FEMA Training Manual: "Emergencies and natural disaster can occur ANYWHERE in the United States"

As someone who as taken the FEMA and Red Cross training, both organizations state categorically that natural disasters can occur anywhere in the United States and these are in addition to man made disasters.

The people who live in New Orleans are no more fool hardy than those who live in Topeka Kansas, Los Angeles California, or in New York City - everywhere has risks and those who attack New Orleanians are scapegoating - they are blaming the victims, often people who have no control over their living circumstance due to extreme poverty.

Indeed why is it that New Orleans is singled out by the blamers? Could it be that the majority of inhabitants there are black? Where's this same "concern" over the residents of coastal Mississippi and Alabama or the Bayou country of Louisiana which were all equally devastated by Hurricane Katrina? Could it be because the majority of victims in these other areas were white?

Instead of blaming the victim let's ALL work to be better prepared, to build stronger levees, to train people to be ready for the next disaster and to look at our own back yards first before accusing others of living in a "dangerous" place.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL
Hurricane Survivor - Opel, Charley, Frances and Jeanne


http://training.fema.gov/emiweb/is/IS394A/01overview-0306.pdf

"Emergencies and natural disasters can occur anywhere in the United States.

Televised scenes of flooded homes or buildings scattered like matchsticks in the
wake of a tornado or hurricane remind us that our own homes and businesses
could be vulnerable.

Americans face more severe weather than citizens of any other country. National
Weather Service figures indicate that in an average year, the United States
experiences:

�� 2,500 floods.
�� 1,000 tornadoes.
�� 10 hurricanes.

Severe weather is only one source of disaster. Earthquakes and wildfires also
may threaten your home or place of business with damage or destruction. The
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) estimates that as much as 75
percent of the Nation’s housing could be at risk from natural hazards."


http://www.thecamino.com.ar/redcross.htm

Disasters happen anytime and anywhere. And when disaster strikes, you may not have much time to respond. A highway spill or hazardous material could mean evacuation. A winter storm could confine your family at home. An earthquake, flood, tornado, or any other disaster could cut water, electricity, and telephones-for days.

And while it's good to have plenty of people in the pool of flood insurance, your chance of being flooded by natural water in many places is precisely ZIP.

But, it's not a bad thing to at least discuss the various threats that various areas in the country are in danger of experiencing, and emphasizing the value those places deliver to other less threatened places. None of which changes the fact that living below sea level isn't a good idea when you live next to the sea.

you just face different risks.

FEMA isn't saying those things to "sell flood insurance" - they are saying them because they are true.

There IS no "safe" place in this country that is immune from natural disasters - if you think you are immune then you really haven't looked closely enough at the risks in your neck of the woods.

:eyes:

And kiss my ass if we can't have a civil discussion.

You are making ridiculous assumptions about your own level of risk for which you have no real basis in fact and then judging others over things which are NOT in their control so YES you ARE a blamer.

Doug D.

Better get on the horn to NOAA, they really need to update a bunch of documents.

shows what you don't know.

:rofl:

Mostly the older part (pre-1800 or so) that was built before they installed the huge pumps that keep SE NOLA from being part of the swamp..

:D
:hi:

...some will even contend that (in terms of hurricanes) NYC is a bigger issue than NOLA.

Hurricane Opel - I lived in ATLANTA, 350 miles from the ocean when it ripped through town.

Hurricanes Charley, Frances, and Jeanne - I lived in Orlando 50 miles from the nearest beach.

Amazing though, I somehow managed to be hit by 4 hurricanes anyways.

When I lived in Tennessee it was a winter ice storm that knocked the power off for a week and shut down the roads.

Nobody is safe from natural disasters - nobody.

You're entitled to your opinion on what should be done, and so is everyone else who is expected to help pay for it.

The issue here isn't whether New Orleans is at risk of a natural disaster, the issue is whether it's cost effective or even possible to make it defensible from a natural disaster. What makes New Orleans somewhat unique is that it was a fairly large city below sea level, unlike any other in the US. All coastal cities can flood, but being above sea level the flooding will behave quite differently from what it does in a diked basin.

What is open for debate is what should be done, and that's not limited to New Orleans resident or fans. Some areas of coastal North Carolina are "no rebuild zones". I have no problem whatsoever with that, or making St Pete Beach a no rebuild zone, since I don't own anything on St Pete Beach. See that's the dynamic here: we're all talking about spending other people's money one way or another. 'Let it go.' says to allow an asset of another person to perish. "Let them rebuild on their own." says, "Hey, we took the premiums, gotta pay these people off and cancel their policies." And, "Let's throw everything we have at this." is the biggest question of all and one that lots of people are ENTITLED to as citizens to have functional input on. Rebuilding New Orleans is not a small feat, and if the money or technology are not available (that doesn't mean doesn't exist, it means anything from not feasible to not cost effective) or agreeable then that's what it is.

nor is it any less crazy than building San Francisco and Los Angeles on active fault lines or putting St. Louis on a river front that floods.

What this is ABOUT is the same "I've got mine and screw you" attitude that the teabaggers have regarding healthcare for all. The notion that New Orleans is "expendable" while your home town is not is the height of arrogance and inconsideration for the pain of others.

Most of Holland is "below sea level" yet thanks to good engineering they haven't had a problem in 55 years - their levees ca withstand even a CAT5 storm, because they built them that way. New Orleans levees were built on the cheap with the exception of the river levees and that's why they failed. New Orleans could easily be as safe as Amsterdam but hey we want to blame the victims instead of solving the problem.

people's hometowns - by your standards we should probably abandon every major city in the United States because I can find multiple catastrophic risks for just about any of them.

If you think it's good enough for NOLA, why is it NOT a good decision for Los Angelenos about to be burned out of their homes?

If your argument IS logical it should be acceptable to generalize it to every city to which it applies.

There are plenty of hundred-year or less floodplains along rivers all around the country. It's not just the ocean that causes flooding. Frankly, NFIP is one of the best government programs created in the past 40 years.

If NFIP had been limited to existing properties it would have been wonderful. But what it did was open up a huge market for waterfront development because the flood insurance meant that banks would write mortgages on flood prone properties. And they did, and they did long before the hurricane build lines, 100 year flood plains, and coastal elevation laws were put into place. This is why you have million dollar waterfront homes all the way from Key West to Fire Island that are build too close to the water. Who cares if the government is going to put out cheap insurance and pick up the tab?

as I keep saying it's not just New Orleans.

I want any Topekans to come up out of their tornado shelters and tell me! But watch out if a derecho is coming -- those winds can literally be murder.

;-)

It has nothing to do with the fact that New Orleans is built on an alluvial plain that's partially below sea level and floods regularly.

:eyes:

:P

...but maybe some people have read our opposing views and been able to form their own conclusions...

:hi:

:D

But that a completely different issue :)

if New Orleans were 100% white I'd still think they were foolish to live there.

Race isn't the issue, poor decisions are.

the residents of Bayou LaBatrie or Grand Isle LA?

It's easy to make hypothetical claims like you just did when you know they will never happen but the truth is the truth and the blamers are just engaging in code word racism.

on the coast, where hurricanes are a regular occurrence.

Yes disasters happen everywhere, but not in the same numbers or degree.

My concerns, beyond the usual for fellow citizens, are in the cost of rebuilding. We are paying so a few people can live in a very poorly chosen spot.

Is the culture really so fragile that moving the city inland and reducing its size would destroy it? I find that hard to believe. Many have maintained their culture through far worse traumas.

at the time it was chosen it was ACTUALLY an IDEAL spot - high ground above sea level that didn't require sailing a sailing ship up a strong current river.

EVERY place has some risk or another - should we abandon every coastal city on the eastern seaboard? Any one of them could be obliterated by EITHER a tsunami OR a hurricane.

Should we abandon Los Angeles because it is prone to wild fires, mudslides and earth quakes?

Should we abandon Portland Oregon because it sits in the shadow of Mt. Rainer?

Do you think that only California can have earthquakes? Ever heard of the New Madrid fault? or the 1886 quake in Charleston S.C.?

Ever hear of the super tornado outbreaks of 1974 and 2008 that struck throughout the heartland?

Hey I've got it, lets all move into the NORAD bunker in the mountain so we can claim that we're safe.

:eyes:

"at the time".

They didn't have much choice "at the time".

Look up what happened with galveston in the 1900 hurricane, and how the state of texas dealt with it.

I thought this was a site for progressives? Saying we should keep to a failed policy because that's they way your grandparents did it and dangit, if it's good enough for them it's good enough for me, doesn't seem very progressive. Sounds more like . . . what's that other word? Means keeping things they way they are because you don't like change? Being hostile to the notion of change, even if it's demonstratively for the better? Man, I wish I could remember it. . .

:eyes:

New Orleans is STILL an ideal place to put a port whether you are too dumb to realize it or not.

they built the ship channel and the city was greatly reduced in size, as houston replaced it.


Again, you speak from ignorance.

And unless you're saying people from Louisiana are too ignorant/lazy to build and maintain their own ship channels I don't see why the same wouldn't work for them. Personally I think they can do it. Why do you have so little faith in the people of this state?

Saying that Houston "replaced" it doesn't mean that Galveston disappeared.

You are the one with no faith in the people of Lousiana.

find where I said it was abandoned.

Go on do it.

You pointed to Galveston in 1900 as a defense of your argument for abandoning New Orleans - the only logical inference to draw from that is that you believed that they abandoned Galveston and we should do likewise in New Orleans.

My fault really, making the mistake of assuming that you used logic to make your arguments.

Doug D.

Here I thought I'd been saying we should keep the valuable parts, reduce the rest in size and possibly build it on higher land.

Reduce =! destroy.

Your reading comprehension is really your Achilles heel isn't it?

Of course if you could find where I argued for abandoning the city entirely and leaving it uninhabited . . . ?

No, of course not.

You pointed to Galveston in 1900 as a defense of your argument for abandoning New Orleans - the only logical inference to draw from that is that you believed that they abandoned Galveston and we should do likewise in New Orleans.

My fault really, making the mistake of assuming that you used logic to make your arguments.

Doug D.

Mouth of the Mississippi...GREAT commerce potential...

...except for a few geological issues that made it (and continue to make it) a nightmare.

before deciding that the crescent in the river was the best spot to build.

saying that living in a bowl on the coast, in hurricane alley is a bad idea is racist.

At least according to some around here.

and reasoned arguments. You've resorted to lies and false accusations.

That would suggest you should leave and educate yourself.

area but you act high and mighty about others and think you are better than them.

I STARTED this thread with the FACTS as BOTH the Federal Government AND the Red Cross have determined them: NOBODY is safe from natural disasters and only a fool thinks otherwise.

I DEMONSTRATED that your OWN HOME TOWN OF BRYAN TEXAS is a high risk for hurricanes, tornadoes and hail so don't choke on that fact buddy.

you said it was at a greater risk for things your own source said it was a lower risk for.

And of course anyone can see how ludicrous your belief is that Bryan texas is at the exact same risk of devastating natural disaster requiring FEMA aid as NOLA. Check out home insurance rates, they are not uniform from city to city.
Why do you suppose that is?

You assume that people actively "choose" to live somewhere?

Most people don't.

They live where they can - not where they want to live.

They live where they can afford the housing and find a job.


:eyes:

I didn't realize things had gotten so bad.

And there are literally no places cheaper to live than NOLA? Must be a new thing, I didn't notice it being that cheap when I was there.

A lot of the residents live in abject poverty and can't buy even a bus ticket much less a car.

:eyes:

that isn't a small minority, nope. All are too poor to move.

really have no prospects elsewhere unless the government is going to provide them.

there are no such things as welfare or subsidized housing in any other city. Somehow they won the lottery and the government decided they would get all the federal funds to help the poor, and every other city would get nothing.

The government doesn't pay to relocate you to another city and you aren't going to get aid simply because you got on a bus and moved to another town.

You clearly aren't poor and don't know any poor people.

:eyes:

of people in NOLA are too poor to move away.

Besides which, many have left at this point (evacuated by the government). What you are proposing is moving them back in, which costs money.

living in a bowl that sits below sea level, on the coast, in an area prone to hurricanes, in a city that has done a poor job maintaining its levies, is not the same as living in topeka.

There's a reason home owners insurance are different in different areas. It isn't because the insurance companies are racist, they aren't. They only color they care about is green and they knew people in certain areas are more likely to have their homes destroyed than others.

Saying accidents can happen anywhere is not the same as saying they are equally likely to happen anywhere.

EVERY place has risks and they are ALL devastating and in fact you are more not less likely to be a victim of a tornado than of a hurricane simply because there are so many more tornados than hurricanes (100x more). You really don't know what you are talking about and are simply engaging in more "blaming" without any real facts.

I will pick a place in the US (up to me), and you get NOLA.

If they have the exact same level of devastation every year (human and material losses) then you win.

If NOLAs is greater then I win.

You want to take that bet? You claim everywhere is the same, no place is more prone to disasters than other, so it ought to be an easy bet for you to win.

What are the risks where YOU live and why are YOU so damned arrogant about other people's misery?

I really doubt that where YOU live is any more safe.

You think that natural disasters are the ONLY risk? I can find lots of man made disasters that can happen too. Do you live next to a refinery or chemcial plant? How about downstream from a dam?

:eyes:

I live in Bryan Texas. We don't have hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes or wildfires. No dams or refineries to worry about.

Our major natural disaster is drought, and bad drivers represent the largest extent of manmade disasters.

"I really doubt that where YOU live is any more safe."

If that were the case you'd be eager to take my bet.

I'm not sure why you are so offended by statistics. It's not a personal judgment to say NOLA gets more hurricanes than say, montreal. It is a personal judgment to say it's not wise to live below sea level and get pummeled by hurricanes, but once you accept that first bit you'd have to agree.

Quick question, do you really believe NOLA is no more prone to disaster than any other point on earth, or are you just having fun with this?

:rofl:

http://www.clrsearch.com/RSS/Demographics/TX/Bryan/Weather_Index

http://www.clrsearch.com/RSS/Demographic?state_id=63489&city_id=59749&place=Bryan&state=Texas&chart=weatherdis

According to this you live in a much above average risk area for hurricanes, hail, AND tornadoes.

Stop acting all high and mighty - some day a New Orleanian might be at the other end of the helicopter winch pulling YOUR butt out of trouble. Do you think that you are really THAT far from the Gulf? :rofl:

:eyes:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Bryan+TX&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&split=0&gl=us&ei=rUacSuOROKOc8QaSse2qBQ&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=title&resnum=1

than disaster. We're well below average on tornadoes and earthquakes. And by the point hurricanes get here they've mostly dissipated to the point of being essentially a lot of rain. You speak from ignorance.

Now if you could find a similiar chart looking at FEMA funding for bryan vs NOLA disasters? Even taking in to account size difference I imagine we get less money per person than NOLA.

That could be another bet that I'm guaranteed to win.

and you have just gotten lucky so far on hurricanes if you think you are really safe from them.

Opel in 1994 penetrated hundreds of miles inlad as did Camille in 1969. You live about 100 miles inland, not.a.big.deal. to a big storm. CAT4 Charley traveled from Punta Gorda clear through Orlando and out the other coast in 2004 - had it hit Houston it would have easily made it to Bryan.

The only person speaking in ignorance here is you.

I said we were below average in tornados and earthquakes (not hurricanes as you have falsely claimed). And according to the source you presented that is true. Unless you are saying your source is wrong, in which case why present it?

Go back and check that chart, they have national average on there as well. Check and then come back.

So basically you made a false statement that you had the information in your possession to be aware that it was false.

You are WRONG about tornadoes and right about earthquakes and my source backs me and discredits YOU.

I'm sorry if you can't read a simple graph.

:eyes:

which I've been generous enough to accept we are below average in earthquakes and tornados.


Find someone else, have them show you the graph and explain what it means, as you seem confused and there is little more I can do to help you without being in physical proximity.

You do realize the predicament you're in don't you? You have to prove that Bryan texas is at as great a risk of devastating natural disasters as new orleans.

You seem obsessed with this idea that ever point on the globe receives exactly the same amount of natural disasters, an idea clearly contradicted by reality . And frankly, a bizarre thing to obsess over.

NOLA is in hurricane alley, fact. It is largely below sea level and dependent on failing levies to protect it, fact. It is downstream of a major river/lake that could easily accumulate water and flood the city, fact. This has happened many times in the past, fact.

That's why the flood's called the federal flood by NOLA bloggers.

and state involvement also with a state/local/federal cost sharing arrangement but the heavy lifting is usually done by the Army Corps of Engineers.

it is a mixed venture. The state is responsible for some of it.

because it's true...no area is safe from natural disasters.

A couple of years ago I thought living in the hilltowns would keep us safe from flooding. Hah. We had snow on the ground and got lots of rain one year in March. The ground beneath was frozen, and the curtain drain around the house failed. The rec room beneath the bedroom got flooded.

Also...we may not get many tornadoes or hurricanes up here, but we're not immune from stuff like ICE STORMS...as we found out last December. Trapped in our home for nearly four days with a generator that didn't want to work. Lucky Mr Pip had some sort of converter thing that he hooked up to the Ford Escape and ran it constantly for nearly the whole time for heat (pellet stove), water (well pump), and basic electricity.

No place is safe...

apparently sitting on the fault line that will take Seattle down. GOD I miss New Orleans!

This guy JayQ seems to think he's immune to disasters and it's all our fault for living in the world wide disaster zone outside of Bryan Texas..


:eyes:

:rofl:

I'm not a big fan of Seattle, but I wouldn't miss New Orleans in August unless I was algae.

I've seen it burn many times, naturally and otherwise. In a moment, I will go check my email to see how many people I know there are currently evacuated. Last time I visited Malibu, ash was falling like rain. Earthquakes have taken out major buildings and transportation elements three times in my lifetime, twice in the Bay area, making 5 times in portion of a life that major CA cities have been wrecked. SF in 1906, of course, was destroyed. And rebuilt. Some would say foolishly rebuilt. My Aunt had a department store fall on her in Bakersfield in an earthquake long before I was born.
People have a different standard for New Orleans, clearly, than they do for SF and Los Angeles and CA as a whole.

Where are you from? Where do you live? What is your favorite color? Where I have been and not been has nothing to do with my post.
And of course I have been to NOLA.

Mt. St. Helens and Mt. Rainer are among several volcanoes in the Northwest.

If Yellowstone's caldera goes, goodbye to much of the Western U.S.

If the earth got hit by a massive comet or meteorite and nearly all life got wiped out, I can imagine some being on another planet seeing it through a super telescope and saying, "Well, the idiots...what the hell did they expect???"


:7

I personally also live on a creek, so flooding is not out of the question, although probably not life threatening. People on the coast nearby have tsumanis to think of as well. Earthquakes here are less frequent than L.A. but it only takes the one you are in to matter, and we have major potential for quakes. As do many places in the country, including NYC and Memphis, a city with a major quake in recorded history.
I have piles of friends in emergency management, so I am pretty up on the various deaths that hang over the heads of various places in the country. For that matter I've been through several major quakes, hurricanes in two states, lots of fires (friends currently under mandatory evacuation-2) and I've been on site after major flooding in a couple different places. Saw Mt St Helen's shortly after the ash stopped falling for that matter.
This is Earth. No one is safe. Everyplace is dangerous. Now relax, and enjoy!

I'm not a huge fan of Los Angeles, but it does have redeeming qualities. I really can't see any reason to rebuild New Orleans. Why? To preserve a famous bar district?

no less risk than N.O.

in some ways New Orleans is at less risk than California - at least we know when a hurricane is approaching, we still can't predict when the big earthquake will hit California.

Or as we like to call them... "the weekend"..

:P

Actually, of those Jeanne was the worst for us.

Where are you from? Where do you live, if that is not the same place? Have you been to Amsterdam? To Venice?
You asked, I answered, I asked, you make silly comments about Los Angeles. Waste of my time.

She has many historic buildings and a unique culture and ambiance not found in other places in this country. Plus a vital port.

While disaster can strike anywhere, disaster risk is not equal in all places, nor are all places equally suited to safely housing a large city.

For example, I live in Sacramento. We have two largish rivers flowing through town, we're situated in a valley at the foot of a mountain range that routinely gets many feet of snow in winter and then often has a rapid melt when things warm up. Our flood risk is simply outrageous in some parts of the area- some of them probably should not be occupied, even with flood control measures, such as Natomas (development in that area scares the hell out of me, especially when I'm driving on the levee road and looking down at three story apartment buildings. The residents of those buildings must have much greater faith in the Army Corps of Engineers than I do.) Apparently the feds agree, there was a moratorium instituted on further housing construction in that region some time ago, though since it was neatly timed with the slowdown there wasn't much prospect of further construction anyhow.

It is not unreasonable to say that some areas are not good candidates for housing of any density due to floor risk. Nobody with a lick of sense is saying New Orleans should be abandoned entirely. Nor could they, the port is too important. But saying that some areas are simply not defensible in the case of a flood is wise, if that is indeed the case, and provisions should be made to move residents out of areas which can not practically be made safe. That was done in at least one part of my region, back in the nineties the feds paid some residents of a flood-prone street near a creek in Rio Linda to move rather than rebuild after yet another flood, though I don't think all of them took the offer (since you think that this idea of reducing flood risk has a racial angle, I should point out that the area involved in that case is almost entirely Anglo.)

If we can do that here, telling people to stop building in flood-prone areas (they never should have started, but development money tends to trump sense) and moving people out of areas that can't be made safe, there's no reason not to do the same on the gulf coast. For one thing, their risk of sudden flooding is much greater than ours, since our potential floodwaters are predictable results of seasonal rain and seasonal snow melt, which can be seen coming and hopefully controlled to some extent by our dams as well as our levees, while the risk in the gulf is from hurricanes and storm surge, which are much faster, harder to predict and more difficult to mitigate even when the system works perfectly, since storm surge and wind-driven waves can batter both sides of a levee, increasing the risk of failure due to erosion far beyond that in our seasonal flooding.