In memory of New Orleans
James Nicoll
intense hurricane in Atlantic history) will miss New Orleans are
still better than two in three and even if it does hit the city
directly, there some chance that the flood controls won't be over-
whelmed. Even if the city is flattened, other cities have been
flattened and recovered.
Still, to paraphrase Tom Lehrer, if there are going to be
glorious visions of New Orleans' future, it may be a good idea to
create them today and not wait until tomorrow.
Are there in fact any bright vision of the future of New Orleans?
Judging by the relatively small set of books and films I have seen set
there, NO doesn't seem to be treated all that kindly in fiction. UNDERCOVER
BLUES is probably the happiest movie I've seen set there.
A special shout-out goes to James Lee Burke, who seems to hate the
city with the heat of a thousand exploding suns, despite the setting providing
him with a steady income.
Anderson has NO survive what was probably WWIII (1) and the
thousands of years of history that follow in THE WINTER OF THE WORLD.
Ice-age related global cooling and the associated ocean level drop, plus
sedementary deposition at the mouth of the river have marooned the city
well inland, though.
James Nicoll
1: I think Chicago survived the war but not the ice.
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
Dorothy J Heydt
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> Anderson has NO survive what was probably WWIII (1) and the
>thousands of years of history that follow in THE WINTER OF THE WORLD.
>Ice-age related global cooling and the associated ocean level drop, plus
>sedementary deposition at the mouth of the river have marooned the city
>well inland, though.
>
No war, just ice and, with lots of water being tied up in ice,
the sea level dropping.
Dorothy J. Heydt
Albany, California
djh...@kithrup.com
James Nicoll
I am pretty sure there's a comment about how many of the
old city sites are associated with big, round craters.
jtingle
Nicoll) wrote:
> Actually, the odds that Katrina (currently the sixth most
>intense hurricane in Atlantic history) will miss New Orleans are
>still better than two in three and even if it does hit the city
>directly, there some chance that the flood controls won't be over-
>whelmed. Even if the city is flattened, other cities have been
>flattened and recovered.
>
> Still, to paraphrase Tom Lehrer, if there are going to be
>glorious visions of New Orleans' future, it may be a good idea to
>create them today and not wait until tomorrow.
>
> Are there in fact any bright vision of the future of New Orleans?
>Judging by the relatively small set of books and films I have seen set
>there, NO doesn't seem to be treated all that kindly in fiction. UNDERCOVER
>BLUES is probably the happiest movie I've seen set there.
Depends on how you view nanotechnolgy. Goonan's River series ends in
the new, improved NO. Of course, it flies away at the end. Go figure.
Regards,
Jack Tingle
James Nicoll
Do the humans survive? I bounced off the first book I read
by Goonan.
I was going to assert that if it isn't in NorAm near the mouth
of the Mississippi, it really isn't NO but then someone could ask me why
I am willing to accept NYNY from CITIES IN FLIGHT. Maybe because the
setting of NO _seems_ more important to its NOishness than NY's does to
its.
Louann Miller
Nicoll) wrote:
> Actually, the odds that Katrina (currently the sixth most
>intense hurricane in Atlantic history) will miss New Orleans are
>still better than two in three and even if it does hit the city
>directly, there some chance that the flood controls won't be over-
>whelmed.
Depends on your definition of missing. The big scary part of the
hurricane is somewhat larger than the coastline of Louisiana; an
outright miss just isnt' going to happen but that's not to say the eye
will pass right over the town.
>Even if the city is flattened, other cities have been
>flattened and recovered.
That's the best bet, I think. NO is one of the oldest cities in that
part of the country, with very deep cultural roots. (If not
basements.)
The nonfiction book "Isaac's Storm" notes that after the 5000+ death
toll of the Galveston hurricane in the early 1900's, the entire city
was jacked up one building at a time about 20 feet and filled in with
sand and rock. Oh, and a sea wall. But if the dikes don't hold, NO
may have to start from scratch. Inasmuch as I understand the mechanics
of storm surge, they seem to be poised for a whopper.
ruth
Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 17:46:03 +0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
> Nicoll) wrote:
>
> > Actually, the odds that Katrina (currently the sixth most
> >intense hurricane in Atlantic history) will miss New Orleans are
> >still better than two in three and even if it does hit the city
> >directly, there some chance that the flood controls won't be over-
> >whelmed.
>
> Depends on your definition of missing. The big scary part of the
> hurricane is somewhat larger than the coastline of Louisiana; an
> outright miss just isnt' going to happen but that's not to say the eye
> will pass right over the town.
I just looked at the news. That is one huge hurricane .Damn. Scary
stuff.
--
James Nicoll
Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>Nicoll) wrote:
>
>> Actually, the odds that Katrina (currently the sixth most
>>intense hurricane in Atlantic history) will miss New Orleans are
>>still better than two in three and even if it does hit the city
>>directly, there some chance that the flood controls won't be over-
>>whelmed.
>
>Depends on your definition of missing. The big scary part of the
>hurricane is somewhat larger than the coastline of Louisiana; an
>outright miss just isnt' going to happen but that's not to say the eye
>will pass right over the town.
The worst is apparently if the eye misses NO by a small margin.
I don't recall if landfall to the east or west of NO is worse for the
city.
>>Even if the city is flattened, other cities have been
>>flattened and recovered.
>
>That's the best bet, I think. NO is one of the oldest cities in that
>part of the country, with very deep cultural roots. (If not
>basements.)
>
>The nonfiction book "Isaac's Storm" notes that after the 5000+ death
>toll of the Galveston hurricane in the early 1900's, the entire city
>was jacked up one building at a time about 20 feet and filled in with
>sand and rock. Oh, and a sea wall. But if the dikes don't hold, NO
>may have to start from scratch. Inasmuch as I understand the mechanics
>of storm surge, they seem to be poised for a whopper.
I'm seeing some alarming references to FEMA models of events
like this in NO that result in 50 - 60 K casualties. Of course, models
are often incorrect.
Didn't they raise part of Seattle one story, as well?
I'd suggest hiring some Netherlanders but the Netherlanders
have a technique for dealing with hurricanes that is not exportable
to the Gulf of Mexico in as much as it depends on not being in the
Gulf of Mexico.
James Nicoll
James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>In article <1125262962.2b428a0e77a7dd82594c05731ca9b9e6@teranews>,
>Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>>On Sun, 28 Aug 2005 17:46:03 +0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
>>Nicoll) wrote:
>>
>>> Actually, the odds that Katrina (currently the sixth most
>>>intense hurricane in Atlantic history) will miss New Orleans are
>>>still better than two in three and even if it does hit the city
>>>directly, there some chance that the flood controls won't be over-
>>>whelmed.
>>
>>Depends on your definition of missing. The big scary part of the
>>hurricane is somewhat larger than the coastline of Louisiana; an
>>outright miss just isnt' going to happen but that's not to say the eye
>>will pass right over the town.
>
> The worst is apparently if the eye misses NO by a small margin.
>I don't recall if landfall to the east or west of NO is worse for the
>city.
Google google: west is worse.
Konrad Gaertner
>
> In article <ILy60...@kithrup.com>,
> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> >In article <dest8r$382$1...@reader2.panix.com>,
> >James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Anderson has NO survive what was probably WWIII (1) and the
> >>thousands of years of history that follow in THE WINTER OF THE WORLD.
> >>Ice-age related global cooling and the associated ocean level drop, plus
> >>sedementary deposition at the mouth of the river have marooned the city
> >>well inland, though.
> >>
> >>1: I think Chicago survived the war but not the ice.
> >
> >No war, just ice and, with lots of water being tied up in ice,
> >the sea level dropping.
>
> I am pretty sure there's a comment about how many of the
> old city sites are associated with big, round craters.
Really really big hail?
--
Konrad Gaertner - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - email: gae...@aol.com
http://www.livejournal.com/users/kgbooklog/
"I don't mind hidden depths but I insist that there be a surface."
-- James Nicoll
James Angove
>
> The worst is apparently if the eye misses NO by a small margin.
> I don't recall if landfall to the east or west of NO is worse for the
> city.
>
West.
> Didn't they raise part of Seattle one story, as well?
>
Chicago, too. Its a popular trick, apparently.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> I'd suggest hiring some Netherlanders but the Netherlanders
> have a technique for dealing with hurricanes that is not exportable
> to the Gulf of Mexico in as much as it depends on not being in the
> Gulf of Mexico.
Well, according to this article I've just read, New Orleans used not to
be on Gulf of Mexico either. It used to have lots and lots of nice
wetlands between itself and the water, which dampened down the storms.
But those have been washed away.
The sanest long-term plans for saving NO I've seen is about trying to
reconsistute the wetlands, but that is going to take decades. The
alternative plan is to build a giant wall around downtown, but that's
been booed as a madman's idea.
Making Light has a very complete post about Katrina up now. Lots of good
info.
--
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
homepage: http://www.fantascienza.net/sfpeople/elethiomel
LJ: http://www.livejournal.com/users/annafdd/
Il mio romanzo online: http://homepage.mac.com/afdd/Senza.html
James Nicoll
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan <ada...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> I'd suggest hiring some Netherlanders but the Netherlanders
>> have a technique for dealing with hurricanes that is not exportable
>> to the Gulf of Mexico in as much as it depends on not being in the
>> Gulf of Mexico.
>
>Well, according to this article I've just read, New Orleans used not to
>be on Gulf of Mexico either. It used to have lots and lots of nice
>wetlands between itself and the water, which dampened down the storms.
>But those have been washed away.
>
>The sanest long-term plans for saving NO I've seen is about trying to
>reconsistute the wetlands, but that is going to take decades. The
>alternative plan is to build a giant wall around downtown, but that's
>been booed as a madman's idea.
>
when it was built but it actually performed pretty well in '97, protecting
Winnipeg from a century flood where a much smaller flood in '50* drenched
the city.
Technology. Is. The. Answer.
OK, Moving. The. City. works too but isn't as sexy.
James Nicoll
* It's an interesting question of if the floodway could manage something
like the flood of 1826, which was twice as large as either of the floods
of 1852 and 1950.
Bill Snyder
Nicoll) wrote:
>In article <1h21290.196ijsox3n591N%ada...@spamcop.net>,
>Anna Feruglio Dal Dan <ada...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd suggest hiring some Netherlanders but the Netherlanders
>>> have a technique for dealing with hurricanes that is not exportable
>>> to the Gulf of Mexico in as much as it depends on not being in the
>>> Gulf of Mexico.
>>
>>Well, according to this article I've just read, New Orleans used not to
>>be on Gulf of Mexico either. It used to have lots and lots of nice
>>wetlands between itself and the water, which dampened down the storms.
>>But those have been washed away.
>>
>>The sanest long-term plans for saving NO I've seen is about trying to
>>reconsistute the wetlands, but that is going to take decades. The
>>alternative plan is to build a giant wall around downtown, but that's
>>been booed as a madman's idea.
>>
> That's what they said about the Red River flood control system
>when it was built but it actually performed pretty well in '97, protecting
>Winnipeg from a century flood where a much smaller flood in '50* drenched
>the city.
>
> Technology. Is. The. Answer.
>
> OK, Moving. The. City. works too but isn't as sexy.
>
Uh, would it be too spoil-sportish to mention at this point that
Nawlins is *not*, in fact, on the Gulf? (And there is a massive
flood-control system in place in Louisiana, but inasmuch as it's
largely devoted to keeping the Mississippi flowing though NO, instead
of cutting off to the west as is its natural tendency . . .)
--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank.]
Ken from Chicago
"Konrad Gaertner" <kgae...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:43122C02...@worldnet.att.net...
Puhlease, no mayor of Chicago will let mere ice take down the city.
Corruption, the Lake, heat, sure, but not snow and ice. There'd be a fleet
of plow trucks and salt trucks clearing the way. NO Chicago mayor would want
to go down like Mayor Bilandic from the blizzard of '79.
-- Ken from Chicago
JavaJosh
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan wrote:
> The sanest long-term plans for saving NO I've seen is about trying to
> reconsistute the wetlands, but that is going to take decades. The
> alternative plan is to build a giant wall around downtown, but that's
> been booed as a madman's idea.
ObSF: Bujold tells of a large wall around London in one of the Miles
Vorkosigan books. What I found startling is that this was mentioned
merely as a background detail, nothing remarkable about it. Is building
a sea wall so outlandish? We already have massive breakwaters around
many ports, and certainly there is some city in the world that simply
would not exist if not for technology - I'm thinking some of the
low-lying cities in the Mississippi flood plain.
James Nicoll
Compared to the Netherlands, it's close by the Gulf.
> (And there is a massive
>flood-control system in place in Louisiana, but inasmuch as it's
>largely devoted to keeping the Mississippi flowing though NO, instead
>of cutting off to the west as is its natural tendency . . .)
Didn't that system almost fail in the 1970s? Or am I misremembering
a McPhee?
JavaJosh
James Nicoll wrote:
> Are there in fact any bright vision of the future of New Orleans?
Yes - it involves an interminible and exceedingly expensive contest
between the worlds top architects. The city rebuild will consist of a
single, fairly-high-but-not-too-high-to-be-unsafe office building, a
state-of-the-art subway (with one line to Baton Rouge), and the
remainder an understated, abstract memorial to those who perished.
(A seperate, slightly smaller memorial will stand in memory of the
reporters who bravely travelled to report on the storm, and who sadly
perished for the sake of their impressive backdrops.)
John F. Eldredge
New Orleans does have seawalls; the two problems are that the storm
surge may be higher than the seawalls, and that, since most of the
city is below sea level, removal of the 15 inches or so of rain
expected is totally dependent upon the pumps continuing to work. If
the seawalls are overtopped, the pumps will flood out and parts of
the city could be underwater for as much as 6 months.
As I recall, the seawall around London was nicknamed the "King Canute
Memorial".
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
PGP key available from http://pgp.mit.edu
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
--
John F. Eldredge -- jo...@jfeldredge.com
PGP key available from http://pgp.mit.edu
"Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better
than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria
James Nicoll
John F. Eldredge <jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
>
>New Orleans does have seawalls; the two problems are that the storm
>surge may be higher than the seawalls, and that, since most of the
>city is below sea level
I keep imaging two French guys looking for a place to put a
settlement. "Let's try building it _downhill_ from the ocean."
Dorothy J Heydt
Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>Puhlease, no mayor of Chicago will let mere ice take down the city.
>Corruption, the Lake, heat, sure, but not snow and ice. There'd be a fleet
>of plow trucks and salt trucks clearing the way. NO Chicago mayor would want
>to go down like Mayor Bilandic from the blizzard of '79.
Well, in fact, the Ice didn't take it down. They built some kind
of wall, pointed like a ship's prow, to the north of it and the
Ice flowed around it. It was still abandoned as uninhabitable,
though, and mined for metal by later generations.
John F. Eldredge
Nicoll) wrote:
>In article <vjm4h196ftqn931tc...@4ax.com>,
>John F. Eldredge <jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
>>
>>New Orleans does have seawalls; the two problems are that the storm
>>surge may be higher than the seawalls, and that, since most of the
>>city is below sea level
>
> I keep imaging two French guys looking for a place to put a
>settlement. "Let's try building it _downhill_ from the ocean."
Well, the original settlement was just above sea level. However, as
the city expanded, much of the surrounding swamp was drained and
settled. This brings to mind the Florida real-estate swindles of the
1920's, where many people bought lots via mail-order, only to find out
later that the maps were deliberately inaccurate, and that the land
they had bought was some distance out from shore.
I have read that about 70% of New Orleans is below sea level.
Del Cotter
Ken from Chicago <kwicker1...@comcast.net> said:
>> James Nicoll wrote:
>>> >>Anderson has NO survive what was probably WWIII (1) and the
>>> >>thousands of years of history that follow in THE WINTER OF THE
>>> >>WORLD. Ice-age related global cooling and the associated ocean
>>> >>level drop, plus sedementary deposition at the mouth of the river
>>> >>have marooned the city well inland, though.
>>> >>
>>> >>1: I think Chicago survived the war but not the ice.
>Puhlease, no mayor of Chicago will let mere ice take down the city.
>Corruption, the Lake, heat, sure, but not snow and ice. There'd be a
>fleet of plow trucks and salt trucks clearing the way. NO Chicago mayor
>would want to go down like Mayor Bilandic from the blizzard of '79.
Plow trucks and salt... ooh, the Laurentian Glacier's knees are shaking.
--
Del Cotter
NB Personal replies to this post will
send email to d...@branta.demon.co.uk
Please send your email to del2 instead
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> That's what they said about the Red River flood control system
> when it was built but it actually performed pretty well in '97, protecting
> Winnipeg from a century flood where a much smaller flood in '50* drenched
> the city.
>
> Technology. Is. The. Answer.
>
> OK, Moving. The. City. works too but isn't as sexy.
London is apparently also at risk of flooding, and the Thames barrier
seems not to be high enough for, well, changing conditions.
Of course Venice is going to go under too, but slowly and gracefully.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
Was that Brothers in Arms? It's the Thames barrier. It exists and has
been raised several times, unlike the far more impressive rotating
barriers in the Netherland whose name I'm blanking on now.
David Bilek
>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> That's what they said about the Red River flood control system
>> when it was built but it actually performed pretty well in '97, protecting
>> Winnipeg from a century flood where a much smaller flood in '50* drenched
>> the city.
>>
>> Technology. Is. The. Answer.
>>
>> OK, Moving. The. City. works too but isn't as sexy.
>
>London is apparently also at risk of flooding, and the Thames barrier
>seems not to be high enough for, well, changing conditions.
>
>Of course Venice is going to go under too, but slowly and gracefully.
Yeah. When I was there last summer I wondered if the smell was a
result of rising waters. Ultimately I decided it probably always
smelled like that.
-David
John F. Eldredge
wrote:
Venice had quite a pong when I visited it in 1969. You have the
normal smells of a salt marsh, plus mildew (with that much moisture
around all the time, it is inevitable), plus raw sewage, since the
Venetian toilets flush directly into the canals. It is a beautiful
city, but not beautiful-smelling.
James Nicoll
>
>> That's what they said about the Red River flood control system
>> when it was built but it actually performed pretty well in '97, protecting
>> Winnipeg from a century flood where a much smaller flood in '50* drenched
>> the city.
>>
>> Technology. Is. The. Answer.
>>
>> OK, Moving. The. City. works too but isn't as sexy.
>
>London is apparently also at risk of flooding, and the Thames barrier
>seems not to be high enough for, well, changing conditions.
I don't know if it is still true but at one point the
London Flood Control Centre was located in a tunnel and the
Cabinet Office Briefing Room used in emergencies was located
inconveniently close to the water level for use in a flood.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
Well, Venice sits in the middle of a shallow lagoon. And it's actually
built on water. What you smell is mud and sewage. My guess it used to
smell a lot worse when it was at its full capacity - it's halfway
deserted now.
Carl Dershem
news:ehn4h1t4te35sdom9...@4ax.com:
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 00:53:39 +0000 (UTC), jdni...@panix.com (James
> Nicoll) wrote:
>
>>In article <vjm4h196ftqn931tc...@4ax.com>,
>>John F. Eldredge <jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>New Orleans does have seawalls; the two problems are that the storm
>>>surge may be higher than the seawalls, and that, since most of the
>>>city is below sea level
>>
>> I keep imaging two French guys looking for a place to put a
>>settlement. "Let's try building it _downhill_ from the ocean."
>
> Well, the original settlement was just above sea level. However, as
> the city expanded, much of the surrounding swamp was drained and
> settled. This brings to mind the Florida real-estate swindles of the
> 1920's, where many people bought lots via mail-order, only to find out
> later that the maps were deliberately inaccurate, and that the land
> they had bought was some distance out from shore.
>
> I have read that about 70% of New Orleans is below sea level.
And it's been going downhill for decades.
cd
--
The difference between immorality and immortality is "T". I like Earl
Grey.
John F. Eldredge
wrote:
Literally and figuratively. The whole Mississippi Delta region is
slowly subsiding, probably a side-effect of the many tons of sediment
the river has washed downstream over the centuries. This phenomenon
happens in a lot of estuaries and river deltas; if I remember
correctly, London is also slowly subsiding.
Bill Snyder
According to what I've read, it's actually the opposite. The
flood-control levees and dams mean the Mississippi no longer rises out
of its banks and spreads sediment over the delta. That by itself
accounts for much of the loss of wetlands downstream.
ruth
John F. Eldredge <jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
>
> Venice had quite a pong when I visited it in 1969. You have the
> normal smells of a salt marsh, plus mildew (with that much moisture
> around all the time, it is inevitable), plus raw sewage, since the
> Venetian toilets flush directly into the canals. It is a beautiful
> city, but not beautiful-smelling.
I was there in 1973 and I don't recall any bad smell. Was that a good
smell year for Venice? It was in the middle of the summer. It was
gorgeous.
--
Jim Lovejoy
news:detc0t$3hs$1...@reader2.panix.com:
> In article <1h21290.196ijsox3n591N%ada...@spamcop.net>,
> Anna Feruglio Dal Dan <ada...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'd suggest hiring some Netherlanders but the Netherlanders
>>> have a technique for dealing with hurricanes that is not exportable
>>> to the Gulf of Mexico in as much as it depends on not being in the
>>> Gulf of Mexico.
>>
>>Well, according to this article I've just read, New Orleans used not
>>to be on Gulf of Mexico either. It used to have lots and lots of nice
>>wetlands between itself and the water, which dampened down the storms.
>>But those have been washed away.
>>
>>The sanest long-term plans for saving NO I've seen is about trying to
>>reconsistute the wetlands, but that is going to take decades. The
>>alternative plan is to build a giant wall around downtown, but that's
>>been booed as a madman's idea.
>>
> That's what they said about the Red River flood control system
> when it was built but it actually performed pretty well in '97,
> protecting Winnipeg from a century flood where a much smaller flood in
> '50* drenched the city.
San Antonio solved the periodic flooding of the San Antonio River by
building a tunnel from upriver of the city to downriver of the city.
Admittedly that doesn't work as well when you've got a city that is below
sea level.
Aaron Davies
> James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > That's what they said about the Red River flood control system
> > when it was built but it actually performed pretty well in '97, protecting
> > Winnipeg from a century flood where a much smaller flood in '50* drenched
> > the city.
> >
> > Technology. Is. The. Answer.
> >
> > OK, Moving. The. City. works too but isn't as sexy.
>
> London is apparently also at risk of flooding, and the Thames barrier
> seems not to be high enough for, well, changing conditions.
>
> Of course Venice is going to go under too, but slowly and gracefully.
I read somewhere that the real problem with Venice is that they don't
*want* it to sink this time--for 2000 years, they've been happily
building each layer of the city on top of the previous one, but now
they're trying desperately to preserve 400-year-old stuff that by rights
should be half submerged by now.
--
Aaron Davies
Opinions expressed are solely those of a random number generator.
Magnae clunes mihi placent, nec possum de hac re mentiri.
Ho! Ha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Thrust!
Richard Todd
> JavaJosh <java...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ObSF: Bujold tells of a large wall around London in one of the Miles
>> Vorkosigan books. What I found startling is that this was mentioned
> Was that Brothers in Arms? It's the Thames barrier. It exists and has
> been raised several times, unlike the far more impressive rotating
> barriers in the Netherland whose name I'm blanking on now.
Yeah, that was in Brothers in Arms.
Peter Meilinger
>San Antonio solved the periodic flooding of the San Antonio River by
>building a tunnel from upriver of the city to downriver of the city.
>Admittedly that doesn't work as well when you've got a city that is below
>sea level.
How hard could it possibly be to build an impregnable dome over
the entire city? A dome's just a round tunnel with no exits, right?
For the record, by impregnable I mean it keeps all bad stuff out,
like nasty weather, mosquitoes, nuclear missiles and the religions
and political beliefs of your choice. Air, comic books, strippers,
anything good can come through.
Pete
Dorothy J Heydt
Maybe there'd been heavy rains that year and washed a lot of the
muck out?
There's a line in Dante referring to "the hour when the fly gives
way to the mosquito," to which Sayers in one of her essays
comments, "I can't testify to this myself, I visited only Venice,
and there was no hour where the mosquito did not reign supreme
there."
And she put a pair of lines into her play _Love All_, whose first
act is set in Venice, where the famous writer's mistress
complains that there's a hole in her mosquito-net and she's all
over bites, and his secretary says sympathetically, "They don't
bite me much, but I was brought up in Italy, so I expect they
think of me as a native."
Keith Morrison
and typed:
I saw a rather appropriate comment on that today: apparently the US Weather
Network's resident Reporter o'Doom (I don't get the American version, so I
don't know the guy) relocated north of the lake earlier today and is ready
to head north to high ground.
The comment was you know you're screwed when this guy shows up in your
neighbourhood. You know you're fucked when you then see him running away.
Del Cotter
>Carl Dershem <der...@cox.net> wrote:
>>> I have read that about 70% of New Orleans is below sea level.
>>
>>And it's been going downhill for decades.
>
>Literally and figuratively. The whole Mississippi Delta region is
>slowly subsiding, probably a side-effect of the many tons of sediment
>the river has washed downstream over the centuries. This phenomenon
>happens in a lot of estuaries and river deltas; if I remember
>correctly, London is also slowly subsiding.
London's far upriver from the estuary, though. What's making London go
down is isostatic rebound from the last Ice Age: the weight of the
glacier on Scotland pushed the land down and, like a water bed, the land
for hundreds of miles around rose up. Now the weight is off these last
few millennia, the old distribution is slowly reasserting itself.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> In article <Yogi-61B395.0...@news1.east.earthlink.net>,
> ruth <Yo...@somewhereonterra.net> wrote:
> >In article <7lv4h1p8p9dgig30r...@4ax.com>,
> > John F. Eldredge <jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Venice had quite a pong when I visited it in 1969. You have the
> >> normal smells of a salt marsh, plus mildew (with that much moisture
> >> around all the time, it is inevitable), plus raw sewage, since the
> >> Venetian toilets flush directly into the canals. It is a beautiful
> >> city, but not beautiful-smelling.
> >
> >I was there in 1973 and I don't recall any bad smell. Was that a good
> >smell year for Venice? It was in the middle of the summer. It was
> >gorgeous.
>
> Maybe there'd been heavy rains that year and washed a lot of the
> muck out?
More likely wind. No amount of rain can wash Venice, it *sits* on the
muck.
> There's a line in Dante referring to "the hour when the fly gives
> way to the mosquito," to which Sayers in one of her essays
> comments, "I can't testify to this myself, I visited only Venice,
> and there was no hour where the mosquito did not reign supreme
> there."
Well, it used to be that they only bit at night, but we've got the
African tiger mosquito. They bite by day too.
> And she put a pair of lines into her play _Love All_, whose first
> act is set in Venice, where the famous writer's mistress
> complains that there's a hole in her mosquito-net and she's all
> over bites, and his secretary says sympathetically, "They don't
> bite me much, but I was brought up in Italy, so I expect they
> think of me as a native."
They don't bite me much either, I mean, they do bit me but as a sort of
last resort. Somebody told me that it's because I have B+ blood, they
are supposed not to like that. I don't know if it's true, but I do have
b blood and I am not mosquito-fodder.
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan
> Anna Feruglio Dal Dan <ada...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
> > James Nicoll <jdni...@panix.com> wrote:
> >
> > > That's what they said about the Red River flood control system
> > > when it was built but it actually performed pretty well in '97, protecting
> > > Winnipeg from a century flood where a much smaller flood in '50* drenched
> > > the city.
> > >
> > > Technology. Is. The. Answer.
> > >
> > > OK, Moving. The. City. works too but isn't as sexy.
> >
> > London is apparently also at risk of flooding, and the Thames barrier
> > seems not to be high enough for, well, changing conditions.
> >
> > Of course Venice is going to go under too, but slowly and gracefully.
>
> I read somewhere that the real problem with Venice is that they don't
> *want* it to sink this time--for 2000 years, they've been happily
> building each layer of the city on top of the previous one, but now
> they're trying desperately to preserve 400-year-old stuff that by rights
> should be half submerged by now.
Well, from what I understand subsidence is due to the lagoon dynamics.
Venice has survived for centuries because of very rigorous maintenance
of the engeneering waterworks. That's been let slide. And although lots
of building were replaced, it's not actually possible to build "on top
on old buildings". There's not ground under most of them, just wooden
stilts. When they do maintenance in the canals, you seem them clearly,
and it's quite fascinating.
Del Cotter
Anna Feruglio Dal Dan <ada...@spamcop.net> said:
>JavaJosh <java...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ObSF: Bujold tells of a large wall around London in one of the Miles
>> Vorkosigan books. What I found startling is that this was mentioned
>> merely as a background detail, nothing remarkable about it. Is building
>> a sea wall so outlandish?
>Was that Brothers in Arms? It's the Thames barrier. It exists and has
>been raised several times, unlike the far more impressive rotating
>barriers in the Netherland whose name I'm blanking on now.
No, the Thames Barrier is a little thing intended to stop a brief surge
of water up the river. As you say it's usually down, which implies
something quite different from a permanent wall against the sea.
Bujold's barrier is many orders of magnitude bigger, the descendant of
the Thames Barrier centuries in the future.
[by the way, there doesn't need to be a wall *around* London, it's open
to the sea on only the downriver side-- nature provides the walls to
north, south and west, at least until the sea rises a hundred metres, in
which case you're talking bye-bye much of England]
Long high (thick! think dam) walls aren't out of the question, but
they're horrifyingly expensive, and while the cities they protect are
worth the money by even the simplest calculations, they have to be built
before they're needed, and funded by people who know they can save cash
in the current financial year by wishing away the future need. And so
they usually do.
how...@brazee.net
On 28-Aug-2005, John F. Eldredge <jo...@jfeldredge.com> wrote:
> I have read that about 70% of New Orleans is below sea level.
In the olden dayze, elevation of New Orleans increased as the floods
deposited silt, and the delta grew. But people didn't like floods, so they
spent a lot of money on flood control and the city sinks instead.
It's not nice to fool Mother Nature.
Robert Sneddon
<d...@branta.demon.co.uk> writes
>London's far upriver from the estuary, though. What's making London go
>down is isostatic rebound from the last Ice Age: the weight of the
>glacier on Scotland pushed the land down and, like a water bed, the
>land for hundreds of miles around rose up.
London is built on clay and a lot of wells dug over the millenia have
drained water from the clay layers under the city causing it to settle
into a bowl around the Thames. This hasn't helped.
--
Email me via robert (at) nojay (dot) org (new email address)
This address no longer accepts HTML posts.
Robert Sneddon
Louann Miller
Nicoll) wrote:
>> (And there is a massive
>>flood-control system in place in Louisiana, but inasmuch as it's
>>largely devoted to keeping the Mississippi flowing though NO, instead
>>of cutting off to the west as is its natural tendency . . .)
>
> Didn't that system almost fail in the 1970s? Or am I misremembering
>a McPhee?
What are the chances of Katrina whamming _that_ system hard enough to
let the river loose?
Louann, who probably shouldn't read so much Steve Barnes.
James Nicoll
James Nicoll