It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Orleans Sinking Faster Than Thought

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2006 @ 09:46 PM
link   





New Orleans Sinking Faster Than Thought

Everyone has known New Orleans is a sinking city. Now new research suggests parts of the city are sinking even faster than many scientists imagined _ more than an inch a year.

That may explain some of the levee failures during Hurricane Katrina and it raises more worries about the future.

The research, reported in the journal Nature, is based on new satellite radar data for the three years before Katrina struck in The data show that some areas are sinking four or five times faster than the rest of the city. And that, experts say, can be deadly.

"My concern is the very low-lying areas," said lead author Tim Dixon, a University of Miami geophysicist. "I think those areas are death traps. I don't think those areas should be rebuilt."

More...



An excellent read!

Puts yet another dimension on the whole affair....

[edit on 31-5-2006 by loam]




posted on May, 31 2006 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Ive said it once Ill say it again. The entire city should be relocated to save lives and yes save money in the long term.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   
I completely agree.... which of course was ALSO the reason why I was so against the pumping of the city in the first place. In the end, they will do exactly what we advocate because reality will leave them little choice, imo.

[edit on 31-5-2006 by loam]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 11:07 PM
link   
The ground upon which New Orleans was built is a delta, its loose sediment that's piled up as the Mississippi hits the Gulf of Mexico, the water slows down, and the largerish particles fall out of being carried and are deposited. They're loose. THerefore, they compact, and the whole region subsides. BUT, normally this is matched by the up-building from new incoming sediment. Then people decided that the river was dangerous, so they built levees on its banks. It's course couldn't meander about the delta year by year, and it couldn't deposit sediment. So the delta material that is there is compacting and thus subsiding.


So no matter what anyone does, New Orleans is going to be destroyed. Hell, if we keep rebuilding it like we are, then it's going to be destroyed by hurricane, just like with Katrina, a few more times before it sinks permanently into the Ocean, like Venice.



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   
...and policy (or should I say politics?) of the short term seems the only type we are capable of...

:shk:

What a ridiculous waste....financially and environmentally...



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 11:50 PM
link   
Well you have to consider, many Americans are simply dolts. They can only react, and only react with their emotions are played up on. Sensible discussion and rational plans are completely rejected. Katrina really is a good example. Anti-bush people foamed at the mouth at him, pro-bush people practically wanted to execute anyone in NO that wasn't holding a candlelight vigil for bush's poll ratings.

The reality of it was, poor planning, on the federal level, but the bulk of that responsibility really resided with the residents of new orleans, the mayor, and the governor of the state. But after some cathartic 'bush bashing' (as they call it), people re-elected Nagin. *smacks forehead*

And when they rebuild the levees to withstand a Cat 3 hurricane, and a Cat 4 or 5 inevitably hits it and floods the city, again, people will freak out, again, rebuild, again, etc etc etc.And then the city will have sunk so low that they won't be able to pump the water out anymore, and they'll have mardi gras with floats that actually, well, float.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
The reality of it was, poor planning, on the federal level, but the bulk of that responsibility really resided with the residents of new orleans, the mayor, and the governor of the state. But after some cathartic 'bush bashing' (as they call it), people re-elected Nagin. *smacks forehead*


It is very hard even to reply to this without a tumult of emotions pouring out instead. I'm very interested in what you said though. You do realize that Nagin was a Republican, but ran the Democrat ticket knowing that was his only way to win. What you also may not realize is that the main part of his votes came from "uptown" which in your book, I suppose may be "under water" for all you care. I digress, and that's a little emotional, but I'm keeping it. Uptown voters are majority white Republicans, that voted for Nagin the second time around.

Apparently you also have never been to New Orleans, and I'm sure if you have, you saw the whole city (Isn't the French Quarter lovely?) There are many parts of this city, some safer than others. I love how an article was taken so out of context by the same ones that will accuse the "ultra liberals" of taking things out of context. The article, which was on the front page of my paper today, I doubt it was on yours, says that some of the city is sinking, not all of it. I suggest that you read some more up on the geography of this area before making such blind assumptions on the whole area.

I could have sworn that we were told not to bring politics into conversations like this, so why is it that a mod is doing exactly that?

BTW, you should read the thread about the Artic supposedly being like Florida at one point, because that's the next area we should nix. By your (il)logic there will be permafrost by dawn's break.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
....And then the city will have sunk so low that they won't be able to pump the water out anymore, and they'll have mardi gras with floats that actually, well, float.


Then perhaps the new plan should contemplate that life preservers, rather than plastic beads, are tossed from the floats to the masses.


You can never plan too early.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Ive said it once Ill say it again. The entire city should be relocated to save lives and yes save money in the long term.


As I have said, and I'm saying it again, you move the city, and you lose the city. The city's base is it's history. I don't see how hard that is for you to understand. Posts like this make it really easy for me to see how much this country has truly lost.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Maybe we should think about getting rid of most of the Netherlands while we are at it, Most of that country is below sea level.

Those crafty Dutch know how to keep a ocean back unlike us in the US it would seem.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 10:17 AM
link   
I find it very sad


But are the citizens, who have spent most of their lives there, willing to get up and move to another location?

how much is the rebuilding going to cost and how much is it to move to another location?



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by niteboy82
As I have said, and I'm saying it again, you move the city, and you lose the city.


Why not move the buildings with the people? It's been done before, but not on a scale of an entire city, granted.


Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Those crafty Dutch know how to keep a ocean back unlike us in the US it would seem.


Also, keep in mind that fjords are a lot different than river deltas. That would no doubt play into the capabilities of doing it.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Grow gills or move. Pretty simple choice.



posted on Jun, 4 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Slightly, slightly off-topic... but how much will a "Move New Orleans" project cost and who will pay for it?



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by imbalanced
Grow gills or move. Pretty simple choice.


Get a grip, are you even from the U.S.? Grow gills or move, like I requested from everyone, and obviously not every person bothered to do, apparently we can't comprehend that the whole city does not share the topographic area, but DUH. Give me a break, if you don't feel like learning about the area, and only taking the "9th Ward feel of geography," for your knowledge, then you don't, in my opinion, deserve a voice in the debate, if you are not willing to be objective at all.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:18 AM
link   
L.A. is sinking also, but im sure we will have to wait for an earthquake to sink a few portions of it for people to realize it. Telling people to relocate isnt that easy, its home for a lot of people, they know the area, and they consider it as much a part of them, as their physical belongings which can simply be moved.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:27 AM
link   
If I was from New Orleans like you I would of moved. You want to stick around for the next cat 5, feel free.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Imbalanced, then with your logic it is the peoples fault, who are caught in tornados and lose their home for living there? Perhaps its also peoples fault when they lose their homes due to an earthquake? Weather happens, and no one is happy when it wrecks their home, however this is about the area sinking, due to it floating on a bubble of water basicly, not the hurricanes. Its actualy pretty obvious that this will happen, the crust is moving, and it rotates, pushing the old pieces back into the ground as new spots creep up, its just the way the crust rotates. I do feel bad for the people living there, and I honestly would move if I lived there, but you cant blame them for not moving, when its been there home and their families home for generations.



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by niteboy82
You do realize that Nagin was a Republican, but ran the Democrat ticket knowing that was his only way to win.

Interesting, i didn't know that. But don't let my noticing of the 'bush bashing' as they call it, mislead you into thinking I am particularly concerned with party affiliation.


Uptown voters are majority white Republicans, that voted for Nagin the second time around.

Then they're dolts. You can't vote back in a guy who was in charge when the city was destroyed because of a failure in its physical infrastructure. When something like that happens, its time to 'clean house'. I can understand wanting to 'stand strong' and stay your ground, but at a certain point, sheer common sense has to take over.

Apparently you also have never been to New Orleans
Nope, never have. Its unfortunate that I missed the oppurtunity to see it before the city was destroyed. What does that have to do with the rate of subsidence of delta sediments???


says that some of the city is sinking, not all of it. I suggest that you read some more up on the geography of this area before making such blind assumptions on the whole area.

I think you fail to understand that the delta is made up of uncompacted sediment that is dumped out by the Mississippi as it pours into the Gulf of Mexico. Along its channels, these loose sediments are deposited. The weight of the overlying sediments, and the physical structure of the city itself, causes compaction, this means that the ground level will drop. In a normal situation, the river is still free to meander about the delta and deposit sediment. Thus the rate of new sediment being dumped (and 'rise' in ground level), is met and matched by the compaction of older sediment (the sinking), and ground level stays pretty much the same.
However, because its a nuisance to have a river that meanders over a delta through time, and that moves into new channels and periodically floods, within a city, it was decided that the river needed artificial levees and even in some portions to have an artificial channel constructed, thus containing it, and preventing movement and flooding.
So now there is no 'rising' to nullify the sinking, and the city, overall, is going to sink. It doesn't matter much that some parts are sinking slower and faster than others, or that some sections are on sediment that isn't subsiding. Its not 'ultra-liberal' or 'conservative' to note that the city, overall, is sinking, and will, ultimately, be destroyed by it.


I could have sworn that we were told not to bring politics into conversations like this, so why is it that a mod is doing exactly that?

How have I brought uncessary political labels into this? I have specifically stated that the people are at fault because they have allowed a simple matter such as the maintenance of levees become a politicized issue.



By your (il)logic there will be permafrost by dawn's break.

What in the world are you talking about? Where is the illogic in recognizing that the delta is loose unconsolidated sediment that is being compacted????


The city's base is it's history. I don't see how hard that is for you to understand.

I don't see how its hard to understand that a city that is below sea level and on a delta is in extreme risk of being destroyed by the sea. Heck, it just happened, so, really, how difficult is this? Katrina caused the city to be flooded and wrecked. Go ahead, rebuild those levees, it doesn't matter, its going to happen again.


you move the city, and you lose the city.

New Orleans has already been destroyed, its already, effectively, been lost. And, yes, I think we all realize that if you relocate the city, its not 'really' New Orleans anymore.
Such is life. Cities die, new cities are born. Cities that are on sinking ground, on the coast, and below sea level, they tend to get wiped out.


firebat
but how much will a "Move New Orleans" project cost and who will pay for it?

Anything that has to be rebuilt on the delta could be rebuilt more inland. As far as who pays for it, maybe no one pays for it. Maybe no one pays for anything, maybe we just don't use federal and state funds to rebuild a city that we know is going to experience the exact same devastation, perhaps within a year of completing the rebuilding, perhaps in the middle of the rebuilding. The city can just be left to die, and anyone that is nutty enough to sink their money into rebuilding any of the homes or businesses is welcome to it, but the rest of the country probably shouldn't engage in some national effort to restore it.


caseysmind
Telling people to relocate isnt that easy

Thats why its probably not going to work, to say, 'we wil recreate your city, but a few miles inland'. Let the market dictate the location, let the people that have some sense move out of new orleans with what they have left, and move into a town or city more inland. Just pull the plug on any federal programme to restore New Orleans, and let it die quitely on its own. And if peopel are foolish enough to return to it, and rebuild on their own, then let them, and the process will continue, on and on, until there isn't much left of the 'city' except for a few neighborhoods seperated by water.


who are caught in tornados and lose their home for living there?

Heck yeah. Anyone that lives in a place called 'Tornado Alley' and doesn't spend the money for a hurricane resistant home is a fool.

its also peoples fault when they lose their homes due to an earthquake?

Of course it is, fault lines are known.

Weather happens

And in some places it happens regularly and predictably.

but you cant blame them for not moving, when its been there home and their families home for generations.

Yes you can. Letting sentiment get in the way of your families actually being alive is pretty stupid. Staying on a ranch on the fault lines, or in an old house that is constantly battered, season after season, with hurricanes, is pretty god-damned stupid. Move. Its not easy, and its costly, but it costs less to move than to bury half your family or rebuild your house every couple of years.


[edited to correct incorrect attribution -nygdan]

[edit on 5-6-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Jun, 5 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   
Nygdan,


thanks for excellent piece, with facts, logic and the works.

I agree that New Orelans is already lost. Let's try to preserve its history and artifacts, move a few historical landmark buildings to dry land, and dynamite the rest.

How many lives were already lost? Why are some people bent on risking thousands more to just keep the French Quarter going? Why should the country pour money into this bottomless quick sands?

Get over it, and get on with life.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join