Mudslide.

[Robert May Eng.]

Thoughts for the victims of the mudslide in Washington. Is this a man made disaster caused by deforestation and poor land management?

BBC News - Up to 108 missing after US mudslide


Bob

 

[Doug S.]

Sounds more like a geological fault than a man-made issue. The area was unstable to begin with and the western exceptional drought has killed many plants that were instrumental in keeping the soil in place.
Such a sad tragedy!
...I could see it being a man-made issue in this manner...if they were aware that the mountainside had such a history of instability, why did they build their town right in the pathway...did they know about it before the community was built...or, did they know it was a dangerous site and build there anyway because of some scenic vista. Life is all about choices...

 

[Larry L.]

This event happened in what might figuratively be referred to as my back yard (about 50 miles away as the crow flies).

Mudslides of this type have happened around here since loooooooong before anybody built a town anywhere. Fifteen inches of rain in 45 days was the cause. The hillside just got too saturated and couldn't hold it all. 'No more complicated than that...

(Edit: Perhaps a 'RAIN WATER RUNOFF TAX' would have prevented it? Oh, wait - we already HAVE that tax in place. ['Dead serious here. We actually DO.])

 

[Mark]

Taken from that link:

"It's a soft 108," Mr Pennington told a news conference, reports the Associated Press news agency. The number is expected to fall as it is suspected that some of the missing-person reports have overlapped.

You think? They may as well have said up to 1,000!

Thoughts and prayers for those affected.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Thoughts for the victims of the mudslide in Washington. Is this a man made disaster caused by deforestation and poor land management?

BBC News - Up to 108 missing after US mudslide


Bob

I love the way tree huggers try and turn everything into a man made disaster.
Have a look at the aerial photos in the report, the whole bloody mountain was covered with trees and the report itself says mudslides have been going on in the area since the last ice age.

 

[Larry L.]

I love the way tree huggers try and turn everything into a man made disaster.
Have a look at the aerial photos in the report, the whole bloody mountain was covered with trees and the report itself says mudslides have been going on in the area since the last ice age.

EGG-zackly!

And, BTW, the slide involved a HILL...not a MOUNTAIN.

THIS is a "MOUNTAIN":

https://www.google.com/search?q=Pho...hotography%2F377752-mt-rainier.html;1600;1194

 

[Robert May Eng.]

I love the way tree huggers try and turn everything into a man made disaster.
Have a look at the aerial photos in the report, the whole bloody mountain was covered with trees and the report itself says mudslides have been going on in the area since the last ice age.

True Pete the hills are covered with trees but these are young and re gen which have been planted after harvesting the deep rooted original stock. Some are of the opinion that these shallow rooted newer trees are responsible for the destabilisation of hills.

Bob

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

I am aware of that Bob, however the report also says mudslides have been going on in the area since the last ice age, I doubt anybody was cutting down trees back then.

 

[Robert May Eng.]

I am aware of that Bob, however the report also says mudslides have been going on in the area since the last ice age, I doubt anybody was cutting down trees back then.

May be some and some Pete . Below is pasted a comment made by a local.

I know this area, this slope, and the range above it. It has all been clearcut at different points. To act like this is a slide-prone are is ludicrous. THe entire state wherever there is glacial till, is a slide-prone area, but what keeps it together is trees. The roundtop mountain top above this area has been clearcut bald. Areas directly to the west and above where this land gave way were clearcut within the last 20 years. The area along the river, which slid before was bare before 2003? Why is that? Because it was probably clearcut after years of selective cutting by loggers who used to not clearcut because they knew it destroyed the viability of the area.
Logging criminals are out of control in the USA, and for Nat Geo to not call it as it is, is a sure sign that they were bought out by moneyed interests and not what they used to be, a source of truth.



Bob

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Sheeesh, are you sure your name is Bob and not Jim? O.k. I give up I'm off to hug a tree.
BTW how much timber does your house have in it?

 

[Robert May Eng.]

Sheeesh, are you sure your name is Bob and not Jim?

Ouch


Bob

 

[Doug S.]

(Edit: Perhaps a 'RAIN WATER RUNOFF TAX' would have prevented it? Oh, wait - we already HAVE that tax in place. ['Dead serious here. We actually DO.])

I'm not sure the water that ran off the hill/mountain/geological structure is the problem...but, then, I don't think you do, either.

I am much more inclined to believe your comment was a political statement regarding a radical fringe-element's belief that they are "Taxed Enough Already".

Larry, I would respectfully suggest that there are better opportunities to promote your conservative views than a thread regarding a natural disaster that just wiped perhaps a hundred or so souls off the face of the earth in the blink of an eye...you can bet a paycheck that the survivors left alive are united in grief regardless of their opinions regarding fiscal practices.

I, for one, would like to hear more about this Rainwater Runoff Tax...please consider starting a different thread about it. As an avid whitewater kayaker and ACA kayaking instructor, I have a very intense interest in rainwater runoff :thumbsup:

Thanks!!

Doug

 

[Larry L.]

May be some and some Pete . Below is pasted a comment made by a local.

I know this area, this slope, and the range above it. It has all been clearcut at different points. To act like this is a slide-prone are is ludicrous. THe entire state wherever there is glacial till, is a slide-prone area, but what keeps it together is trees. The roundtop mountain top above this area has been clearcut bald. Areas directly to the west and above where this land gave way were clearcut within the last 20 years. The area along the river, which slid before was bare before 2003? Why is that? Because it was probably clearcut after years of selective cutting by loggers who used to not clearcut because they knew it destroyed the viability of the area.
Logging criminals are out of control in the USA, and for Nat Geo to not call it as it is, is a sure sign that they were bought out by moneyed interests and not what they used to be, a source of truth.



Bob

The hilltop I live on was logged over 150 years ago. MAYBE there are 5 or 10% of the trees here now that were present back then...the rest is houses, blacktop and concrete. And yet the hillside hasn't slid 'since forever'. Why would THAT be? I'll tell you exactly why - the makeup of the land...hardpan and hard ROCK for the most part. THAT and the fact storm sewers now carry rainwater away that would otherwise COLLECT in the ground no matter the SIZE or number of trees present. If enough rain falls, no matter WHAT, at some point the trees, etc., are NOT going to be able to hold all the water and a side will result, plain and simple.

The "local's" comments in the above quote are CLEARLY the musings of an anti-logging greenie: "...Because it was PROBABLY clearcut after years of selective cutting by loggers"..."Logging CRIMINALS are out of control in the USA..."..."...for Nat Geo to not call it as it is, is a SURE SIGN that they were BOUGHT OUT out by moneyed interests".

'Agenda much?

Now, knowing the geological makup of the subject area (and I DO), would I have built a home in what's now the slide area? NOPE. 'Far as I'm concerned it's as risky to build THERE as it is to build in the Denny regrade area in Seattle...and for almost the same reasons. Neither would I build near a river bank (or in any designated "flood plain" area). Neither would I own property/build in New Orleans.

It all boils down to common sense, people.

'Just MHO...

(Edit: BTW, the hill I live on HOLDS BACK the waters of a 12 mile long, 1.5 max width LAKE! It's all that stands between the lake and the town below it. IOW, it's a naturally occurring DAM...and it's 'held' since the Ice Age. Mull that one over!)

 

[Doug S.]

Now, knowing the geological makup of the subject area (and I DO), would I have built a home in what's now the slide area? NOPE. 'Far as I'm concerned it's as risky to build THERE as it is to build in the Denny regrade area in Seattle...and for almost the same reasons. Neither would I build near a river bank. Neither would I own peoperty/build in New Orleans.

It all boils down to common sense, people.

'Just MHO...

My point exactly...why would they build there???

...I could see it being a man-made issue in this manner...if they were aware that the mountainside had such a history of instability, why did they build their town right in the pathway...did they know about it before the community was built...or, did they know it was a dangerous site and build there anyway because of some scenic vista. Life is all about choices...

Did these people know about the inherent instability when they decided to build there? If so, what was the feature that made that deadly risk worthwhile?

Cheers!!!

Doug

 

[Larry L.]

I am much more inclined to believe your comment was a political statement regarding a radical fringe-element's belief that they are "Taxed Enough Already".

'Standard rebuttal by your side regarding any anti-warming/anti EPA tax comments that someone makes, sir.

Larry, I would respectfully suggest that there are better opportunities to promote your conservative views than a thread regarding a natural disaster that just wiped perhaps a hundred or so souls off the face of the earth in the blink of an eye...you can bet a paycheck that the survivors left alive are united in grief regardless of their opinions regarding fiscal practices.

You criticize my stmt...and yet YOU said this:

...I could see it being a man-made issue in this manner...if they were aware that the mountainside had such a history of instability, why did they build their town right in the pathway...did they know about it before the community was built...or, did they know it was a dangerous site AND BUILT THERE ANYWAY because of some SCENIC VISTA. LIFE IS ALL ABOUT CHOICES...

...the difference in 'sensitivity'/'appropriateness/"P.C." IS...?

 

[Doug S.]

'Standard rebuttal by your side regarding any anti-warming/anti EPA tax comments that someone makes, sir.

You obviously have me confused with somebody else who actually has a side :laugh: . If you have been reading my posts for any time at all you would have realized by now that I have opinions all over the spectrum, from far right to far left and all over the places in between. Life is not all black and white, for me it's all about shades of grey!

As for the other comment, it was me agreeing with you. You implied that you would not have built there, but there were many people who made the CHOICE to do so...and that choice cost many of them their life. I am just curious what might have been the reasoning....were they given inaccurate information (not trying to be any sort of poster-waving, anti-government radical here) by perhaps a real-estate agent regarding the stability of the mountainside beyond that river, or were they swayed by the promise of vast reserves of gold just inches below the surface of the earth under their very houses, or were there legends of the Yetis and the Native Americans cross-breeding on those hallowed grounds....there HAD to be something that made the risk worth it....IF (and I always say "IF is the biggest word in the English language) they knew the risk they were taking.

Cheers! (and try not to be so paranoid, just because someone disagrees with you or questions your reasoning, it doesn't automatically make them one of the "other side", perhaps they just look at things with a different mindset...a characteristic I highly recommend for someone with very rigid viewpoints, such as yourself...no insult intended, I assure you, as you most assuredly would agree that you are rather rigid in your beliefs.)

Doug

 

[Larry L.]

...Life is not all black and white, for me it's all about shades of grey!

Your stmt defines the lefty position, sir. EVERYTHING is a shade of grey for those on the left. Everything for those on the right (Edit: true conservatives, that is) is either black or white...right or wrong. There ARE, for the most part, NO "shades of grey".

You implied that you would not have built there...

No, sir. I flat out stated, knowing the geological makeup of the area in question, I WOULDN'T have. (The rest of your stmts are pure speculation ["gold", blah, blah, blah].)

...as you most assuredly would agree that you are rather rigid in your beliefs.

THERE you are 99.9% correct, sir. :thumbsup::thumbsup:

'WUV' you anyway, Doug! Truly, sir, I do! :thumbsup:

 

[Mark]

I'm just waiting to hear all the whining from the families of the morons who choose to live on the slopes of Mt. Vesuvius!

Natural selection takes many forms. A rational person would not build a home on sticks, hanging off the side of a mountain, nor stick his head in the mouth of Lion. Don't blame the mountain, or the Lion. Don't blame the government or society in general. Look to yourselves oh wise and wonderful ones. Responsibility, just like charity, begins at home.

Unless you build your home on a swamp!

 

[Keith]

Crikey. Wise words from the Peekford. Must be short of wine.... :drunk:

 

[Larry L.]

I, for one, would like to hear more about this Rainwater Runoff Tax...please consider starting a different thread about it. As an avid whitewater kayaker and ACA kayaking instructor, I have a very intense interest in rainwater runoff :thumbsup:

I tried to Google it, but, I don't remember the EXACT wording of the act involved, so I was unsuccessful in finding it. Regardless, the city sticks me with a $16.94 "stormwater" charge on every utility bill it sends me. The tax is REAL alright...

I DO remember one specific statement in the act though. It says: "For the purposes of this act, GRAVEL(!) shall be considered a NON POROUS SURFACE"!!! Given that the amount of tax one pays is DIRECTLY RELATED to the sq footage of NON POROUS surface on ones property - gue$$ what the real "purpo$e" of the act I$?