![]() |
Re: Sandy
Part of the problem is that a lot of people in Manhatten have a natural arrogance towards the forces of Nature. They assume that because of Wall Street, Manhatten will be cleared up first.
The storm was not as bad as a tsunami, but the general public are not educated in what steps to take for the worse case scenario. |
Re: Sandy
Can you imagine if a hurricane hit London? A 12-foot tidal surge coming up the Thames. The stock exchange inundated with 3 to 4 ft of water. All the tube stations flooded! Thousands of black cabs flooded out. All the trains and buses halted because of falling trees, debris and flooding. Most of Maida Vale burned down from sparks from a fire, and spread by the wind. Thousands of houses flooded, or destroyed by wind. A huge boat capsized at sea. Blizzards 3 to 4 ft deep in Berkshire. A huge hospital losing power. Trees falling down on houses and schools. Millions without power.
It wouldn't be very newsworthy I guess. Just a small column in the local paper. :blink::confused_smile: |
Re: Sandy
Originally Posted by Cuthbert Rizla
(Post 10357460)
Just looking at all the coverage during Sandy I can't help feeling that there's been a massive amount of hype and over-dramatisation about this storm.
Although it was big in size it was barely a Cat 1 hurricane when it hit land and apart from the Jersey shoreline being flooded ( it's a shoreline,what do you expect ? ) and parts of lower Manhattan being affected ( ancient subway system barely upgraded since it was built ) most places got off pretty lightly. Three times as many people died in the Caribbean during Sandy but this barely registered in the US media and historically Sandy really is just a storm in a teacup. In 1938 a real "superstorm" that hit the eastern seaboard called the Yankee Clipper or the Long Island Express, it was a category 3 hurricane that left 600 people dead in New England, and 60 people in New York City alone. In a bid to outdo each other some of the US media experts I've been watched have been laughably over-the-top. "When I was a young boy growing up in the Northeast (New Jersey) and obsessed with the weather, I used to wonder what it’d be like when the big one comes. Well, we’re about to find out." – Stu Ostro, senior director of weather communications for The Weather Channel "If anything, Sandy is exceeding the forecast expectations, and the forecast was for a storm of epic proportions and effects." – Bryan Norcross, hurricane specialist for The Weather Channel "It looks like it's going to be worse than the storm of '62, which was monumental." – Willie Glass, Atlantic City's public safety director "With this storm, it could be unprecedented. We might see more flood damage than we've seen in a long time." - Paul Walsh, Vice President of Weather Analytics for The Weather Channel "If this all happens as forecasted, and you and your family are stuck in the cold and dark without food and light and communications because you didn't run to the store and get ready, excuses are going to be spectacularly hard to come by." – Bryan Norcross, hurricane specialist for The Weather Channel I think they forgot it's real-life and not Hollywood. You decide that a small powerful storm is greater than a less powerful but huge storm? Are you the arbiter who sets the criteria? what are your qualifications? Certainly, on an energy level, this was greater. In today's dollars, the 1938 storm did less than $5B, this one will probably hit $20B. The 1938 storm cost more lives but there would have been much less warning and mitigating organization back then. You cannot compare the death count of the first evening here with that in the Caribbean, you don't have a clue what it is. In short, this was a huge storm that is still going and now headed for Canada. |
Re: Sandy
Originally Posted by Mallory
(Post 10358258)
Can you imagine if a hurricane hit London? A 12-foot tidal surge coming up the Thames. The stock exchange inundated with 3 to 4 ft of water. All the tube stations flooded! Thousands of black cabs flooded out. All the trains and buses halted because of falling trees, debris and flooding. Most of Maida Vale burned down from sparks from a fire, and spread by the wind. Thousands of houses flooded, or destroyed by wind. A huge boat capsized at sea. Blizzards 3 to 4 ft deep in Berkshire. A huge hospital losing power. Trees falling down on houses and schools. Millions without power.
It wouldn't be very newsworthy I guess. Just a small column in the local paper. :blink::confused_smile: |
Re: Sandy
|
Re: Sandy
Originally Posted by yellowroom
(Post 10358164)
:banghead: We're obviously talking past each other, so I'm going to summarise my point as follows and leave it:
Warnings from National Weather Service, National Hurricane Centre, The Mayor, The Governor, The President, your local Police, etc = Good Dramatic, hyperbolic news as entertainment = Bad and potentially leading to a "cry wolf" situation next time. |
Re: Sandy
Originally Posted by paddingtongreen
(Post 10358289)
What a load of old rubbish.
You decide that a small powerful storm is greater than a less powerful but huge storm? Are you the arbiter who sets the criteria? what are your qualifications? Certainly, on an energy level, this was greater. In today's dollars, the 1938 storm did less than $5B, this one will probably hit $20B. The 1938 storm cost more lives but there would have been much less warning and mitigating organization back then. You cannot compare the death count of the first evening here with that in the Caribbean, you don't have a clue what it is. In short, this was a huge storm that is still going and now headed for Canada. I do hope that none of our fellow BE folk have suffered any significant loss. |
Re: Sandy
Originally Posted by dakota44
(Post 10358438)
Exactly spot on. The somewhat strange downplaying this storm on the part of a few here is, well, I'll keep it polite and just say ridiculous. Of course, had their house been torn from the foundation or been one of the 80 plus houses that burned to the ground in Queens, or they lived in one of the New Jersey cities that were inundated, or had one of their friends or family been one of the 30 or more who have died...they might not be so cavalier about something that is indeed a huge and powerful storm that is not yet finished doing damage.
I do hope that none of our fellow BE folk have suffered any significant loss. It's all about perspective. And the responsibility of hysterical nees organisations to put everything into perspective. For instance, do you remember Cyclone Nargis ? No ? Well let me remind you. 138,000 people died in it. Yes, 138,000 And caused €10billion of damage. It was the biggest natural disaster ever to hit Burma - and there's the clue. No-one in the US gives a toss about Burma so, of course, a Category 1 hurricane that weakens to a tropical storm before it hits land becomes an apcoalyptic " Frankenstorm " whereas something that happens in a 3rd World country doesn't really count for anything. Oh, and by the way, Cyclone Nargis didn't happen decades ago but in 2008. Yep, four years ago. So whilst any loss of life and property in Sandy is unfortunate and sad for those involved put in perspective it really wasn't THAT big a deal. Except, of course, it was handily placed right on the front doorstep of all the major news organisations in America. That's why it was a super-storm. |
Re: Sandy
Originally Posted by Cuthbert Rizla
(Post 10358491)
It's all about perspective.
And the responsibility of hysterical nees organisations to put everything into perspective. For instance, do you remember Cyclone Nargis ? No ? Well let me remind you. 138,000 people died in it. Yes, 138,000 And caused €10billion of damage. It was the biggest natural disaster ever to hit Burma - and there's the clue. No-one in the US gives a toss about Burma so, of course, a Category 1 hurricane that weakens to a tropical storm before it hits land becomes an apcoalyptic " Frankenstorm " whereas something that happens in a 3rd World country doesn't really count for anything. Oh, and by the way, Cyclone Nargis didn't happen decades ago but in 2008. Yep, four years ago. So whilst any loss of life and property in Sandy is unfortunate and sad for those involved put in perspective it really wasn't THAT big a deal. Except, of course, it was handily placed right on the front doorstep of all the major news organisations in America. That's why it was a super-storm. NYC, by your reckoning wouldn't have been shut down (it's hard to shut a major city without letting people know ;)). Did you see the cars piled up all over central Manhattan? Had people been driving, walking etc because they hadn't been warned of possibilities, the deathtoll would have been in the hundreds. Atlantic City wouldn't have had parts evacuated, buildings boarded up etc etc etc. |
Re: Sandy
Originally Posted by moneypenny20
(Post 10358502)
It was a superstorm because of the size, and circumstance with the cold front. I don't understand the analogy with the cyclone in Burma. The whole my storm was bigger than yours is obscene imo. Again, had the media/powers that be not made the deal with Sandy that they did, people would be wishing 'only 50 odd people' had died. Numbers would have been way higher also the cost of rebuilding hasn't even been able to be estimated yet as it's still doing its thing.
NYC, by your reckoning wouldn't have been shut down (it's hard to shut a major city without letting people know ;)). Did you see the cars piled up all over central Manhattan? Had people been driving, walking etc because they hadn't been warned of possibilities, the deathtoll would have been in the hundreds. Atlantic City wouldn't have had parts evacuated, buildings boarded up etc etc etc. You missed the key word,twice. It's all about perspective. Of course people heeded official advice to stay off the roads and prepare for days without power. But other than that people didn't evacuate in their thousands ( where could they evacuate to ? ) and most just battened down the hatches till the storm passed. But the hysterical doom-mongering of the TV stations was just that - hysterical doom-mongering. Most places will be back up and running within a matter of days - they're still repairing the damage from Katrina. |
Re: Sandy
I'll just say, the media hype obscures the good leadership, and the common sense of the people. The fact that so few were harmed is due to the fact that so many got out of the way.
For those of us watching from afar it was good TV, but it is not "Reality TV" it is just Real.:frown: |
Re: Sandy
Originally Posted by Cuthbert Rizla
(Post 10358491)
It's all about perspective. .
|
Re: Sandy
Originally Posted by Cuthbert Rizla
(Post 10358491)
It's all about perspective.
And the responsibility of hysterical nees organisations to put everything into perspective. For instance, do you remember Cyclone Nargis ? No ? Well let me remind you. 138,000 people died in it. Yes, 138,000 And caused €10billion of damage. It was the biggest natural disaster ever to hit Burma - and there's the clue. No-one in the US gives a toss about Burma so, of course, a Category 1 hurricane that weakens to a tropical storm before it hits land becomes an apcoalyptic " Frankenstorm " whereas something that happens in a 3rd World country doesn't really count for anything. Oh, and by the way, Cyclone Nargis didn't happen decades ago but in 2008. Yep, four years ago. So whilst any loss of life and property in Sandy is unfortunate and sad for those involved put in perspective it really wasn't THAT big a deal. Except, of course, it was handily placed right on the front doorstep of all the major news organisations in America. That's why it was a super-storm. Thousands would have died if the subways, schools, businesses, roads had been open. It appears to be you who wants the "headline" story of deaths and destruction. Most people are thankful for a bad situation well managed. |
Re: Sandy
Originally Posted by Cuthbert Rizla
(Post 10358526)
You missed the key word,twice.
It's all about perspective.. |
Re: Sandy
Originally Posted by BEVS
(Post 10358532)
Raises the eyebrows here. Wryly smiles a bit and thinks to self ----- wind up. Or if not, has never , ever been in such a situation. Nor been close to such a situation or known anyone, anything - animal, vegetable, mineral or general - that has been subject to this or any other of the extreme conditions our planet can throw out .
They just didn't happen to occur on prime-time TV over prime real estate. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 10:08 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.