California vs. New Orleans.

[ImaginalDisc]

First, I am very glad that the response to the wildfires in California has been swift and well executed. However, I've heard unflattering comparisons between the emergency response to these fires and the emergency response to hurricane Katrina. Obviously, there are huge differences in what can be done in a hurricane and what can be done about a wildfire.

Do you think it's fair to compare the response to this disaster on the West Coast to the disaster in the Gulf Coast?

[DouglasL]

I do not believe it is a fair comparison. People can and do fight wild fires, but there is not much a person can do to fight (or limit) a hurricane. Cleaning up the aftermath is about the same though.

[Lisa Simpson]

Not at all. San Diego (and various points north) were never cut off from help. New Orleans was. At the very least San Diegans could get help via the harbor.

[Darat]

I think there can be comparisons made e.g. how has the emergency organisation itself reacted (FERMA isn't it) so you can compare that to how it reacted after the New Orleans tragedy and see if it's better, worse the same and so on.

I do agree however that there aren't many like for like comparisons regarding the actual tasks that they can undertake. For instance there is a huge difference in shipping in supplies to a refuge area that has road access from a major conurbation compared to doing the same when the refuge area itself is cut off from road access.

[ponderingturtle]

Not at all. San Diego (and various points north) were never cut off from help. New Orleans was. At the very least San Diegans could get help via the harbor.

Also you can react to changes in scale of the fire much more effectively as the dammage would be caused over a longer period of time.

[richardm]

Irrespective of the actual disaster, it occurred to me a day or two ago that this can be a lose-lose situation depending on how you spin it:

California Response was effective - "Oho, so you can be effective when it's rich white people and celebrities, eh? Swine!"
California Response was ineffective - "So you have learned nothing from Katrina? Idiots!"

A more charitable view would, of course, to be to suggest that the people in charge of these things took one look at the mess made at New Orleans and resolved never to make those mistakes again.

I daresay it may all be apples and oranges, mind.

[CosCos]

No comparison. I'm sure the lessons from Katrina contributed to the response time in CA.

[Lisa Simpson]

No comparison. I'm sure the lessons from Katrina contributed to the response time in CA.


I doubt that. We get brush fires every year. New Orleans doesn't get hurricanes every year. The lessons from Katrina may have helped in regards to what to do with all the evacuees crammed into Qualcomm Stadium.

[Fnord]

It's always fair to make comparisons. Even when the things compared have only superficial similarities.

- Apples and Oranges (Fruit)
- New Orleans and San Diego (Cities)
- Protestant Reformation and the Rennaissance (Historical / Philosophical Events)
- Faith and Reason (Both assume that some form of Justice may be achieved)
- Hurricanes and Brushfires (Both destroy lives and property)
- Ouzo and Turpentine (They only taste the same)

IMHO, Southern California people seem to be better prepared for a disaster as individuals, while Southern Louisiana people seem to assume the greater responsibility for their survival belongs to someone else.

Of course, there are those who would blame the gummint for everything that goes wrong, while paying only lip service to each individual's responsibility for themselves.

When the first word comes to evacuate, leave! Don't wait for an engraved invitation or a stretch limo, don't expect to wait it out, and don't expect to be rescued at the very moment that your house is engulfed in flames or up to the eaves in floodwater! Get out while the gettin's good!

And if you even suspect that it might be a good idea to take a long trip when a hurricane may be heading your way, or when the Santa Ana winds might start blowing after a long dry spell, then just ****** do it!

If you're too stupid to leave while it's still safe to do so, then you have no-one to blame but yourself.

[ImaginalDisc]

And if you even suspect that it might be a good idea to take a long trip when a hurricane may be heading your way, or when the Santa Ana winds might start blowing after a long dry spell, then just ****** do it!

If you're too stupid to leave while it's still safe to do so, then you have no-one to blame but yourself.

Wow, it must be nice to be rich and carefree enough to drop everything and flee at the merest hint of a hurricane. There are often as many a dozen false alarms during the course of a hurricane season.

[CosCos]

I doubt that. We get brush fires every year. New Orleans doesn't get hurricanes every year. The lessons from Katrina may have helped in regards to what to do with all the evacuees crammed into Qualcomm Stadium.

I've lived in NOLA since 98, I can tell you that we've gotten a hurricane, or the threat of a hurricane, every single year since then. Keep in mind that "hurricane" does not equal "Katrina!"

That wasn't my point though.

I said the lessons from Katrina helped in the response time.

That is to say, we can't really tell if the response in California was "good" or "bad" compared to the response to Katrina because the Katrina debacle colored the response in California. Who's to say what the response would have been had Katrina never happened? Remember the mass evacuation from Houston for Rita? Do you think that would have occurred had Katrina not happened 3 weeks earlier? We can't judge these events in a vaccuum as they are colored by preceding events.

Aren't the evacuees in Qualcomm getting kicked out for this week's Chargers/Texans game?

[Lisa Simpson]

Um...this website (http://www.hurricanecity.com/city/neworleans.htm) said New Orleans had since '98:

1998 - tropical storm, 2002- 2 tropical storms, 2004 tropical storm and brush by, 2005 tropical storm, 2005 direct hit

That's hardly every year.

We have major brush fires every year. Most people evacuate when told to. Firefighters know how to fight brush fires. A better response comparison would be a large earthquake to Katrina.

[ImaginalDisc]

Um...this website (http://www.hurricanecity.com/city/neworleans.htm) said New Orleans had since '98:

1998 - tropical storm, 2002- 2 tropical storms, 2004 tropical storm and brush by, 2005 tropical storm, 2005 direct hit

That's hardly every year.

We have major brush fires every year. Most people evacuate when told to. Firefighters know how to fight brush fires. A better response comparison would be a large earthquake to Katrina.

I think it's fair to quibble on the point of "threat of a hurricane."

[fuelair]

I doubt that. We get brush fires every year. New Orleans doesn't get hurricanes every year. The lessons from Katrina may have helped in regards to what to do with all the evacuees crammed into Qualcomm Stadium.
The big thing that will be remembered by a number of us is that the Shrub engine lost no time at all in spinning fast relief to California vs. minimal relief to New Orleans (YET!!!) by blaming the Governor of Louisiana (only a coincidence that she was a democrat, I'm sure) for US govt doing so little there (though , oddly, they did a lot in Republic based Mississippi for the same Katrina). At the risk of Bushing this ("Godwinning" equivalent), Shrub is slime - democrat states can burn/flood whatever and get minimal help and lots of excuses, republic states get lot's of help and minimal excuses.:mad:

[CosCos]

Um...this website (http://www.hurricanecity.com/city/neworleans.htm) said New Orleans had since '98:

1998 - tropical storm, 2002- 2 tropical storms, 2004 tropical storm and brush by, 2005 tropical storm, 2005 direct hit

That's hardly every year.

We have major brush fires every year. Most people evacuate when told to. Firefighters know how to fight brush fires. A better response comparison would be a large earthquake to Katrina.

What, you just want to play a game of gotcha? That wasn't even my point and yet you continue to argue :rolleyes:

It's annoying when discussions on this board devolve into games of semantics, definitions, and nitpicks; which appears to be every single discussion lately. Once more, my point wasn't the hurricanes (or THREATS--as I made abundandtly clear many times), it was comparing response time in California to that in New Orleans per the original post. If you just want to argue over a nitpick to prove to yourself that you're right, I'm not interested. Get over yourself.

[Fnord]

It's annoying when discussions on this board devolve into games of semantics, definitions, and nitpicks; which appears to be every single discussion lately.


What's even more annoying is when intelligent, educated, and articulate people must resort to using facts to prove themselves right. It's those little details of reality that just seem to destroy the most well-felt out opinions and sacred generalizations.

:mad:

[CosCos]

The big thing that will be remembered by a number of us is that the Shrub engine lost no time at all in spinning fast relief to California vs. minimal relief to New Orleans (YET!!!) by blaming the Governor of Louisiana (only a coincidence that she was a democrat, I'm sure) for US govt doing so little there (though , oddly, they did a lot in Republic based Mississippi for the same Katrina). At the risk of Bushing this ("Godwinning" equivalent), Shrub is slime - democrat states can burn/flood whatever and get minimal help and lots of excuses, republic states get lot's of help and minimal excuses.:mad:

Yeah, let's just glaze over the fact that when the president offered federal help on monday aug 29, your favorite Democrat gov asked him to give her 24 hours to "think about it." Two can play the political game.

Having said that:

There were a lot of mistakes made in Katrina: individual, local, state, and federal. For people living here and having gone through the experience, nothing pisses us off more than seeing arrogant politicos such as yourself wrapping yourself in the Katrina banner and trying to score political points off of it, indeed making this a political game.

Since when are states deemed Rep or Dem based on the policital party of the governor anyway? I guess when it's convenient....let's forget that LA is primarily a "red" state (went to Bush in the last election) and CA is primarily a "blue" state (went to Kerry). I guess for your whole ridiculous argument to work you had to grasp at those straws!

Now that we have a Republican governor, I guess we'll get immediate federal help by your logic. Bring on Katrina II!!!

[CosCos]

What's even more annoying is when intelligent, educated, and articulate people must resort to using facts to prove themselves right. It's those little details of reality that just seem to destroy the most well-felt out opinions and sacred generalizations.

:mad:

quotemine much? let's try reading the whole thing the next time.

"Once more, my point wasn't the hurricanes (or THREATS--as I made abundandtly clear many times), it was comparing response time in California to that in New Orleans per the original post. If you just want to argue over a nitpick to prove to yourself that you're right, I'm not interested. Get over yourself."

[Fnord]

quotemine much?

No ... I've never quoted yours. At least, I don't remember ever having done so ...

:confused:

[Michael Redman]

Let's not forget what really happened with Katrina. It was not the hurricane, which had already passed, but the sudden flood as the levies failed that created the disaster in NO. It is not fair to use what happened to retroactively judge the decisions that people made beforehand. It is not as if the people were told the storm would flood the city, and they decided to stay anyway.

If Southern California suddenly found itself under water, no one would be complaining that the people who sought assistance were not sufficiently self reliant. When the next big earthquake hits, people are not generally going to scoff at requests for federal help, or ask why anyone would be stupid enough to live in Southern California in the first place.

[dudalb]

One major factor is that the Infrastucture in New Orleans was badly damaged by Katrina and the Levee breaks,but the Infrastucture in SoCal was pretty much intact.

[CosCos]

It is not as if the people were told the storm would flood the city, and they decided to stay anyway.

Believe it or not Michael that's exactly what people were told. It wasn't a big secret that NO is below sea level and it just needed "the one" to demolish it. I remember the sat night before the storm, our esteemed mayor came on TV and said he got a call from the Dir of the Hurr Center who told him that this was "the one." He said that we expect NO to be under water on Mon due to the storm surge (at that point Katrina was a cat5 heading straight up the mouth of the river). Nagin was very coy as he was reluctant to call a mandatory evacuation that night, but at the point it was clear the water was coming. The sad irony is that Katrina was not as bad as it could have been! Had it hit us directly as a cat5 (vs the last minute turn it took to the east; I think we only got cat2 maybe even cat1 winds here in NO proper) and the river itself had flooded, I wouldn't be typing this from this location!!

The problem is that people got complacent. We'd dodged so many bullets in the last few years that no one really believed it was going to happen even when it became painfully obvious that it was. Call it hubris or whatever but no one can say they didn't know it was going to happen!

[Learning Phase]

Having lived close to N.O. all my life, and having spent much time cleaning up the mess from hurricanes over the years, I doubt that anyone at all was unaware of New Orleans' danger from the levees. Even as a kid 75 miles away in Gulfport, we constantly heard about the dangers every year on T.V. during hurricane season. The warning was that if any decent storm came through close on the east side of N.O. it would be in a perfect spot to flood the city, and every year they worried about it.

Only the totally uninformed didn't know that N.O. was in danger. There was a plan to use city-owned buses to remove the people who didn't have means to escape, and it only required action to start the system. Mayor Nagin refused to start the evacuation even when it was clear that Katrina was close to the perfect storm for flooding N.O., and 1000 people died while the 750 buses got flooded in place. (Nearly enough buses for each person to get his/her own bus)

Yet someone voted that idiot back in.

The California fires of 2007, while very tragic, are a totally different ball game. Yes, it's unwise to build in an area that's proven to be prone to tremendous fires, but people have to live somewhere, just as in N.O. What's different about these fires is that the infrastructure hasn't been destroyed. In most parts of the area, roads are clear. The electricity and water are on, although it was turned off in neighborhoods that were losing pressure (plastic plumbing doesn't hold up too well in a fire). There are no flooded roads, stores are open in most areas, airports are open, and communications aren't down. There's simply no comparison to N.O., where all of this (and much more) was down.

[Alareth]

I grew up in Gulfport, MS. The devastation Katrina did along the Mississippi Gulf Coast far outstrips what happened to NO but whenever one of these discussions comes up people make it sound like NO was the only place hurt by Katrina.

It pisses me off to no end.

[athon]

Aren't there still people homeless in New Orleans? Aren't there still buildings in need of repair? Isn't there still buck-passing and delays on getting people back into accomodation?

I try hard to not be cynical, and admit my knowledge on both affairs is limited, but I feel it is completely fair to compare the clean-up and the social and accomodation management of both disasters. But from the media that comes out of the US, there appears to be a massive difference in the perceived efforts made by governing bodies towards San Diego and New Orleans.

Athon

[Hafast]

I grew up in Gulfport, MS. The devastation Katrina did along the Mississippi Gulf Coast far outstrips what happened to NO but whenever one of these discussions comes up people make it sound like NO was the only place hurt by Katrina.

It pisses me off to no end.

Thank you, Alareth! I've felt the same way. I was stationed in Biloxi when Katrina hit, and had to deal with the aftermath. It seemed that all anyone cared about was the devastation of New Orleans. For crying out loud, entire towns were wiped out on the MS coast. Not just flooded, but washed away. It's pissed me off, too. I was just back down in the area a few months ago to take a class in Biloxi, and while I was there drove over to N.O. While you could still tell that there had been major devastation to Biloxi, Gulfport, etc., the parts of N.O. that I saw seemed not different than before Katrina. Maybe I just didn't see the right areas, but I still believe the MS Gulf Coast took a lot more damage than New Orleans.

Back on topic, I think the main difference between Katrina and fires has already been mentioned. The infrastructure is still in place in SoCal. When Katrina hit, nobody could get in or out of the area by any means for a couple of days. I also believe that FEMA has learned some lessons, if only to keep from being embarrassed again.

Either way, it is my hope that the people of SoCal are kept safe, and that the fires can be put out soon. I just wish that the politicians would hold off on their posturing until it's over and done with.

[Alareth]

Thank you, Alareth! I've felt the same way. I was stationed in Biloxi when Katrina hit, and had to deal with the aftermath. It seemed that all anyone cared about was the devastation of New Orleans. For crying out loud, entire towns were wiped out on the MS coast. Not just flooded, but washed away. It's pissed me off, too. I was just back down in the area a few months ago to take a class in Biloxi, and while I was there drove over to N.O. While you could still tell that there had been major devastation to Biloxi, Gulfport, etc., the parts of N.O. that I saw seemed not different than before Katrina. Maybe I just didn't see the right areas, but I still believe the MS Gulf Coast took a lot more damage than New Orleans.

By "stationed in Biloxi" I take it you're in the Air Force? I've spent a few hours of my life at Keesler, mostly the hospital.

My dad was transfered to the Seabee base in Gulfport when I was 4.

[athon]

I grew up in Gulfport, MS. The devastation Katrina did along the Mississippi Gulf Coast far outstrips what happened to NO but whenever one of these discussions comes up people make it sound like NO was the only place hurt by Katrina.

It pisses me off to no end.

Correction noted, and it's a good point. My apologies.

Athon

[a.real.girl]

For what it's worth, the local news here was saying "lets use the lessons learned from Katrina and voluntarily evacuate... here's the number to call if you can't evacuate yourself" and the like as early as Sunday noon.

Now, I can't tell you how well that worked, but I can tell you it was out there.

-A

[NoZed Avenger]

When the next big earthquake hits, people are not generally going to scoff at requests for federal help, or ask why anyone would be stupid enough to live in Southern California in the first place.

Well, about that second clause . . . .

[latent aaaack]

1 billion VS 81 billion dollars in damage.
14 deaths VS 2000 deaths
Both resulted in a million evacuees

Hardly fair to the region Katrina affected to equate them.

Why didn't the Cedar fire in 2003 which destroyed more houses than this wildfire cause as many evacuations?

[Alareth]

How about some historical comparisons?

Everyone has heard of the Great Chicago Fire right? It burned an area of approximately 6 x 3/4 miles and had an estimated death toll of somewhere between 200-300 people.

Now raise your hand if you know about the OTHER fire that happened the very same day. The fire that holds the record for the most deaths due to fire in US History.

The Peshtigo Fire in Wisconson burned between 1.2 and 1.5 million acres (1,875 square miles) with estimates of up to 2500 dead and 12 towns destroyed.

ETA: Apparently there was a third fire that day, the Port Huron Fire in Michigan burned 3 towns and claimed 200 people.

[Michael Redman]

I grew up in Gulfport, MS. The devastation Katrina did along the Mississippi Gulf Coast far outstrips what happened to NO but whenever one of these discussions comes up people make it sound like NO was the only place hurt by Katrina.

It pisses me off to no end.Over 1000 people died in NO. How do figure the the Mississippi Gulf Cost experienced devastation far outstripping that?

[Michael Redman]

Call it hubris or whatever but no one can say they didn't know it was going to happen!Well . . . fine. Ruin my argument.

[ponderingturtle]

I grew up in Gulfport, MS. The devastation Katrina did along the Mississippi Gulf Coast far outstrips what happened to NO but whenever one of these discussions comes up people make it sound like NO was the only place hurt by Katrina.

It pisses me off to no end.

What metrics are you useing to compare?

[Alareth]

The deaths in NO were tragic, but NO was still there when the sun came up the next day. The damage and death in NO were indirectly caused by Katrina and mainly due to the flooding and mismanagement at the State and Local levels leading up to the storm. The blame lies directly on the levy failure and residents refusal to evacuate. Yes, there were some that could not evacuate but the majority CHOSE not to leave.

The communities of Gulfport, Pass Christian, Ocean Springs, Biloxi and others were for the most part scoured from the map by direct winds and a storm surge that reached several miles inland. Deaths were comparatively minimal because the residents did evacuate when they were told to. People there took the threat seriously because they had been through it before. Hell, you could still see damage in those communities left over from Hurricane Camille some 30 years before.

[CosCos]

NO got the most attention because there was more human suffering here than in other places on the Gulf Coast. The major story in Biloxi and other places was the utter destruction of property.

I've been there many times since the storm and it's nothing short of heart-breaking everytime. However, for the most part, people did heed the evacuation notices and got out before landfall which minimized the human drama. The people that stayed in NO payed a huge price and the images of people stranded at the convention center were a lot more "juicy" for the media than the slabs of concrete where houses once stood. We can make judgement calls about those stranded people till the cows come home, but in the end it was a major human tragedy, and that is why it got more attention than the Gulf Coast.

The other portion of the story is the "squeakiest wheel" theory. The people of MS and AL took their destiny into their own hands and took control of the rebuilding process. NOLA was business as usual with dirty politics and corruption which kept the drama alive in the news.

Afterall who wants to see an uplifting story about a family getting their lives back together when there's another story about poor disadvantaged children who can't go back to their homes because no one has rebuilt the place for them?? :rolleyes:

[ponderingturtle]

The deaths in NO were tragic, but NO was still there when the sun came up the next day. The damage and death in NO were indirectly caused by Katrina and mainly due to the flooding and mismanagement at the State and Local levels leading up to the storm. The blame lies directly on the levy failure and residents refusal to evacuate. Yes, there were some that could not evacuate but the majority CHOSE not to leave.

The communities of Gulfport, Pass Christian, Ocean Springs, Biloxi and others were for the most part scoured from the map by direct winds and a storm surge that reached several miles inland. Deaths were comparatively minimal because the residents did evacuate when they were told to. People there took the threat seriously because they had been through it before. Hell, you could still see damage in those communities left over from Hurricane Camille some 30 years before.

You are still not being clear as to what metrics you are useing.

Look at this, is it worse to cut the foot off of 10 people or the leg off of 1? Which person would be said to be a regarded as the more severe of the crimes?

[Darth Rotor]

First, I am very glad that the response to the wildfires in California has been swift and well executed. However, I've heard unflattering comparisons between the emergency response to these fires and the emergency response to hurricane Katrina. Obviously, there are huge differences in what can be done in a hurricane and what can be done about a wildfire.

Do you think it's fair to compare the response to this disaster on the West Coast to the disaster in the Gulf Coast?

No.

But something is amiss, it seems, in the head shed in Washington. Gun shy over Katrina, perhaps?

I heard on the radio this morning that someone in FEMA set up a fake press conference about the fires, sort of like posting an FAQ, but using a press conference/TV setting, complete with "not quite reporters" asking the questions.

That seems a bit weird, to me, but then, the amount of stupid in Washington never seems to decrease.

DR

[Alareth]

You are still not being clear as to what metrics you are useing.

Look at this, is it worse to cut the foot off of 10 people or the leg off of 1? Which person would be said to be a regarded as the more severe of the crimes?

The metrics I'm using are miles of coastline that once had a large population that were reduced to miles of coastline that suddenly had nothing on them but concrete foundations where homes and businesses once stood.

Do you have another definition for the word devastation that I'm not clear on?

Let me make it clear, in no way do I belittle the deathtoll in New Orleans, but the city is still standing. This is not the case on the Gulf Coast. Entire towns were no longer there the next day.

[Tokenconservative]

I do not believe it is a fair comparison. People can and do fight wild fires, but there is not much a person can do to fight (or limit) a hurricane. Cleaning up the aftermath is about the same though.

Not true.

According to Algore, if GW Bush would only sign Kyoto....

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

No comparison. I'm sure the lessons from Katrina contributed to the response time in CA.

Despite the myths that've grown up around Katrina, the Fed response time was just fine. A little light, probably, simply because they were not prepared for a disaster of this magnitude, but when both the Dem gove of LA, and the Dem mayor of NOLA turned away FEMA not once, not twice, but thrice before the storm actually made land...that's not FEMA's fault...is it?

Tokie

[CosCos]

Despite the myths that've grown up around Katrina, the Fed response time was just fine. A little light, probably, simply because they were not prepared for a disaster of this magnitude, but when both the Dem gove of LA, and the Dem mayor of NOLA turned away FEMA not once, not twice, but thrice before the storm actually made land...that's not FEMA's fault...is it?

Tokie

Like I said before, there were mistakes made on all levels, starting with the individuals who chose to do nothing then expected mommy gubmint to bail them out. That, compounded by the pitiful local and state leadership pretty much set the stage for failure. Frankly I don't know if the fed response could have been any better given the circumstances.

Perception is reality though and the perception is that the Fed response was woefully inadequate, nothing will change that. So the Feds definitely learned their lesson from Katrina and it is painfully obvious in Cali.

[ponderingturtle]

The metrics I'm using are miles of coastline that once had a large population that were reduced to miles of coastline that suddenly had nothing on them but concrete foundations where homes and businesses once stood.

So you are saying there is more miles of coastline outside of NO than inside? That does not seem to be a metric for destruction that makes any sense at all. It means that that the General Slocum fire was much worse than 9/11 as more coastline was involved.

That does not seem to be much of a comparison and does not fit well with what most people would look at when assigning damage.

If a Town of say 10,000 is totally destroyed you are saying that is worse than half of a city of 500,000 being destroyed? A house that is blown off its slab is worse than a house totaled that needs to be destroyed? The latter is a bigger economic cost as you have to tear down the house first then build and in the total destruction you can just build.

Do you have another definition for the word devastation that I'm not clear on?


One that would fit with how most people measure it. Total numbers of houses destroyed might be a good place to start.

Let me make it clear, in no way do I belittle the deathtoll in New Orleans, but the city is still standing. This is not the case on the Gulf Coast. Entire towns were no longer there the next day.

So losing a small town is more destructive than anything you can do that effects only part of a city?

When the town might not add up to more than a block or two of the city in terms of population, I don't think most people would put it ahead in a measure of destruction.

[Alareth]

All 82 counties in Mississippi were declared federal disaster areas with 49 eligible for full assistance. A 28ft storm surge reached from 6 to 12 miles inland along the entire length of the coast. If we take just the lower of the two, 6 miles, we have 264 square miles covered by the surge

Less than 10% of structures within 1/2 mile of the coast were estimated to still be standing. That 22 square miles.

When the town might not add up to more than a block or two of the city in terms of population, I don't think most people would put it ahead in a measure of destruction.

Gulfport was a city of over 72,000, Biloxi over 50,000. The populations of the Jackson, Harrison and Hancock counties was around 400,000.

The whole 44 miles of the coastline is developed and not the sparse scattered little hick towns you seem to imply.

[dudalb]

How about some historical comparisons?

Everyone has heard of the Great Chicago Fire right? It burned an area of approximately 6 x 3/4 miles and had an estimated death toll of somewhere between 200-300 people.

Now raise your hand if you know about the OTHER fire that happened the very same day. The fire that holds the record for the most deaths due to fire in US History.

The Peshtigo Fire in Wisconson burned between 1.2 and 1.5 million acres (1,875 square miles) with estimates of up to 2500 dead and 12 towns destroyed.

ETA: Apparently there was a third fire that day, the Port Huron Fire in Michigan burned 3 towns and claimed 200 people.

There is a theory that a meteorite split when it hit the atmosphere,and fiery remnants of it falling over the upper Midwest caused all three fires.
It can never be proven, but it's certainly not a wackjob theory. Three huge fires breaking out in roughly the same geographic area? Makes sense to me.
Peshtigo I never heard about until I started working for a Goverment agency that has a large wildfire program. That is what they use as a worse case scenario.

[dudalb]

The fact is there was a massive failure of Government on all levels during Katrina.
There is plenty of blame to go around for everybody.
But it is almost irrevelent. It was the federal failure that got the publicity,and it WAS a failure. It certainly seems to have been the turning point in the public's perception of the Bush anminsitration.

[WildCat]

People can and do fight wild fires,
Unfortunately, this is a big part of the problem. By fighting the little fires you let the fuel build up until the fires you get are the infernos we see all over the west the last few decades.

It's no coincidence that just a few miles away from the California fires - in Mexico - they aren't having the same problem despite having the same exact weather conditions.

Not clearing underbrush + fighting little fires = major inferno down the road.

[WildCat]

It can never be proven, but it's certainly not a wackjob theory. Three huge fires breaking out in roughly the same geographic area? Makes sense to me.
No need for such an exotic explanation. It was a hot, dry year in that area and that particular day the winds were very strong. Don't know about Peg-leg Sullivan though... ;)

[ponderingturtle]

All 82 counties in Mississippi were declared federal disaster areas with 49 eligible for full assistance. A 28ft storm surge reached from 6 to 12 miles inland along the entire length of the coast. If we take just the lower of the two, 6 miles, we have 264 square miles covered by the surge

Less than 10% of structures within 1/2 mile of the coast were estimated to still be standing. That 22 square miles.



Gulfport was a city of over 72,000, Biloxi over 50,000. The populations of the Jackson, Harrison and Hancock counties was around 400,000.

The whole 44 miles of the coastline is developed and not the sparse scattered little hick towns you seem to imply.

I am not implying anything, you are just being entirely unclear as to what you consider the measurement of bad. Clearly death toll doesn't matter, the only thing you have given as a measure is area. That is a pretty meaningless measure for how most people would consider measureing dammage.

[ponderingturtle]

There is a theory that a meteorite split when it hit the atmosphere,and fiery remnants of it falling over the upper Midwest caused all three fires.
It can never be proven, but it's certainly not a wackjob theory. Three huge fires breaking out in roughly the same geographic area? Makes sense to me.
Peshtigo I never heard about until I started working for a Goverment agency that has a large wildfire program. That is what they use as a worse case scenario.

Um I think it is a wack job theory. If memory serves small metorites tend to be cold and fall with only terminal velocity. One was even still frozen.

So there is no way for them to start fires

link (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=215)

[ponderingturtle]

Unfortunately, this is a big part of the problem. By fighting the little fires you let the fuel build up until the fires you get are the infernos we see all over the west the last few decades.

It's no coincidence that just a few miles away from the California fires - in Mexico - they aren't having the same problem despite having the same exact weather conditions.

Not clearing underbrush + fighting little fires = major inferno down the road.

I was making just this argument in my people living where houses shouldn't be thread. Some people did not seem to get that putting out fires means you will have much more catastrophic fires when one burns.

[ImaginalDisc]

Unfortunately, this is a big part of the problem. By fighting the little fires you let the fuel build up until the fires you get are the infernos we see all over the west the last few decades.

It's no coincidence that just a few miles away from the California fires - in Mexico - they aren't having the same problem despite having the same exact weather conditions.

Not clearing underbrush + fighting little fires = major inferno down the road.

Prescribed burns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescribed_burn)are now standard practice in many grassland and arboreal managed ecosystems. I'm more familiar with the Everglades than any part of California, but here we have managers and rangers cafeully setting small blazes regularly, to ensure that most parts of the Everglades recieve fire at least once every few years. We've only been doing that for a decade, I grant you.

You're refering to the old "Smokey the Bear" policy which is not the direction fire management is headed in. There's huge ecological benefits to prescribed burns, beyond just keeping the likelyhoood of massive wildfire down; rotating small fires insure that there is always habitat for those species that are specfically adapted to take advtange of those secondary succession openings. That has the effect of making recovery from fires in the area much faster.

[davefoc]

One comparison that might be made is how successful the areas hit by Katrina and the areas hit by the California wild fires will be at making improvements to lessen the impact of future similar disasters.

I have tried to follow this issue a bit with respect to Katrina. From the outside it doesn't look very positive. There are definitely some improved building practices being put in place, but so far I haven't seen (although it might exist) evidence of a concerted, coordinated effort to fix things to the point that a similar disaster isn't likely every forty years or so.

In the case of California, we have largely failed to implement any effective mechanisms for dealing with the wildfires in my lifetime. It appears that any controlled burn programs that exist are woefully inadequate. It took generations before the obvious step of outlawing wood shingle roofs was finally implemented in the fire susceptible areas. I am unaware of any significant building code upgrades over standard building codes for fire prone areas. It will be interesting to see if this last fire disaster will lead to any changes. History doesn't suggest that it will do more than lead to some minor improvements.

My uneducated guess is that minor cost additions to the cost of building a home in a fire area could greatly reduce the fire susceptibility of a structure. Some improvements I would like to see at least evaluated for high risk fire areas.

1. Build fire retardant soffits around exposed rafter tails. Open wood on the eaves looks to be very susceptible to catching and spreading a fire to me.

2. Ban all wood siding. Hardibacker fake wood siding can provide a real wood look for those that want it with much greater fire resistance.

3. Ban wood decks and bare wood patio covers in high fire risk areas.

4. Make foam equipment locally available for coating vegetation and exposed wood when a fire is threatening.

5. Require metal shutters that can be closed when a fire threatens.

6. Enclose attic wood with drywall or some form of fire retardant product to greatly slow down the spread of the fire if it gets into the attic.

7. possibly require some kind of sprinkler system, perhaps with foam capability and with some kind of local water storage system.

While, some libertarians might argue that requiring these kind of improvements intrude on private property rights, the other side of the issue is that when a house catches fire it can cause the destruction of many other homes so allowing fire susceptible houses to be built in fire prone areas has potentially disastrous consequences for others in the community beyond what the owner suffers.

ETA: It looks like new building codes for fire prone areas have been generated. And Nevada is in the process of adopting them. Maybe this last round of fires will inspire California.
http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/TD/20070807/NEWS/108070040