|
|
Post by kenmb on Nov 17, 2021 10:49:54 GMT -6
Good example Kevlar. And as AB notes, a guy can see how big of a role media plays in bringing things to peoples attention. If it's not on tv then it doesn't really exist, or is not an issue. It's important to realize this. While it seems obvious, I don't know if very many people truly understand how powerful this is for when a government or other entity has a need to address something - or hide.
Also of interest is that picture of the damage I posted is that there is not a single person there. Which means the picture I posted would have to be the first one taken. Because the moment the weather allows it, that site will be swarming with people and a mini encampment started to accommodate the efforts needed to repair. People will be flown in by helicopter if roads are still impassable in order to start scoping out the damage. So it would be interesting to see pictures beyond what must be the very first one. Just a curiosity. I wonder how may other pictures are available as of today. Should be a beehive of activity even 4 hours after that picture was taken.
|
|
|
|
Post by shmiffy on Nov 17, 2021 12:07:44 GMT -6
Someone on Facebook had the history of suma lake. 33000 acres of lake bottom that is farmed A lot of old infrastructure there. |
|
|
|
Post by shmiffy on Nov 17, 2021 13:49:01 GMT -6
Abortsford was flooded close to the same in 1990
|
|
|
|
Post by Oatking on Nov 17, 2021 14:06:54 GMT -6
Looking at the damage I can say as a farmer living just off the Red river of the North in Manitoba that our 97 and 2009 flood pales in comparison to the damage in BC. Most of the farmers and Towns here are built up h from past floods and we know how to handle a flood. Also our water takes almost a month to flow down from North Dakota compared to a foot of rain and mud slides in a day. The amount of engineering to rebuild will be very costly compared to the open prairie. Canadian folks are great at helping each other and can handle a disaster and rebuild. I dont like the excuse its based on climate change. Not buying that bs.
Increased Insurance costs or inability to get insurance may be a problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by kenmb on Nov 19, 2021 8:23:09 GMT -6
Keep in mind insurance risks were in play before all this. Meaning the insurance companies were fully on board with accepting the risk previously.
And so this opens a whole new avenue of looking at the big picture. Did insurance companies really come to the conclusion 30 years ago that flood plains will no longer flood. If so, what was their science for such a conclusion. Suppose insurance companies know the risks, know the reality and yet offer coverage anyway. For one thing development takes place where it shouldn't. And typically these are large developments. And that usually means government involvement and money when a "natural disaster" such as a flood on a flood plain takes place.
So yes, insurance companies may now decline coverage. They probably should have declined coverage previously also. And so it comes around to the fact there are a few others involved in the decision making which includes the owner of the development as well as whatever local government that also would be expected to have giving approval of development. The Brandon example came to my mind as I read some time ago that local government would not allow development of the flooded area because it was subject to flooding. Then they lifted the restrictions and allowed development, and then it flooded. I suppose that area is rebuilt now, don't know.
But an easy answer these days and one that further aids an agenda is to call it climate change. Insurance companies and governments allow things that they shouldn't and sheeple jump on board then blame something else when natural events make people look like idiots.
|
|
|
|
Post by Albertabuck on Nov 19, 2021 13:40:40 GMT -6
Been reading some different reports and such that show much of the infrastructure to maintain water levels is seriously out of date. As in there has been much development in recent times which has added more water in to the works. Pure propaganda to blame this climate change.
Apparently the issue with the water that actually is causing the issues in the Valley is due to a dyke breach in Washington state.
|
|
|
|
Post by Albertabuck on Nov 19, 2021 21:17:51 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by kenmb on Nov 20, 2021 8:53:52 GMT -6
Lots of reading in that link AB put up. Got through the first half or so.
Couple of things:
The articles actually identify the area as a flood plain. That detail is left out in every news story these days.
Development increases more all the time. 10x more development now than say 40 years ago and so naturally floods are more costly. Which is another news item for climate change when they like to mention how it is the most devastating flood ever recorded. Of course it is. Quit developing the flood plain, quit devaluing the currency and you will then see that piece of data change.
Mention of federal government quit putting funding into maintaining or improving dykes. So the area keeps getting more developed and the actual mechanism is to make the areas safe for development are stopped. Hmmm.
The river keeps filling with sediment and thus raising the river bed and therefore making the area more likely to flood as well as making the dykes ever increasing less effective. Hmmmm.
And so, why do we think the government is actually there to help people in this matter. Does the government benefit more from preventing a flood or more from allowing a flood to happen. Think about it for a while. If a country is being groomed to be ever more dependent on government involvement in people lives, which is the preferred outcome for those in control.
Lastly, we see a good view of the power centralized control has. Let's say local government has identified the failures of federal government. To the point of saying federal government is intentionally putting people in danger and so local government is going to take action on their own. Local government organizes funding and resources to dredge the river of sediment. Thereby totally by passing federal government involvement. But wait, it's not so easy, the Federal government still claims jurisdiction and stops such local initiatives by asserting power through the fisheries department. Ever notice there is always some sort of Federal government power structure to halt the efforts of local people to take actions that are independent of Federal centralized control.
When government is the problem, don't expect government to be the solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by shmiffy on Nov 20, 2021 12:38:09 GMT -6
When the tide goes out at Vancouver there is about 1 km more beach. I don’t think there dredger shuts off. Just for maintenance. Shipping
|
|
|
|
Post by kevlar on Nov 24, 2021 20:42:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by kenmb on Nov 25, 2021 10:58:00 GMT -6
Hmmm, who would have guessed besides some dumb farmer sitting on a couch. Certainly not the entire media network.
So what is different here?
Well, it's the first "news" report that I have seen that got its info from someone actually involved in restoring service.
I recall reading one "news" article in this thread maybe, or elsewhere, that the person being interviewed and being quoted on how they think this will take a very long time to solve was a professor of supply chain logistics at a university. At that time the first thing that crossed my mind is why is no news organization actually talking to people actually involved or doing fly overs of the repair progress.
Some day people will start to understand how our news works.
This is not to say something will yet develop such as the repair proved unstable or otherwise questionable and the lines will be shut down again till further notice. Anything is possible. But the point being is that as a rule, the job of the news is to find the best possible source and then present that to the public. Think of it as you being president of a company and need to find out info about something. You don't have time so you send someone else to do it for you. And that person instead of going direct to a source to get the info you desire instead goes to the coffee shop to find the person who can speak coherently and is therefore identified as an expert. And that is the info brought back to you. As the president, do you promote your employee for their creativity or make them unemployed. The news is supposed to serve your needs in making you an informed citizen. Assess accordingly.
|
|
|
|
Post by Albertabuck on Nov 27, 2021 9:49:37 GMT -6
I can't believe that the CBC would present such bullshit and divert from the "climate change" narrative...this is so out of the norm for them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Beerwiser on Nov 27, 2021 11:32:17 GMT -6
Maybe CBC will start reporting the truth for a change. Either that or they got called out again on their BS.
|
|
|
|
Post by snapper22 on Nov 27, 2021 13:16:48 GMT -6
There is a shred of hope in me that thinks CBC actually has critical minded journalists in its ranks still. The WE episode was good. The honeymoon with Trudeau is over I think. This is how the sponsorship scandal unfolded as well. It took years as well but it eventually came to light and took out Martin though it really wasn’t his fault but the liberals had to go.
|
|
