >>> >>>> Nick wrote in >>>> news:Xns96CB647F34684ndtcm@ 68.1.17.6: >>>> >>>>> Nick wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> weirdwolf wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Nick wrote in >>>>>>> news:Xns96CB5F41C3F0Dndtcm@ 68.1.17.6: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> weirdwolf wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> John I wrote in >>>>>>>>> news:Xns96CB622749FAEoiwhnanri@66.26.32.7: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> weirdwolf wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0410/feature5/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ted >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's about the Hurricane Pam excercise that was supposed >>>>>>>>>> to prepare FEMA and everyone else to respond. Now that they >>>>>>>>>> are in full Rove control the message mode, we will never get >>>>>>>>>> a clear picture of what went wrong and worse: How to fix >>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I found it interesting that an article published last October >>>>>>>>> had so many of the details correct of what might happen when >>>>>>>>> we've been told time and again that nobody could have >>>>>>>>> foreseen what actually did happen. >>>>>>>>> Nice to see that the National Geographic at least agrees with >>>>>>>>> me on the >>>>>>>>> loss of coastal swamp/mudflats/reed beds. I mean lets face it >>>>>>>>> I only have the knowledge of a junior school pupil about >>>>>>>>> these things according to some people. >>>>>>>>> Ted >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Did they say how to fix it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Did you even bother to read the article? >>>>>>> "Such high stakes compelled a host of unlikely >>>>>>> bedfellowsuscientists, environmental groups, business leaders, >>>>>>> and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineersuto forge a radical plan to >>>>>>> protect what's left. Drafted by the Corps a year ago, the >>>>>>> Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) project was initially estimated to >>>>>>> cost up to 14 billion dollars over 30 years, almost twice as >>>>>>> much as current efforts to save the Everglades. But the Bush >>>>>>> Administration balked at the price tag, supporting instead a >>>>>>> plan to spend up to two billion dollars over the next ten years >>>>>>> to fund the most promising projects" >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So, that is a no. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think the oil companies with their record breaking profits >>>>> should be doing some of this funding. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It is a yes, the methods are there, replanting the swamps, >>>> reducing the >>>> levees and unnecessary canals and allowing more run off into the >>>> swamp areas. All this information is contained in the article and >>>> were suggestions I put forward in the post you were so dismissive >>>> of. >>>> What is lacking is the federal funding to actually do the work >>>> that is required. >>> >>> >>> I just don't see how you can do it and keep enough water flowing >>> through the Mississippi river to keep New Orleans open as a major >>> port. I was curious to see specific plans not just a price tag and >>> the statement of having a plan. I didn't notice the specific plan >>> in the article. Just that when they tried some things, like >>> breaching spots on the levee they got hit with a huge law suit. >> >> Asking for a specific plan is a lot different from saying "do they >> know how to fix it" which from the article they obviously do. But >> just for you , may I suggest perhaps looking at this site. >> http://lca.gov/ >> I'm having troubles getting through but they may be due to the fact >> that >> I am streaming Pakistani tv so I can watch the cricket. > > > Refuge of last resort for insomniacs. > Well it's twenty to five pm here so hardly for insomniacs. I eventually managed to get 2 hours sleep. Ted -- Stare too long into the abyss and the abyss looks like a nifty place to hide the bodies .