Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hurricane Sandy affected a greater number of people in a much larger area than Katrina, but also caused less "peak damage" than Katrina, i.e. less people were affected by Katrina but those who were affected were affected to a greater degree.
Using a much more extreme example, compare an F-5 tornado to a Category 2 hurricane - the F-5 tornado has much higher wind speeds and obliterates the homes of 10 people, but the Cat 2 hurricane impacts a far greater number of people over a wider area, yet the average amount of damage is much less than the F-5 tornado? Which is the greater disaster? I'd argue the hurricane was, even though the peak damage was less. Sandy vs. Katrina is much less clear cut, but it's safe to say that Sandy was the East Coast's equivalent to Hurricane Katrina, in that it was the worst hurricane on record to hit the two respective regions and both had a horrendous impact - losing power is no picnic; just ask the people in Staten Island who were thrown back to the Dark Ages for months. Comparing the two and arguing which is worse is pointless and uninteresting to me. Besides, they weren't even the same kind of storm - Sandy was more like an extratropical superstorm with a tropical component, whereas Katrina was a true tropical cyclone. Katrina didn't produce any snow, whereas Sandy produced up to 3 feet.
The stats linked to show 1800 deaths from Katrina vs. 200 from Sandy. Sandy destroyed 400 000 homes. The 1.2 million figure that was mentioned also includes Rita and Wilma, so a huge chunk of those 1.2 million were not from Katrina - if Katrina was responsible for 1/3 of those homes, that puts Katrina's figure at approximately 400 000. That's probably a lowball figure, but considering the devastation from Wilma and Rita I don't imagine it could possibly be more than 2/3, so that puts the homes destroyed between 400 000 and 800 000 - more than Sandy, but still in the same league. The estimated cost of Katrina was $148 billion, whereas Sandy was estimated at $71 billion - the newest estimates put Sandy's damages higher, but still in the $70-80 billion range. Insured losses from Katrina were $49 billion, versus $20 billion from Sandy. Katrina knocked out power to 3 million homes, whereas Sandy knocked out power to 8 million homes.
So, Katrina had twice as much damage, a somewhat greater number of homes destroyed, 6 times as many deaths, affected only a quarter as many people, and only caused a third as many power outages. Weigh those statistics yourself and come up with your own answer. I'm not very interested myself.
What is more interesting to me is which was the greater meteorological event, and Sandy clearly wins on that front. Hurricanes like Katrina have moved through the region before - true, it was unprecedented in some respects, but meteorologically it was reasonably close to what was seen before. Hurricane Sandy wasn't even close to anything that was seen before on the East Coast or anywhere in the Atlantic Basin. Many all-time record low pressure records were set in the region, and the storm's structure and extent was without precedent. Also, the snowstorm was without precedent among hurricanes in terms of the area covered and the peak snowfall amounts, reaching around 3 feet in some areas.
It should be noted that Sandy is second only to Katrina in total damage, i.e. if Katrina did not occur in 2005 Sandy would be the costliest Atlantic hurricane on record. As a matter of fact, if Sandy occurred in 2002 instead of 2012 no other hurricane would even be close in terms of damage. So, regardless of your opinion about Sandy vs. Katrina, don't think that Sandy was a walk in the park for the Northeast, because both Sandy and Katrina were absolutely beastly as far as hurricanes go.
First off, thank you for your respectful, thoughtful reply. It was a welcomed change from a previous poster who couldn't seem to even comprehend that Katrina was even on Sandy's "level". I did not see the 1.2 million for all three, so I agree we cannot include that in the analysis.
To address your first point regarding the tornado and hurricane, that is a very extreme example. A tornado has a diameter for a mile or two. At the end of the day, while yes, the diameter of Sandy might have been bigger than that of Katrina, Sandy was still a weak category one when making landfall in the United States. Those winds were confined to a very small area, making most of the areas affected only having tropical storm conditions. In a very strong category three, as Katrina made landfall as, the hurricane winds stretch much farther out. I agree it was the east coast's Katrina, however I believe that it was a weaker version of Katrina. Just because it happened to the "prestigious" northeast does not automatically make it worse. And yes, power outages suck, but it shouldn't be anywhere near the level of fatalities.
I think we differ most in that you think because it hit New York it was a worse storm, but I say because the damages were billions of dollars apart and the fatality difference was over 1,500 Katrina was worse. In my opinion, we are talking about the storm itself and the aftermath of it, and if a storm in a much less populated area can still cause billions of dollars more in damage and many, many more fatalities, then I think it is much worse. I mean since the northeast has many more people, shouldn't they have more fatalities too? If New Orleans was larger than New York, would Katrina be worse?
I agree with your fourth paragraph that Sandy was a bigger meteorological event because of where it hit, but does that make it worse?
No, trust me I know Sandy was a horrible, horrible event. But, when a fellow poster gives an asinine reply totally dismissing Katrina as if it were NOTHING in comparison to Katrina, you know what, I am not going to let that slide. Thank you again for your intelligent post. I really appreciate it.
The Northeast is where the Bos-Wash corridor is and most importantly where NYC is. The fact of the matter is New York is probably the most important place to this country. When a natural disaster happens there, it is huge news. And it should be. It also should be news when they hit the gulf. But the gulf is not NYC. NYC is the capital of the world. I'm not saying that the bias is right, but I understand why it exists.
Wrong. Washington DC, the capital, and where our government is, is the most important place in the country. The USA couldn't function without Washington. I'm so sick of reading all this NYC bias everywhere on this site.
I've come to this forum to explain my dissatisfaction with how Hurricane Sandy and Tropical Storm Irene was handled in the United States in comparison to gulf coast storms. I just feel like those two storms, occurring in successive previous years were given extreme media coverage in comparison to gulf coast storms such as Hurricane Isaac. Plaquemines Parish was devestated by the storm but hardly a sole would know.
However because Hurricane Sandy and Tropical Storm Irene were hitting New York, it was a huge news event. Irene was very minor and Sandy was treated almost like another Katrina.
I guess what I am trying to say is it is frustrating being from the gulf coast and when a storm hits it doesn't really matter because they are "supposed" to hit us, but when tropical storm hits New York, it is the end of the world.
Do you agree or disagree with this. I mean no harm to any of the victims of Irene and Sandy, and feel terrible for them.
I don't necessarily agree with the notion that the media has some sort of Northeast bias, although it comes off that way at times. The EF2 tornado that hit Atlanta in 2008 received much more coverage than the EF2 tornado that hit New York City in 2007, and rightfully so, it did more damage and injured more people. That doesn't mean the Atlanta tornado itself was any worse, but it had a greater impact.
I believe the likelihood of a particular weather event and the amount of people that may be affected are the main factors for the amount of media attention a particular weather event receives. The Gulf Coast is more susceptible to hurricanes than the Northeast, so it makes sense that the Northeast would receive a bit more attention and coverage, it can save lives.
And Isaac wasn't ignored, the fact that a hurricane was forecasted to hit the same area devastated by Katrina, and eerily close to Katrina's anniversary, was news. And Irene wasn't a minor event, I believe it actually did more damage than Isaac, the majority of which occurred inland.
I can't believe people are actually arguing "My storm was worse than yours." Can't we all just agree that Sandy & Katrina were both disasters that effected a ton of people? I lived through Sandy, it was scary-and I live on the western side of the state boardering PA. I was lucky, though...I didn't lose my house or my business, like many people I know did. Maybe people who didn't live through it should be a little more sensitive and think about what they are saying...shut the F** up.
Yes, I agree Hurricane Sandy was overblown and people overreacted.
Excuse me? Hundreds of people lost their lives and the amount of damage is second to Katrina. If Sandy was overblown, every single hurricane to strike the U.S. is as well, minus Katrina.
I agree with your fourth paragraph that Sandy was a bigger meteorological event because of where it hit, but does that make it worse?
We've just had two record breaking tornadoes hit the OKC area back to back. Nonstop coverage by the mainstream media for weeks. What made it much' worse' is both hit highly populated metro areas which is quite rare.
Excuse me? Hundreds of people lost their lives and the amount of damage is second to Katrina. If Sandy was overblown, every single hurricane to strike the U.S. is as well, minus Katrina.
It might be "second", but the drop is tremendous. All I am asking is that the media gives a little more respect to the rural folks, such as those in South Plaquemines, who suffered tremendous losses. If Katrina had hit New York, the coverage would be 10x that than if it hit New Orleans. I personally, find it disrespectful, but whatever.
Excuse me? Hundreds of people lost their lives and the amount of damage is second to Katrina. If Sandy was overblown, every single hurricane to strike the U.S. is as well, minus Katrina.
Sandy was a beastly and catastrophic storm, killing 133 people on the U.S. mainland and causing billions of dollars in damage. However, Katrina killed over 1,500 on the U.S. mainland and caused more than 1/3 of the population of New Orleans to leave the city. NYC and NJ were business-as-usual within weeks of Sandy; LA and south MS have not fully recovered yet.
Of course a tropical system striking the most populated region in the U.S. warranted media coverage, but did it really need as much coverage as Katrina? Please. Of course the mainstream media, being headquartered in NYC and Philly (minus CNN), are more interested in covering something hitting them, but if a post-tropical storm hit the Gulf Coast and killed 133 people, it would not receive the obscene amount of media coverage Sandy did.
And as far as Irene, I think we can all agree that that was hype to the extreme. The only impacts were in Vermont which weren't even reported.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
