(09-01-2017 11:33 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  NO argument there Kap... Obama has the LEAST standing to me to even be used as an example of what a President should have been doing during a natural disaster..

I think he was out golfing during one national disaster.

"Let them eat cake," I believe he said.

(09-01-2017 12:43 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 11:33 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  NO argument there Kap... Obama has the LEAST standing to me to even be used as an example of what a President should have been doing during a natural disaster..

I think he was out golfing during one national disaster.

"Let them eat cake," I believe he said.

Do you have a link for that?

http://www.chron.com/news/local/article/...o-14020649

Interesting article on what Harvey would look like in other states/regions of the U.S.

(09-01-2017 12:43 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 11:33 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  NO argument there Kap... Obama has the LEAST standing to me to even be used as an example of what a President should have been doing during a natural disaster..

I think he was out golfing during one national disaster.

"Let them eat cake," I believe he said.

He was.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016...-while-lo/

Quote:NBC Reporter Kasie Hunt tweeted on Wednesday: “Do read this exquisite White House pool report from the elite playground on Martha’s Vineyard,” which went on to describe the president’s motorcade pulling away from the Vineyard Golf Club.

“This oasis of green is a special place, according to itself,” The New York Times’ Gardiner Harris wrote in the pool report. “While the club is presently unable to accommodate new members, its website graciously invites non-members to learn more about the things they cannot have here. Like ‘exquisite dinners and that last nightcap,’ evoking a bygone era.”

The Louisiana flooding is the worst natural disaster since Superstorm Sandy — and yet the president and his minions in the press seem unfazed.

The White House said Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson will visit the state on Thursday to review the federal government’s response.

Mr. Obama spoke with FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate on Wednesday morning and then got back to his round of golf as the press adoringly looked on.

(09-01-2017 04:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 12:43 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 11:33 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  NO argument there Kap... Obama has the LEAST standing to me to even be used as an example of what a President should have been doing during a natural disaster..

I think he was out golfing during one national disaster.

"Let them eat cake," I believe he said.

He was.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016...-while-lo/

Quote:NBC Reporter Kasie Hunt tweeted on Wednesday: “Do read this exquisite White House pool report from the elite playground on Martha’s Vineyard,” which went on to describe the president’s motorcade pulling away from the Vineyard Golf Club.

“This oasis of green is a special place, according to itself,” The New York Times’ Gardiner Harris wrote in the pool report. “While the club is presently unable to accommodate new members, its website graciously invites non-members to learn more about the things they cannot have here. Like ‘exquisite dinners and that last nightcap,’ evoking a bygone era.”

The Louisiana flooding is the worst natural disaster since Superstorm Sandy — and yet the president and his minions in the press seem unfazed.

The White House said Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson will visit the state on Thursday to review the federal government’s response.

Mr. Obama spoke with FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate on Wednesday morning and then got back to his round of golf as the press adoringly looked on.

Yea, well, Louisiana voted one way in 12, Joisey another. Pretty simple math. One gets a visit and Governor hugs, the other gets Jeh Johnson and a round or two on da Vinyawd.

(09-01-2017 04:22 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 04:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 12:43 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 11:33 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  NO argument there Kap... Obama has the LEAST standing to me to even be used as an example of what a President should have been doing during a natural disaster..

I think he was out golfing during one national disaster.

"Let them eat cake," I believe he said.

He was.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016...-while-lo/

Quote:NBC Reporter Kasie Hunt tweeted on Wednesday: “Do read this exquisite White House pool report from the elite playground on Martha’s Vineyard,” which went on to describe the president’s motorcade pulling away from the Vineyard Golf Club.

“This oasis of green is a special place, according to itself,” The New York Times’ Gardiner Harris wrote in the pool report. “While the club is presently unable to accommodate new members, its website graciously invites non-members to learn more about the things they cannot have here. Like ‘exquisite dinners and that last nightcap,’ evoking a bygone era.”

The Louisiana flooding is the worst natural disaster since Superstorm Sandy — and yet the president and his minions in the press seem unfazed.

The White House said Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson will visit the state on Thursday to review the federal government’s response.

Mr. Obama spoke with FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate on Wednesday morning and then got back to his round of golf as the press adoringly looked on.

Yea, well, Louisiana voted one way in 12, Joisey another. Pretty simple math. One gets a visit and Governor hugs, the other gets Jeh Johnson and a round or two on da Vinyawd.

Chicago style politics.

Albany, Georgia had a series of bad floods. Couldn't get Obama to declare a disaster. Trump did it almost immediately.

Anybody have any insight to the chemical plants in Texas that have been exploding? I saw some orange smoke coming from one. What kind of environmental issues could we possibly get from it.

The plants themselves are a hazard, so much the same.

(09-01-2017 05:49 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  Anybody have any insight to the chemical plants in Texas that have been exploding? I saw some orange smoke coming from one. What kind of environmental issues could we possibly get from it.

No insight but the EPA has already said the air around the plant is fine. I'm not sure if Crosby residents have been allowed to return to their homes or not. I believe they were evacuated in a 1 1/2 mile radius of the plant. Most of their area was pretty flooded anyway so I'm not sure how many want to return to their homes quite yet anyway. Crosby is pretty far from the eastern-most Houston suburbs - probably 10 to 15 miles from the nearest ones. The threat was confined to the evacuation zone.

I'd say Crosby is a Houston suburb.

(09-01-2017 06:23 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(09-01-2017 05:49 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  Anybody have any insight to the chemical plants in Texas that have been exploding? I saw some orange smoke coming from one. What kind of environmental issues could we possibly get from it.

No insight but the EPA has already said the air around the plant is fine. I'm not sure if Crosby residents have been allowed to return to their homes or not. I believe they were evacuated in a 1 1/2 mile radius of the plant. Most of their area was pretty flooded anyway so I'm not sure how many want to return to their homes quite yet anyway. Crosby is pretty far from the eastern-most Houston suburbs - probably 10 to 15 miles from the nearest ones. The threat was confined to the evacuation zone.

Most of the time with a chemical fire the best course of action both health-wise and environmentally is to let it burn. While the smoke will be an irritant the vast majority of the time it's better than what would happen if you tried to put it out. Depending on the chemical the fire actually reduces the health hazards. Some chemicals have seriously bad reactions to water and with all chemicals however many gallons of water you put on the fire is now additional contamination that you have to try to contain and later cleanup. I read an article on a firefighting site where the plant owner is content to let it burn so he's good with whatever damage the fire does.

A 1 1/2 mile exclusion zone is pretty large and should suffice for just about anything. I know off the top of my head the only facility we responded to that required a larger exclusion zone was a facility that handled medical waste and that was because of the low level radioactive waste they had at times. Unlike most chemicals radioactivity will stick to soot so we had a one mile exclusion zone downwind in case of a fire. We would have fought that fire even knowing we were exposing our crews to radioactivity.

(09-01-2017 05:49 PM)cb4029 Wrote:  Anybody have any insight to the chemical plants in Texas that have been exploding? I saw some orange smoke coming from one. What kind of environmental issues could we possibly get from it.

Reports are next to none, but within a mile and a half corridor perhaps, but people shouldn't be there.

Why this was allowed to persist for the last decade or so is seriously beyond me.

Where was the oversight, regulation, and best practices?

Another gleaming example of the utter incompetence of this prior regime and their clear inability to get near anything right. SAD.

The company in Crosby has been open for about 20 years and apparently has been cited for safety issues since it's been open. Crosby is fairly depressed economically so my guess is the local officials there don't want to press the matter too much because they would be afraid of folks losing jobs. In general, the petrochemical industry in Houston/East Texas has a long history of safety violations that date back at least to the 1940's.

I know that several organizations (some media, some not) have requested a list of the chemicals this company has on hand that are in danger of being released to the air, and the company is refusing because they say it would be unsafe to do so due to terrorism concerns. Do you want the current presidential administration to force them to release the list?

Don't you love it when the gas prices go up .50 in a week, then take three months to come back down. SMH. This pipeline will probably be back online next week. Probably won't even see a real shortage besides in Texas.

Over 50 confirmed dead so far:

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-weathe...159139.php

Chronicle article listing the casualties and circumstances with pictures commemorating some of the deceased.

So much TDS. Searching for articles on Harvey and about a third of them are TDS-Melania shouldn't have worn heels boarding Air Force One. Trump wasn't compassionate enough or boasted too much. Sick, sick people. Don't they ever figure out how deranged and out of touch with reality they appear? People want to know what the feds are doing to help the people on the ground, not what Melania wore walking to the airplane.

(09-02-2017 09:47 AM)bullet Wrote:  Over 50 confirmed dead so far:

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-weathe...159139.php

Chronicle article listing the casualties and circumstances with pictures commemorating some of the deceased.

While any loss of life is sad, a storm and flood of this magnitude in a heavily populated area was going to take lives, regardless of emergency preparedness/evacuation...

50+ deaths considering the population of the affected areas and the amount of devastation is a job well done by the government, first responders and citizen volunteers. I do expect that number to rise some maybe even double but even 100+ is an absolute win.

For a catastrophe of this magnitude, deaths up 1-2% of the total population wouldn't be out of the question. 1% of 6.5 million would be 65,000.

(09-02-2017 12:44 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  The company in Crosby has been open for about 20 years and apparently has been cited for safety issues since it's been open. Crosby is fairly depressed economically so my guess is the local officials there don't want to press the matter too much because they would be afraid of folks losing jobs. In general, the petrochemical industry in Houston/East Texas has a long history of safety violations that date back at least to the 1940's.

To be fair the mere presence of a violation isn't an indication of somewhere being unsafe. When you have as much bureaucratic overhead as the chemical industry has it's more of a shock that a company has no violations and is still able to turn enough of a profit to stay in business. The vast majority of citations have absolutely nothing to do with safety.

Quote:I know that several organizations (some media, some not) have requested a list of the chemicals this company has on hand that are in danger of being released to the air, and the company is refusing because they say it would be unsafe to do so due to terrorism concerns. Do you want the current presidential administration to force them to release the list?

I don't.

I assume that barring anything unforeseen when they recover from Harvey they are going to go right back into dealing with the same chemicals they are dealing with now. Absolutely no reason to give a potential terrorist that information for future use. The public safety and public health professionals at the local. state,and federal levels already know what chemicals are present...absolutely no need to release that info to the public.

People are still being evacuated do to some more flooding...

https://www.click2houston.com/news/water...reservoirs

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017...628235001/

This is one of my fraternity brothers. Looks like buying that truck has paid off.