National Guard still in New Orleans

Speaking of the National Guard, I wasn't aware that the Louisiana National Guard is still on patrol in New Orleans.

It's been nearly three years since Hurricane Katrina's floodwaters devastated parts of New Orleans.

And to this day, the National Guard continues to patrol some of the hardest-hit areas.

The guard's mission is to prevent looting and provide a law and order.

The Guard will stay in the city at least until the end of the year following Gov. Bobby Jindal's decision to extend its tour of duty.

Given the conditions three years ago it was completely understandable, even required, that armed troops were required.

I was surprised that the Guard was still present, but apparently at least some of the citizens of New Orleans want the Guard to remain:

However, Jeffery is one of many residents with an ever-growing concern... that National Guard troops will leave by the end of September. "They actually look after us and they answer our calls. They are the ones we kind of expect when we make a call," says Jeffery.

The Ninth Ward is slowly rebuilding. But Chambliss says that rebuilding and growth may stop if the National Guard troops are taken out. Crime may come back. He says, "Theft, burglary, some assaults and a number of murders have happened."

That's why Jeffery and others with the Holy Cross Neighborhood Association, Citizens for 1 Greater New Orleans, and Silence is Vviolence are petitioning Ggovernor Bobby Jindal to keep the troops here. "Since they're working, why take them away? Why not just add to what they have and then take them away?"

Perhaps New Orleans still isn't capable of dealing with the situation. Or the population doesn't consent to be governed.

Doctor Dispels Myth that Corpses Spread Disease

Apparently.

I saw this story on NPR. Outside of the brief blurb, there's not much text.

So some googling turned up this link with a bit more detail.
Dr. Claude de Ville de Goyet, MD writes:

The myth that dead bodies cause a major risk of disease, as reiterated in all large natural disasters from the earthquake in Managua, Nicaragua (1972) to Hurricane Mitch, and now to the Turkish earthquake, is just that, a myth. The bodies of victims from earthquakes or other natural disasters do not present a public health risk of cholera, typhoid fever, or other plagues mentioned by misinformed medical doctors. In fact, the few occasional carriers of those communicable diseases who were unfortunate victims of the disaster are a far lesser threat to the public than they were while alive. Often overlooked is the unintended social consequence of the precipitous and unceremonious disposal of corpses. It constitutes just one more severe blow to the affected population, depriving them of their human right to honor the dead with a proper identification and burial. The legal and financial consequences of the lack of a death certificate will add to the suffering of the survivors for years to come. Moreover, focusing on the summary disposal, superficial "disinfection" with lime, mass burial, or cremation of corpses requires important human and material resources that instead should be allocated to those who survived and remain in critical condition.

Our experience in the aftermath of the earthquake in Mexico City showed that health authorities and the media can work together to inform the public, make possible the identification of the deceased, and the return of the bodies to the families in a climate free of unfounded fears of epidemics.

So the doctor seems to be saying that the risk to public health is minimal compared to the emotional and mental strain of seeing their loved ones end up in a mass grave.

Perhaps so; however I think they'd like seeing their loved ones picked apart by critters even less and watching them turn into bloated, gassy bags of slowly liquefying meat would be right out. In those cases where facilities aren't up to the job of storing a large number of corpses, mass burial might be the only option.

Either way, I don't expect I'll be keeping any corpses around. Can't be too careful, you know. ;-)

Blizzard of 2008, part deux

Still digging out from the blizzard, but things are getting back to normal.

Some things that came up, in no particular order.

• Have a snow shovel.
  Seriously, I didn't think anyone around here didn't have at least one, but two people I talked to didn't have so much as a garden trowel. Even if you live in an apartment complex with snow removal service there's still walkways and piles of snow left over from plowing. Without tools you don't have many options.


• Good boots.
  When I first started shoveling and trekking out to walk the dog I was using an older pair of boots with worn out tread; the same boots I use for yard work. I slipped and slid around quite a bit, so I broke out another pair.
  The second pair is a bit larger than normal to encourage blood flow and thereby discourage frostbite and has a decent rubber tread.


• Wear layers.
  Last year I picked up some polar fleece thermals. Worn under shirt and pants they provide good insulation. With a hooded sweat shirt, jacket and gloves being overheated is more of a concern than freezing. Remember also that exposed skin + wind = frostbite. Cover as much of yourself as possible if you have to be outside. Ski masks aren't just for robbing convenience stores.


• Know your vehicle's ground clearance.
  While out and about, I saw three people stuck in the snow and helped two of them ( the third was pushed free before I got to them ). In the two cases I helped in, the drivers were attempting to get through an intersection with about 6 to 10 inches ( 15.24 to 25.4 cm ) of snow and slush. The slowed down to make the turn, stopped and got stuck. Me and some other guys who showed up to help dug out the wheels as best we could, then "rocked" the cars out. The driver puts it in reverse with guys pushing from the front, gives it some gas, then the process is reversed until the car is freed. One of the two cars I helped had 4 wheel drive, yet was still stuck in the snow since the snow was higher than the wheels.


• Have alternative Heat Sources.
  The power, water and gas all stayed on so we had it easy. That said, I have an indoor rated propane heater that the girlfriend enjoys bringing out to warm up after being outside. With a few cases of propane we could have kept warm even if the power went out; might not even have had to use the fireplace.


• Keep food supplies on hand.
  I tend to keep dried legumes, rice, beans, quinoa, flour, cooking oil and canned goods on hand. By buying a bit more than I need and stocking the rest I've got a food supply for when I can't get to the store. I've also a propane stove ( which takes the same cylinders as the heater ) for times when I can't cook in the kitchen. I also keep extra coffee and tea on hand.

A comparison of disaster response: Hurricane Katrina and the San Diego Wildfires

I heard this on NPR this afternoon:

Comparing Responses to Katrina, Calif. Wildfires

It's worth a listen, as it covers some of the differences in disaster response between the two events.

Quality of leadership was cited as a main factor in getting Federal assistance. While NOLA Mayor Nagin ranted on a radio show and Governor Blanko organized a moment of prayer to handle Katrina, Governor Schwarzenegger went on site to the Del Mar fairgrounds to ensure nursing home patients were evacuated to waiting medical facilities.

Also, it appears Governor Schwarzenegger pre-filed paperwork under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act when the indications were the wildfires could become a problem, rather than waiting until disaster struck, as was the case in Louisiana during Katrina.

Demographics and geography are likely factors as well. People in NOLA who could not evacuate were largely poor and didn't have their own transportation, while those in suburban San Diego could drive themselves out of the danger zone.

Emergency response isn't hampered by flooding in San Diego, of course. Once the fires are out, emergency vehicles can move in. Not the case in NOLA, were flood waters were very persistent.

To San Diego's benefit, there are a lot of military facilities in the area. Contrast that with New Orleans, where Federal help was days away.

California as a whole is subject to more than a few disasters on their own. Between other wildfires, mudslides and earthquakes it would seem their emergency responders have a bit of experience. As Katrina was, literally, a once in a life time event it's not as if there was lots of experience in dealing with floods of that magnitude.

The NPR article brought up race and class issues as well. Frankly, I don't see race as a factor at this stage. The disasters are different, and it's not as if San Diego is lilly white ( hint: White persons not Hispanic, percent, 2005 = 52.3% ).

Class may be another matter. It's true that there's more money in San Diego than in New Orleans, both in terms of personal wealth and in taxes collected by the local government. Having more funds available of course means there's more options available.

It will be interesting to see how San Diego comes out of this. Hopefully, they'll fare better than New Orleans, which still seems to be having problems.