Subj : Re: "Hams to the Rescue After Katrina" MSNBC News Article
To   : alt.ham-radio.vhf-uhf,rec.radio.amateur.antenna,rec.radio.amateur.dx,rec.radio.amateur.equipment,rec.radio.amateur.policy
From : N2EY
Date : Wed Sep 28 2005 19:52:24

From Newsgroup: alt.ham-radio.vhf-uhf


Michael Coslo wrote:
> Cecil Moore wrote:
>
> > Matt Osborn wrote:
> >
> >> Maybe we should rebuild New Orleans in England, it would balance the
> >> scales.
> >
> >
> > We indeed should rebuild New Orleans somewhere that is
> > not below sea level.

How about Death Valley?
>
> 	Absolutely. I don't support money going to rebuilding NO > in it's
> present spot.

I agree 100%. But you watch, the money will be poured into it just like
the water.
>
> The French Quarter is okay where it is. It will
> eventually become an
> island, and should last for quite a while yet.
> Seems like a charming way
> to get to Mardi Gras - by a boat.
>
> But no matter how much money we pour into th erest of
> NO, it will sink.
> I suppose that we could try a Netherlands type approach,
> with  huge
> dikes and all, but I doubt that there is enough room on the
> sides to do
> that, and besides, the Netherlands doesn't have to worry about
> hurricanes either.

The levees are dikes, aren't they?

There are some important other differences.

It's my understanding that the Dutch built their dikes and filled
in/pumped out the polders as a way of getting more farmland without
fighting wars with their neighbors, and as a way of *reducing* storm
damage. They don't build cities on below-sea-level land. And the way
they deal with the reclaimed land results in it slowly but surely
rising, not sinking.

But they don't put cities there.

--

There's a bigger problem even than Katrina behind all this...

Modern technology has made almost anything possible from a theoretical
point of view. NO could be rebuilt with levees and pumps capable of
withstanding a Cat 5 storm, for example.

But the problem is that such solutions, while technically possible, are
often prohibitively expensive, particularly on a large scale. Not just
to build, but to maintain. Who is going to pay the taxes so that a
rebuilt NO can be kept dry?

Or to put it another way - *why* should NO be built in such a highrisk
location when there are so many better alternatives?

Just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done.

I wonder if Shrub ever played SimCity?

73 de Jim, N2EY

.