Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Wisconsin

Hmm the Journal or the City of NO. I guess I will side with the Journal and suspect that the City doesn't really want to confront the facts.


10 posted on 09/15/2005 3:36:44 AM PDT by MNJohnnie (Professional Journalism the Buggy Whip makers of the 21st century)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]


To: MNJohnnie

The Nola report in my mind is far more alarming than the WSJ.

In essence it says:

The failures may have been caused by design or structural failures of the updated flood walls while still within the designed load.



If this is the case (and this is a "may" not a surety), then to my mind it is immoral to allow people back into New orleans before the problem is fixed. The probability of a hurricane hitting New Orleans now is no more and no less that it was a week before Katrina.

The difference is that we now suspect that the structures that protect New orleans from flooding are defective -- not that their failure was the result of a monster storm, but that they may not be up to more modest and more likely hurricane.


This is like allowing people to fly on a particular model airliner after one of them had its wing fall off in minor turbulence.


12 posted on 09/15/2005 4:20:45 AM PDT by Wisconsin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson