Screwy FEMA Numbers

Highlights as of 1 p.m., Sept. 6, 2005, of the federal rescue effort

Highlights as of 1 p.m., Sept. 6, 2005, of the federal rescue effort in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, according to information released by the Department of Homeland Security.

Rescues performed 32,000

Shelters 559

People housed in shelters 182,000

FEMA responders 7,000

U.S. Coast Guard personnel 4,000

National Guard personnel 43,000

Active Duty Military 15,000

MREs provided (meals) 11.3 million

Water provided (liters) 18 million

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security

I actually pulled this from Breitbart.com (link provided above). The article, by the Associated Press, (or perhaps Breibart), titles the article...."More Than 182,000 People Rescued".

You will note that only 32,000 rescues were performed! Sloppy...

Next, look at the MRE numbers. Now, I'm not mathematician, so I'd like someone to check my numbers...

Here's the problem:

How could that many MREs really have been provided????

First, let's assume in favor of these statistics that FEMA provided MREs not just to those in shelters but also to the FEMA responders, U.S. Coast Guard personnel, National Guard personnel, and Active Duty Military.

The total number of individuals is 251,000.

Next, assume 3 MREs per day per person. The number required per day would be 753,000

Ok, now let's take the 11.3 million number above and divide by the 753,000 MREs needed per day and you get 15 DAYS!

Wait a minute! The storm only made landfall on Monday, August 29th. The statistics provided are through 1 p.m., Sept. 6, 2005. Giving FEMA's statistics the benefit of full calender days, that is only 9 days! According to the math, is roughly 4.5 million more MREs than should have been required.

If you take into account that there is no way FEMA can claim to have provided 11.3 million MREs from the day of landfall (they, along with much of the rest of the personnel cited above, weren't even arguably there until September 1, therefore at best making it only 6 days for the calculations), the numbers obviously get worse. Additionally, can we really assume that it was required that FEMA provide MREs to all of their own responders, U.S. Coast Guard personnel, National Guard personnel, and Active Duty Military. I think not.

The math on the water comes out the same.....

If you can't trust the MRE numbers, can you really trust all the others?

This is PURE HOGWASH!!!


[edit on 7-9-2005 by loam]

Provided does not mean consumed...

you're assuming they mean that all the MRE's in thier numbers have been consumed...

These MRE's are probably there ready for distribution....

who cares how many anyway... just feed the people ....

Provided to whom????

The obvious implication of the term is that those who needed it, got it. IMO this is an intentional obfuscation of the thruth. FEMA knows that "provided" will be interpreted by the public and the media in that way.

Let me remind everyone, that one of the primary concerns of FEMA in all of this was to "convey a positive image" about the government's response for victims.

Can you honestly believe that is not the purpose of these statistics????


[edit on 7-9-2005 by loam]

Administration's figures on response don't appear to add up

Looks like others are questioning the stats they are seeing from the government. Interesting...

Keep at it loam. Great work!


...Provided but not consumed?

Ahhh. But paid for with tax payer dollars anyway. Gotcha. Just feed the people and charge triple, or what was that loam, a hundredfold plus?

Consumption Proviso

My guess on this is:

If I give you ten MREs, I have provided them to you.

If you eat five of them, you have consumed them.

If you keep the other five, maybe you won't go hungry for a couple of days.

I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that people are being provided more MREs than they can eat right that minute.

In fact, if FEMA is not handing out extra rations, that would itself be a source of complaint, because then people almost certainly would go hungry.

I don't know what the actual deal is with all this, so I wouldn't mind seeing some clarification. Without clarification, though, only assumptions are possible, and assumptions have a remarkable tendency to be wrong.

Questioning the numbers is reasonable. Drawing false conclusions about them, however, is not.