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.
OOOOH! One person's opinion!!! WOW! That's a real big deal!!!!
Sorry, it means nothing even if it was true someone said it....
Agreed.
Did you hear though how Obama ordered thousands of sandy survivors on the east coast killed, painted blue and buried in a swamp near DC? Pretty sinister stuff.
<bonus points to anyone that remembers this claim made during Katrina about Bush....oh, and the person that made the claim was a congresswoman. >
All it took was loopy louie screaming that Bush blew up the levee's in nu oleens and he's got proof of it to get the phony outrage of the communists fueled. Where is that proof anyway?
The eastern edge always gets the storm surge and the winds. Mississippi got everything.
Wow! Thanks for the hurricane lesson.
You must be an expert.
So my house didn't get blown away?
I could go check, but I'm purty sure it's in a landfill.
These two storms aren't really comparable for a number of reasons. At the height of Superstorm Sandy, over eight million people were without power, and, this damage was not only caused by downed trees, but also by flooded substations in NJ, lower Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Long Island, and Staten Island. Although hardly anyone talks about it, big parts of CN were also affected. That's the Tri-State, which includes about 19 million people.
For people who have not lived in the area, it is hard to imagine how widespread the damage was (and is). Imagine the most densely populated part of your town that has lots of tall trees. Then, imagine that almost every single street in that area had huge trees down and live wires everywhere. Next, imagine that destruction radiating out for twenty or thirty miles of densely populated neighborhoods.
Now, think about the logistics involved in safely removing all those trees before electric crews can even get in to restore power, let alone FEMA workers. At the same time, imagine having subway and other mass transit stations completely underwater on both sides of the Hudson; all that water has to go somewhere, and all that equipment has to be dried out and then replaced. Thankfully, the flooding itself wasn't as bad as it was in New Orleans, but all that infrastructure has to be restored before the Tri-State can be up and fully running again. Oh, and don't forget all the train tracks that either don't have power or are underwater or both.
As opposed to Katrina, which horribly affected one urban area while devastating several sparsely populated Gulf Coast towns, this storm brought an incredibly densely populated urban area to its knees. I'm not making the argument that one storm was worse than the other; obviously Katrina was much more costly in terms of human life. Rather I am arguing that for the reasons listed above, the two storms aren't comparable. They both presented unique challenges that we will continue to deal with. Please don't make either into a political football, and don't be disingenuous about partisan reasons to do so. My heart goes out to victims of both tragedies.
Is there even such a thing as a "FEMA first responder?"
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.
>
