After a bit of thought I've decided to share some 'back of the envelope'
calculations I did last week regarding the supply of the most
fundamental requirement for life...water...to the displaced population
at the Superdome;

WHO recommends that the daily intake of water for someone undertaking
manual labour in a hot climate is 4.5 litres (N.B. although I imagine
little actual labour was being undertaken I suggest the stress of the
situation justifies catering for high consumption for comfort).

1 litre of water weighs one kilogramme. 1,000 litres weigh 1 tonne

In the early stages it was suggested that as many as 20,000 people may
have been at or making their way to the Dome (I understand that 19,000
have now been evacuated from there).

Let's run with the reported figure and say that following the
designation by the authorities, across the media, of the Superdome as
'refuge of last resort' (media outlets which I assume were also being
monitored by FEMA) 19,000 people were expected to converge on the site.

19,000 people x 4.5 litres of water = 85,500 litres of water per day

The maximum underslung payload capacity of a Chinook helicopter is
~3,600kgs.
Now, if we make the equipment work for its money let's say that a
maximum payload of 3,500kgs is possible (i.e. maximum load minus weight
of cargo net and pallets)

85,500 / 3,500 = ~24.5 

This means that in order to sustain life at the Superdome somebody
should have been flying just over one Chinook mission into the site
every hour for the entire period, simply to supply the minimum
requirement of water, and paying no attention to the requirements for
food.

In the reportage I have seen there was no evidence of such an organised
operation (although I did see the frenzied rush of young men toward
water that was being hurled unceremoniously from a hovering Blackhawk on
a couple of occasions (internal capacity 997kg i.e. ~86 daily drops
required).

This calculation suggests two things to me:
1)	The need for the most basic macro scale life-sustaining
operations was being neglected amidst the perceived importance of
rushing to save life at the micro scale.
2)	It is hardly surprising that 'unauthorised resource procurement'
was occurring as a result of this oversight.

Hugh  


-----Original Message-----
From: Natural hazards and disasters
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ilan
Kelman
Sent: 02 September 2005 14:57
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Poverty, looters, the real looters -- the Urban Predicament


With all due respect, please let's be realistic.  The threat to New
Orleans 
was identified years ago.  Long before Katrina, some of our colleagues
had 
been working intensively to get some form of preparedness and mitigation

plans, but their pleas fell on deaf ears.

I also provided advice to practitioners a few years ago regarding how to

respond to a major flood event in New Orleans.  The practitioners could
not 
get anywhere with doing what needed to be done to prepare.  FEMA, DHS,
and 
the White House have been warned time and time again that the U.S.A.'s 
ability to respond to an environmental catastrophe was suffering.

We are dealing with human beings.  The mess in Darfur is no excuse for
the 
mess in the southern U.S.A.  In both instances, and many others that we
see, 
what could happen was known, how to deal with it was known, the
resources 
were available, and little was done.  Let's be realistic.  There is no 
excuse for what we see.

Ilan

The information in this email is confidential and is intended solely for
the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. 

If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying,
distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on
it, except for the purpose of delivery to the addressee, is prohibited
and may be unlawful. Kindly notify the sender and delete the message and
any attachment from your computer.