Aid Collections For New Orleans and Rest Of Southeastern USA

[mrmitchell]

But this should spur the debate, should people even live in areas that are prone to be destroyed durring hurricanes?

Yes...

from earthquakes in California, to wildfires in the mountain ranges, to tornados in the southwest, blizzards in the midwest, to hurricanes in the southeast, to New Jerseyites in the northeast--every part of the nation faces some danger from something.

[Jack_www]

if you notice I did not say if it will get hit by a dissaster, but if one hit how much damage would occur. For example New Orleans is below sea level, why would you put a city in a area below sea level and that is prone to hurricanes. That is plain stupid.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Jack_www
if you notice I did not say if it will get hit by a dissaster, but if one hit how much damage would occur. For example New Orleans is below sea level, why would you put a city in a area below sea level and that is prone to hurricanes. That is plain stupid.

Yes. If only the 16th-century French had remembered to bring their Doppler radar technology to the New World...

[Jack_www]

You dont need doppler radder to know if an area gets hit by hurricanes. Also that area has been hit by hurricanes in the past, but people decided to stay and rebluid.

[Imran Siddiqui]

California gets hit by earthquakes, but those bastards deserve it because they decide to stay and rebuild

[Sava]

no California deserves it for many other reasons

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Jack_www
You dont need doppler radder to know if an area gets hit by hurricanes. Also that area has been hit by hurricanes in the past, but people decided to stay and rebluid.

Obviously because in the middle of the 1500's -- and for hundreds of years thereafter, arguably up to the present -- the benefit of controlling the mouth of the Mississippi far outweighed the cost of weathering hurricaines. Duh.

[Berzerker]

http://www.redcross.org/donate/donate.html

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
California gets hit by earthquakes, but those bastards deserve it because they decide to stay and rebuild

I am not saying that at all. I am just saying that maybe people should consider whether it is worth it to conitnue to live in New Orleans.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Jack_www


I am not saying that at all. I am just saying that msybe people should consider weather it is worth it to conitnue to live in New Orleans.

pun intended?

[Jack_www]

no that was a miss spell

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Jack_www
I am not saying that at all. I am just saying that msybe people should consider weather it is worth it to conitnue to live in New Orleans.

Ditto for California. When the BIG ONE comes, it'll be far worse than this.

[Sava]

jack: not a missus? mrs.?

edit: %&#&#$ imran xpost #$%@#$

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jack_www
You dont need doppler radder to know if an area gets hit by hurricanes. Also that area has been hit by hurricanes in the past, but people decided to stay and rebluid.

Very often it has something to do with Risk Analysis.

There is a chance of something bad happening to some place at all times. If nothing else, meteors can strike anywhere.

The thing is then to see how big a chance of something bad is going to happen, and how much is it going to cost to fix the damage. For example, the Boxing Day Tsunami is terrible, but it's something you probably don't see once every century.

You then see what your estimation is, as compared to how much it will cost for you to completely uproot yourself and go somewhere else. You will find the latter is usually much bigger. Even today in the US, many people aren't really mobile.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Jack_www


I am not saying that at all. I am just saying that maybe people should consider whether it is worth it to conitnue to live in New Orleans.

Why do you think people aren't considering that? Of course they are. Some will leave, because they can't take it any more. Most will stay, because a psychological attachment to home is more important than the losses they sustained. But everyone will consider it. They may not come to decisions you would agree with, but their decisions will be considered ones.

I remember during the Mississippi flood of 1993, people who had f*ck-all to begin with, and lost even that, moved right back to the floodplain when the waters receded. Why? Because there families had lived on that land for generations. I've never had that kind of sentimental attachment to place, but I can't say that it's not a considered reason to act as they did.