2011-05-22 Joplin, MO tornado thread

[PDailey]

Really nice photos and great coverage from the Daily Mail in the UK:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...uts-4-mile-swathe-Missouri-town.html#comments

 

[hazelmaryjackson]

I have read some of the Globe articles and find the attitude that "we should not spend tax dollars on shelters" interesting. It seems to be based on the view that public money should not be spent on the "undeserving poor". Even if you take this view, it does not address the real need for public shelters, which is to shelter people when a tornado strikes, regardless of who they are and whether or not they are in work or have their own shelter. Anyone could be caught away from their own home and cellar or shelter with no time to get back.

For example someone posting here pointed out there were a lot of casualties in Restaurant Row in Joplin. There must also have been casualties in many public places in town where people were out and about without access to their own cellars. Not necessarily poor people without their own shelters. The point of public shelters is to shelter members of the public who have no other shelter nearby, when a storm strikes.

They are so cheap to build I still think someone or ones wealthy could sponsor them. We are not talking about housing, just concrete boxes for temporary shelter. And you need lots of small ones, not one large central one.

In the UK the debate would not be about whether it is a waste of public money but which part of the public purse should pay: central government or local government. Probably you would find central government giving grants for it. In London we had a major flood of the Thames some years back when people were drowned and the decision was taken to build theThames flood barrier. Would that be considered a waste of taxdollars in the US?.

What strikes me in all this is the fatalism. These things will happen so we should not waste public money trying to lessen them, seems to be a mindset. Maybe it is the extreme weather you experience that causes this mind set. In the UK we generally always believe things can be improved after a disaster and lessons learned. We just cannot agree who will pay for it - but we all agree it should be done. But then public safety is something of an obsession, too much in some cases, over here.

 

[Mike Johnston]

I have read some of the Globe articles and find the attitude that "we should not spend tax dollars on shelters" interesting. It seems to be based on the view that public money should not be spent on the "undeserving poor". Even if you take this view, it does not address the real need for public shelters, which is to shelter people when a tornado strikes, regardless of who they are and whether or not they are in work or have their own shelter. Anyone could be caught away from their own home and cellar or shelter with no time to get back.

For example someone posting here pointed out there were a lot of casualties in Restaurant Row in Joplin. There must also have been casualties in many public places in town where people were out and about without access to their own cellars. Not necessarily poor people without their own shelters. The point of public shelters is to shelter members of the public who have no other shelter nearby, when a storm strikes.

They are so cheap to build I still think someone or ones wealthy could sponsor them. We are not talking about housing, just concrete boxes for temporary shelter. And you need lots of small ones, not one large central one.

In the UK the debate would not be about whether it is a waste of public money but which part of the public purse should pay: central government or local government. Probably you would find central government giving grants for it. In London we had a major flood of the Thames some years back when people were drowned and the decision was taken to build theThames flood barrier. Would that be considered a waste of taxdollars in the US?.

What strikes me in all this is the fatalism. These things will happen so we should not waste public money trying to lessen them, seems to be a mindset. Maybe it is the extreme weather you experience that causes this mind set. In the UK we generally always believe things can be improved after a disaster and lessons learned. We just cannot agree who will pay for it - but we all agree it should be done. But then public safety is something of an obsession, too much in some cases, over here.

Hazelmary,

I'm not sure the assumption that people won't spend money on the "undeserving poor" is quite accurate. At least amongst the people in the plains, I don't really think they think quite that way.

Now, there are certain provisions at the state govt. level. For example, the rest areas along the Kansas Turnpike (although they are about 50 miles apart) have underground tornado shelters.

As far as local expenditures for public shelters, it's just that - a local decision. Ultimately, it's a cost/benefit decision. Hard to put a value on a human life; you can do it based on actuarial analysis by taking the present value of the future earnings stream of a median resident. Sounds kind of cold, but I'm not sure how else you do it. At any rate, the typical protocol in the U.S. for a local expenditure is to put the question of floating a bond issue on the public ballott and let the people decide whether the expediture is worth the benefit. Probably most residents don't do the math, but generally seem to have a decent gut feeling as to the worth of the proposal.

 

[rdale]

Most businesses have some sort of area that will act as a shelter - or at the least better than being outside. I've never heard of a business refusing to let people in for that purpose. It's not as good as a dedicated shelter, but 1) much cheaper (i.e. free) and 2) more widespread.

 

[hazelmaryjackson]

I don't get the feeling that some individual opponents of shelters have done an actuarial type "risk versus cost benefit" analysis of providing shelters at public expense (even if the authoritiesea have). It is indeed more a gut reaction, a sort of sturdy individualism, along the lines of "I don't want or need one, so I don't want my tax dollars spent on one for other people."

Maybe as a result of the older generations living through WW2 and several socialist governments, we are more community minded in a broader sense in the UK. And more willing to support state expenditure on a wider range of issues (although of course it also means we are more highly taxed and government is more centralised here).

Whenever something similar happens in the UK (for example major floods a few years back) there is usually a public enquiry and plans made to prevent the same thing happening again. And that may involve spending public money, for example giving grants to contribute at a local level, or even passing legislation.

You rarely if ever get people saying it did not affect me so the rest of you can go hang, which does seem an underlying strand in some of the responses to the discussion in the Globe. A little more thought would show there can be many circumstances in which public shelters could be justified.

In any case there is a lot of public philanthropy in the US and temporary public tornado shelters would be relatively so cheap. Presumably it is not a fashionable or prestigious concept on which to spend philanthropists' money!

I am also struck by the accounts coming out of Joplin which make it clear that noone was taking any notice of the sirens or warnings, not even the hospital. Maybe if there were more public shelters people would be more likely to dive into one until the danger had passed. But clearly it is not just about warnings, it is also about complacency.

 

[Elaine Spencer]

"Most businesses have some sort of area that will act as a shelter"

There may also be underground parking areas or utility tunnels that could serve the same purpose.

Yesterday I got to thinking about where my family and I would go in the event of a really violent tornado. We live in an apartment building in downtown Springfield whose lowest floor is slightly below street level, but does not go underground. Then I remembered that there is an underground parking garage about a block away from us (it lies under the Old State Capitol). There are several entrances to the parking garage in a one-square-block area. I decided to check it out yesterday (just in case that 15% hatched area verified right on top of us) and I think it would make an excellent shelter. I can get to the main entrance from our building in less than 3 minutes at a brisk walking pace. There are numerous businesses and tourist sites (most notably the Lincoln Home and Lincoln Presidential Museum) nearby and I wonder if anyone has thought to publicize or designate that parking garage as a place of safety in a tornado?

 

[Mike Johnston]

"Most businesses have some sort of area that will act as a shelter"

There may also be underground parking areas or utility tunnels that could serve the same purpose.

Yesterday I got to thinking about where my family and I would go in the event of a really violent tornado. We live in an apartment building in downtown Springfield whose lowest floor is slightly below street level, but does not go underground. Then I remembered that there is an underground parking garage about a block away from us (it lies under the Old State Capitol). There are several entrances to the parking garage in a one-square-block area. I decided to check it out yesterday (just in case that 15% hatched area verified right on top of us) and I think it would make an excellent shelter. I can get to the main entrance from our building in less than 3 minutes at a brisk walking pace. There are numerous businesses and tourist sites (most notably the Lincoln Home and Lincoln Presidential Museum) nearby and I wonder if anyone has thought to publicize or designate that parking garage as a place of safety in a tornado?

Yeah, I remember back in the days of the Cold War, there were many places designated as "nuclear fallout shelters" - at schools, businesses and other public places. These were designated with yellow and black signs which were universally recognized and these shelters could also serve as tornado shelters. This was back in the day when what are now known as emergency managers were generally called "civil defense directors" at the local level. Provision of shelter doesn't necessarily have to involve public expenditure for new construction. Perhaps a little effort toward coordination, communication and education (at a fractional cost) is warranted - efforts like signage, educational films for 3rd graders, etc. Goodness knows we have a massive beaucracy (ie. Dept. of Homeland Security), but I really wonder about the actual effort and its effectivness.

 

[Todd Renshaw]

In any case there is a lot of public philanthropy in the US and temporary public tornado shelters would be relatively so cheap. Presumably it is not a fashionable or prestigious concept on which to spend philanthropists' money!

Hazelmaryjackson, you seem quick to judge. I don't equate the Thames flood barrier project and tornado shelters. (We do have public works projects like flood control here too.) I am a liberal by nature, but even I think the cost to build a shelter for every potential victim would be astronomical. This is a very large geographical area we're talking about. One shelter for every home in tornado alley? I don't see that as a simple matter. (Yes, every home should have one.) The larger cities get all the press when a big tornado hits, but generally, it's rural residents that are usually at risk too. Effort might better be spent on simple measures that protect homes from the less damaging but more frequent EF0-EF3s. Better building codes, etc. If those that can afford a shelter or basement want to build one, great. I'd rather see money spent to help the poor used for things like education and jobs. (Again, I don't think the cost of shelters would be "relatively cheap.")

I am also struck by the accounts coming out of Joplin which make it clear that noone was taking any notice of the sirens or warnings, not even the hospital. Maybe if there were more public shelters people would be more likely to dive into one until the danger had passed. But clearly it is not just about warnings, it is also about complacency.

Sometimes it is about complacency. But sometimes with an EF4 or EF5, destroyed is destroyed. Any measures people take that could have saved them from a lesser tornado aren't going to help. (But it doesn't mean they shouldn't try.) I think the public here is well aware of the dangers of tornadoes (for the moment). I suspect very few people would not seek shelter right now.

 

[Mike Johnston]

I don't get the feeling that some individual opponents of shelters have done an actuarial type "risk versus cost benefit" analysis of providing shelters at public expense (even if the authoritiesea have). It is indeed more a gut reaction, a sort of sturdy individualism, along the lines of "I don't want or need one, so I don't want my tax dollars spent on one for other people."

Maybe as a result of the older generations living through WW2 and several socialist governments, we are more community minded in a broader sense in the UK. And more willing to support state expenditure on a wider range of issues (although of course it also means we are more highly taxed and government is more centralised here).

Whenever something similar happens in the UK (for example major floods a few years back) there is usually a public enquiry and plans made to prevent the same thing happening again. And that may involve spending public money, for example giving grants to contribute at a local level, or even passing legislation.

You rarely if ever get people saying it did not affect me so the rest of you can go hang, which does seem an underlying strand in some of the responses to the discussion in the Globe. A little more thought would show there can be many circumstances in which public shelters could be justified.

In any case there is a lot of public philanthropy in the US and temporary public tornado shelters would be relatively so cheap. Presumably it is not a fashionable or prestigious concept on which to spend philanthropists' money!

I am also struck by the accounts coming out of Joplin which make it clear that noone was taking any notice of the sirens or warnings, not even the hospital. Maybe if there were more public shelters people would be more likely to dive into one until the danger had passed. But clearly it is not just about warnings, it is also about complacency.

Sorry, but I think you're way off base here. First of all, people in communities will generally take into account what is in their own community's best interest in making fiscal decisions. So, contrary to Europeans' perception of the lone American cowboy, we do have a community interest here. After all, our neighbors are also our customers, our school teachers and our friends. I live in a neighborhood of approximately 300 homes, all without basements. Now, if the civic association floated a proposal to build a community shelter here, I expect it would be rejected by about 5-1. Such a shelter or shelters would have to accomodate up to 1,000 people. While it would be nice to have such peace of mind, it's hardly an inconsiderable cost. Why would it be rejected here? Mainly because the probabilities of a direct hit by an extreme tornado here are very, very low. Again, people understand that even if they don't do the precise math. So, it's more a matter of local, common sense decision and I really don't appreciate the inference that Americans are somehow strictly independent animals that don't care about their neighbors.

 

[hazelmaryjackson]

I agree that during the ColdWar there was more Effort to prepare for potential disaster. When that died away, in my part of the UK we focussed on other possible disasters. I live near Heathrow airport and the local Civil Defence force (which included many volunteers) had a plan for what we would do if a jumbo jet crashed on our town.

Now there is no more Civil Defence. Is there still a plan? I don't know. What happened? Well of course the Cold War ended but also the emergency services got "professional" and the professionals did not want and still do not want, amateurs clogging things up.

That is not to say they are always good at what they do. Due to obsessive concern about health and safety, our police and fire officers are often prevented from trying to rescue people due to the risk to themselves. This is not always their choice, but imposed on them by lawyers and the fine print of Health and Safety laws.

I am not suggesting a shelter for everyone. The point about risk is to manage it and what that might mean is a strategically placed network of shelters, for a percentage of the population so that those individuals who want to go to one can, given due notice. Some people will chose not to of course. My husband would be one I am sure.

I am particularly concerned about Joplin Hospital's response though. I have now seen interviews and read lots of accounts by staff there, whose dedication in the aftermath of the tragedy cannot be faulted. But it is very clear the hospital authorities did not issue a warning until the last possible minute. To me that is unacceptable. They should err on the side of caution.

Still I am hopeful so areas will now make more shelters available. And maybe other hospitals who may in the past have been guilty of the same complacency will be more careful.

Mike - just to add, what would be your community's response if there was a medium-high risk of tornadoes near you, not a very low one? Might it be different? How many communities in that siuation have beenn consulted about disaster planning? I used to work for a company just yards from the flight path at Manchester airport in the North of England. There have been emergency situations there and I asked the CEO if we should not have a disaster plan in place. He just scoffed and said it was unlikely to happen and he had enough to think about without concerning himself about it. I suspect a lot of officials think like this too. How many communities at medium-high risk from violent storms are consulted about the plans for a disaster?. If they are and decide the cost outweighs the risk, fine but they should be asked?

 

[Mike Johnston]

I agree that during the ColdWar there was more Effort to prepare for potential disaster. When that died away, in my part of the UK we focussed on other possible disasters. I live near Heathrow airport and the local Civil Defence force (which included many volunteers) had a plan for what we would do if a jumbo jet crashed on our town.

Now there is no more Civil Defence. Is there still a plan? I don't know. What happened? Well of course the Cold War ended but also the emergency services got "professional" and the professionals did not want and still do not want, amateurs clogging things up.

That is not to say they are always good at what they do. Due to obsessive concern about health and safety, our police and fire officers are often prevented from trying to rescue people due to the risk to themselves. This is not always their choice, but imposed on them by lawyers and the fine print of Health and Safety laws.

I am not suggesting a shelter for everyone. The point about risk is to manage it and what that might mean is a strategically placed network of shelters, for a percentage of the population so that those individuals who want to go to one can, given due notice. Some people will chose not to of course. My husband would be one I am sure.

I am particularly concerned about Joplin Hospital's response though. I have now seen interviews and read lots of accounts by staff there, whose dedication in the aftermath of the tragedy cannot be faulted. But it is very clear the hospital authorities did not issue a warning until the last possible minute. To me that is unacceptable. They should err on the side of caution.

Still I am hopeful so areas will now make more shelters available. And maybe other hospitals who may in the past have been guilty of the same complacency will be more careful.

Mike - just to add, what would be your community's response if there was a medium-high risk of tornadoes near you, not a very low one? Might it be different? How many communities in that siuation have beenn consulted about disaster planning? I used to work for a company just yards from the flight path at Manchester airport in the North of England. There have been emergency situations there and I asked the CEO if we should not have a disaster plan in place. He just scoffed and said it was unlikely to happen and he had enough to think about without concerning himself about it. I suspect a lot of officials think like this too. How many communities at medium-high risk from violent storms are consulted about the plans for a disaster?. If they are and decide the cost outweighs the risk, fine but they should be asked?

To answer your question, and I'm assuming you mean a medium-high CLIMATOLOGICAL risk, I've lived in the plains as well as the east coast, so I understand there is a great difference in both the actual and perceived risk between those areas. Mainly, it's a practical matter. So, in Wichita, Kansas where I grew up many houses are built with basements and - even if you didn't have a basement, you generally knew someone close-by with a basement who you could go to if worse came to worse. Now, where I currently live in Charleston, South Carolina, basements are a rarity, and one practical problem is we are close to the sea and the water table is high to make building basements a problem. Places in between Kansas and South Carolina - say Memphis, TN, Little Rock, AR and the like - it probably would be a close call as to whether the public would vote for community shelters, and greatly dependent on specific local circumstances. But, again, it probably should be left to the local residents and not handed down from the federal government.

 

[Bob Hartig]

Yeah, I should have all of the tornado alley WFO numbers in my phone, right now I only have OUN's number. At the time 911 seemed like my best option b/c spotter network takes time to write up.

Edit: plus it requires loading the web page with cell data service.

Among the downloads in GRLevelXStuff.com is one that allows you to display the NWS 800 numbers for each county in the US on GRLX radar screens in a heartbeat when needed. Here's a link to the page; scroll down and you'll find the appropriate download. http://www.grlevelxstuff.com/index.php?categoryid=14&p13_sectionid=3

 

[Brian McWatters]

By about 2 minute mark all hell breaks loose, at least for the audio--very limited visual (guess everyone was safe in this case at least)l:


http://shortformblog.tumblr.com/post/5759039157/joplin-tornado-first-person-video

youtube source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQnvxJZucds&feature=channel_video_title

very disturbing hearing people afraid that they are about to die. Then again, some comic bits as people discuss positioning of who is laying where. Also, a lot of reassuring people there helping the younger kids.

There is now footage of what the gas station looked like after the tornado.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-P4P68YyNM&feature=related

 

[Mike Smith]

Here are photos from inside St. John's Hospital in Joplin. They are unbelievable: http://meteorologicalmusings.blogspot.com/2011/05/inside-st-johns-hospital-joplin.html

 

[rdale]

Think I recognize the voice and name of the tour group leader?
--

Amazing footage from storm chasers that barely escaped the Joplin tornado

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZWFN-2Au4E