Dear Ben,David,Jonthan.Koko and the poor people
affected by Hurricane Catrina,

The largest issue after the Hurricane Katrina is that
12 more tropical storms are expected to follow
Hurricane Catrina and out of these four may be major
during the season up to November 30,2005,according to
NOOA.With seawater at above 27 degrees C it would
bring Category Five Hurricanes. This human-produced
warming could bring secondary damages by flood and
landslides of unprecdented dimension.

I am amused by the interest in the catastrophe of
cyclone in developed country of USA where the death of
90 and the damage in real terms is insignificant
compared to the huge loss of thousands of lives and
hundreds of billions of  property,livestock in
Tsunami, Orissa Supercyclone or  flood and cyclones in
poor countries like India,Bangladesh. When I
introduced the idea of research and symposium on
Tsunami for the first time on this network and in our
website <www.spartaindia.org>
not a single one of 280 odd members responded.

The officials in USA deny man-made global warming, NSF
Civil Engineering Division wants research on
structures as thousands of structures went haywire;the
marginalised poor black womenand children are herded
like sheep are the most affected;no cyclone shelter
planned as in Bangladesh, liitle relief and provisions
supplied by government! We have seen it all.It needs
serious research by scholars, involvement of the
community and a sound and operative warning system and
prompt evacuation and proper rehabilitation.

Durgadas Mukhopadhyay
_______________________________________________________
UNESCO and UNEP Consultant
Sparta Institute of Social Studies
A21 Sector 31, Noida, Nr. Delhi, 
Pin 201301,India


--- Jonathan Walter <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear All
> 
> The level of risk in New Orleans WAS predicted. In
> this year's World Disasters Report, to be launched
> on 5 October, Ben Wisner contributes a chapter on
> early warning in the Caribbean during the 2004
> hurricane season. He includes a box based on a
> presentation by Shirley Laska, Director, Center for
> Hazard Assessment, Response, and Technology,
> University of New Orleans, entitled "New Orleans and
> Ivan and Beyond," made at the National Academy of
> Sciences, Washington, DC, on 8 March 2005. In this
> presentation, Laska reported that a US Army Corps of
> Engineers computer simulation calculated that 65,000
> could die in the city, in the event of a direct hit
> by a slow-moving category 3 hurricane. And this
> morning on CNN, the former mayor of New Orleans
> estimated that the lives of up to 80,000 people
> still trapped in the city could be in grave danger
> from rising waters. 
> 
> I would add a couple of observations to the
> discussion:
> 
> 1. Death and destruction during hurricanes is almost
> invariably caused by secondary hazards such as
> flooding and landslides, rather than by the wind
> itself. We saw this in Haiti during TS Jeanne and
> we're seeing it now in New Orleans. So accurate,
> local mapping of possible secondary hazards is a
> vital part of any risk reduction strategy.
> Presumably this is how the US engineers corps came
> up with the 65k figure. 
> 
> 2. There is considerable interest in how best to
> communicate early warning messages to people at
> risk. But just as vital is the quality and urgency
> of communication back up the early warning chain -
> from field-based experts up to decision makers. One
> wonders what impact the Army engineers' simulation
> had on New Orleans' policy makers, if any. Similarly
> in West Africa during the locust plagues and food
> crisis of 2003-05: despite expert warnings well in
> advance, governments and aid organizations took
> months to respond to a disaster which was largely
> preventable. Without better communication of risk
> scenarios and mitigation options before disasters
> happen, policy makers will continue to prioritize
> response.
> 
> Best regards
> 
> 
> 
> Jonathan Walter
> 
>
_____________________________________________________
> Jonathan Walter
> Editor, World Disasters Report
> c/o International Federation of Red Cross and Red
> Crescent Societies
> South Asia Regional Delegation
> C-1/35 Safdarjang Development Area
> New Delhi-110 016, INDIA
> Tel: +91 11 2685 8671
> Mob: +91 98104 49283
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> 
> 
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: James Cohen 
>   To: [log in to unmask] 
>   Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 7:33 PM
>   Subject: Re: Some larger issues raised by
> hurricane Katrina
> 
> 
>   Just a few quick points.
> 
>   1. Under a former administration, FEMA's focus was
> on mitigation. Under the current administration the
> focus has been response. However, this is hardly
> surprising after the WTC disaster. There are limited
> funds. Most likely, the focus will again be shifted
> in the aftermath of this current disaster as the
> pros and cons of response vs. mitigation become more
> evident, including which disasters put the
> population and economy at most risk.
>   2. The tax structure requires local input for
> mitigation. If the tax base is not available, money
> will not be forthcoming for the mitigation
> strategies which have been suggested in this forum.
>   3. There are plans, exercises, etc., which have
> been and are being planned for mass evacuations of
> various large population centers in the United
> States. However, under some circumstances the
> current infrastructure cannot tolerate certain
> scenarios. An example would be a Category 5
> hurricane approaching NYC, for which evacuation
> means use of seaports, bridges and tunnels, all of
> which would be closed.
>   4. There was sufficient notice of the approaching
> hurricane to evacuate the city. Unfortunately, it
> appears from the newscasts that most of those
> stranded made a choice not to heed the warnings in
> time. The level of risk was not able to be predicted
> and communicated in sufficient time to provide the
> impetus for the unfortunate few who remained. This
> was not limited to just the poor. Experience in
> Florida suggests that "unnecessary" evacuations
> based on the current technology for predicting
> long-term forecasts will lead to apathy.
>   5. New Orleans is a historic district. Normal
> floodproofing requirements for new buildings and
> districts are therefore precluded.
>   6. The statement that "Only the well to do can
> afford to lose property - often high in monetary
> value - because only they have the assets to replace
> the losses." does not apply to the majority of those
> affected. Most "well to do" cannot afford to lose
> property, as this is their asset, not just one of
> many. It is a very small percentage that have
> sufficient assets to be able to afford the losses
> which are being seen. Also, it is the middle class
> which represent the majority of the population, not
> the poor, who will suffer most from loss of assets.
> 
> 
>   James Cohen, PE
>   James Cohen Consulting, PC
>   http://expertpages.com/jccpc


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com