moneypenny20

I still don't understand the comparing storm with another storm, it makes no sense regardless of 'perspective' or what sort of land it happened on. The devastation of another storm doesn't alter the size, strength or devastation of this one but if you want to big up Cyclone Nargis you go for it but don't attempt to patronise people you don't know by assuming that just because they're stating that Sandy was a big one, they don't know about others that have happened.

Cuthbert Rizla

Patronise,you say ?

" 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 . "

You need to calm down love and get a grip.
It was a big storm but it wasn't the end of the world as we know it.
This time next week it'll all have been forgotten about when the election knocks it off the front page.
" History-changing " my arse.

moneypenny20

You need to sort your quoting out. I mentioned 'attempt at patronising' with regards knowledge of other weather systems. The quote was from BEVS. I'm more than calm darling, I'm laid out on the sofa, doing not a lot.

Lothianlad

Well, a hurricane did in fact hit London way back in October 1987 but it certainly did not cause as much damage as this American affair but even so 33 people died that night in SE England and East Anglia and literally millions of trees were toppled over and the town of Sevenoaks in Kent became Oneoak in the space of fifteen minutes..oak trees that had stood there for over 500 years.

The death toll on that occasion would have been much higher had the storm not struck in the middle of the night.

This American storm has received massive coverage in the UK media, especially on TV with, in my opinion, the BBC really going overboard on the story, and many people here have been complaining about BBC overkill - but criticising the much maligned BBC for a variety of very valid reasons is the name of the game here in the UK at the present time.

One thing is pretty much certain - had a similar storm hit London and caused as much havoc it's pretty much guaranteed that it would not have received anything like as much coverage in the American media as did the Sandy storm over here, either in print or on screen.

American lives and American properties are no more valuable and precious than those anywhere else on this planet.

scrubbedexpat097

We've been through many strong tropical storms and hurricanes in the last 20 odd years and I can tell you if they effect you personally it doesn't matter how big, strong or long they are it is scary!

Our house has flooded out 3 times, the 3rd time was the worst and yet it was from the smallest unnamed storm. We attempted to up and run from "Rita" but turned back because of the disasters happening when half of Texas left at the same time.

Then we had Ike. There was a lot of hype but people didnt want to leave after the problems with Rita. It was a massive storm, water surges started 2 days before the storm hit. People not more than 15 miles from us died because they did not leave when told to, lots of small coastal areas were destroyed and still are 4 years on. It was a scary time going through the storm and it was terrible after, trying to fix up our home as well as having to work to make sure the area was safe for people to return.


I feel for all the people without power, we went 10 days and it was no fun at all. I understand why it is emphasized so much on what to do and when to go....lots of lives were saved in our area because people evacuated. I say heed the warnings, go with the hype and just because the media goes over the top it doesn't mean its all for show. There are still people in temporary accommodation from Ike and there are still '"refugees" from Katrina in Houston.

Never underestimate mother nature!

robin1234

An aspect that has emerged in the back and forth on this thread is the sensational way Sandy has apparently been treated on TV in the US and UK. Of course no one has to watch TV. I myself don't have a TV, so I got my updates and warnings from our local public radio station and from selected Internet sources up to the storm hitting. After the event, I did point my browser to the Daily Mail etc. for a look at some of the photos from affected areas etc. But in general, don't watch TV and you can be more in control of incoming information.

WEBlue

+1!!

I've been through 5 hurricanes in this country & every one was def scary, plus the aftermath of three of those were serious AND uncomfortable for my family and/or extended family.


Jersey Shore yesterday

Bluegrass Lass

If you don't like the hype you see on the tv about Sandy, simply change the channel or turn it off.

Although I have no family or property that were in the path of this storm, I'm glad of all the so-called 'hype' of telling people to evacuate. Maybe this 'hype' is yet another difference in language between US/UK. My husband and I often have discussion how something as simple as tone of voice changes the whole meaning of something for a Brit vs. American. Unfortunately, probably most Americans are going to ignore evacuation orders unless the tone of voice used by media is hyped up words. That's just the way plenty of Americans are. Without the hyped up words, just how many more people would have died? This storm impacted about 5%-10% of entire US population. As strong and as devastating as Katrina was, it didn't impact such a huge population area as Sandy. For NYC, our financial hub & major metro area, to get hit straight on is a BFD, compared to smaller cities/towns in FL (and other south-eastern states)

The discussion about how the US media needs to gain some global perspective is a long running one. Regardless, the media are going to be concentrating on the impact of this storm for a while. Don't blame the US media because the BBC wants to plaster it everywhere in the UK - we have very little control over that.

Sally Redux

Crikey I was scared enough when there were some wildfires near us shortly after we arrived here, there were some pictures of a shelter in the paper this morning and it brought back that memory, there were some people who would not evacuate for that and unfortunately it puts the emergency services at more risk. I do get what yellowroom is saying in general terms, I think the media coverage for everything has a different, shouty tone here. However, Sandy is a serious event and unfortunately with climate change these things are going to become more common.

JRG67

I just heard that Romney wants to privatize the disaster relief services! Can you imagine what a fisaco that would be. Imagine if the Fire Department was privatized. After the 5th storey they would quit trying to put out the fire due to cost ineffectiveness.

Sally Redux

Yes but it would give everyone more choice

Bluegrass Lass

Yep. When my house is on fire, I want to take the time to decide which fire company I should call.

JRG67

Choice might be OK if one is wealthy and well-informed. I doubt many private disaster relief companies would be willing to work in poor areas.

sir_eccles

Interestingly we were on holiday in Scandinavia at the time of Katrina. With a lot of friends who live in NOLA we were often glued to the TV in the hotel to get updates. It was certainly interesting contrasting the style of reporting, BBC, CNN, Fox etc.

Sally Redux

But it works for healthcare.