Comments on: Katrina Isn’t Over

by: Dale

Sat, 28 Jul 2007 20:34:13 +0000

Biggerbox,

Thanks for the response.
I like the Katrina cottage concept. The small cottage with core bath, kitchen, and electrical hardware can be expanded into a “real” house. On-site assembly would provide some jobs while the trashed local economy recovers. And they actually look like a house, I think the neighborhood watching something like them spring up one by one would have a greater sense of community renewal than if it watched a series of square aluminum vehicles being plopped down in front yards. To be a viable concept we need to figure out a way to get Halliburton involved.

Concerning travel trailer safety, it’s probably true that most trailers are purchased by short-term vacationers. But a sizable fraction are used by snowbirds, seasonally migrating retirees who live in them continuously for months at a time.

by: maha

Sat, 28 Jul 2007 00:32:43 +0000

An update of sorts: Here's a chart (PDF) showing all the offers of post-Katrina aid from other countries, including all the stuff the State Department refused, possibly because the Secretary of State was busy shopping for Ferragamos on Fifth Avenue.

by: biggerbox

Fri, 27 Jul 2007 21:00:45 +0000

Dale, you’re right that part of the problem is that FEMA is using these trailers for purposes other than intended. They simply weren’t meant to house families for months through the heat of southern summers. Exposures for people using them for a week or so periodically on camping trips when most of their time is outdoors anyway would be far less. I haven’t researched the trailer industry to know what, if any, regulations exist for out-gassing of materials, but I expect they allow a level that, while more than I personally would or could tolerate, might arguably be acceptable for their intended use, particularly with enough ventilation and time post-manufacture for the volatiles to cook off.

However, the possibility that the toxics in trailers might be a problem once FEMA started using them wholesale for long-term constant housing in the deep south was pretty obvious, and one of the many reasons why Katrina Cottages were proposed as a superior solution. I’ve often fantasized about a flood response that involved deploying thousands of pre-fab, architecturally sound, expandable cottages instead of toxic, and ultimately disposable trailers, but that fantasy universe has an FDR as President, not a Bush.

Jerri, the contrast with the British floods is clear, and a reminder of what should have happened here, but didn’t. Comedian Jon Stewart had a bit about that on his program, asking ‘correspondent’ John Oliver how the British government had responded to the worst flooding in its history.

Oliver’s answer: “Well, the way any self-respecting Western democracy would respond to a water-based calamity: they provided security for affected areas, they distributed bottled water, and shelters were immediately open to keep all residents safe. Even the black people.”

Ouch.

by: moonbat

Fri, 27 Jul 2007 20:21:27 +0000

I actualy saw a newscast about this FEMA debacle (including Waxman’s outrage) earlier in the week (don’t recall the day or channel), and so the story is fortunately not quite as silent as it seems.

jerri (#2) - I also saw this + the fires in southeastern Europe on the news (the BBC), and was struck not by European standards of care for their population, but by how extreme our weather is becoming. The voices kept mentioning temps of “40 degrees” which I translated to about 100 Fahrenheit. The global warming deniers should be forced to stare at these newscasts until their meaning sinks in.

by: jerri

Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:52:08 +0000

Maha, have you watched the reporting of the floods in England. It looks like a mini Katrina. Some people have been evacuated while others contiune to live in flooded homes without water or electric…but everyone seems to be getting water to drink and waters have yet to start to receed. It’s just amazing…people have not been left to die in their homes, hospitals, nursing homes, or evacuation centers. The British government seem so prepared to respond to disaster.

by: Dale

Fri, 27 Jul 2007 17:46:25 +0000

I’m not an expert, but….
Huge, messy issue, but my sense is that one reason for FEMA’s reluctance to do testing is that it may be huger and messier than the health of a few unfortunate flood victims. From the pictures I’ve seen, FEMA trailers appear to be just off-the-shelf large travel trailers. From the outside, at least, they look just like any of hundreds you’ll see on the interstate. I’d guess that the interiors are just as typical. I’d also guess that the levels of toxins in the FEMA trailers are similar to those of most other travel trailers. Given the sorry state of most of our regulatory agencies, it could be that travel trailers just weren’t tested for environmental toxins until they entered whatever regulatory universe the FEMA trailers inhabit. Granted, the exposure of a typical vacationer will be much briefer than a full-time trailer dweller, so health risks won’t be as great, but I smell a larger oversight in the oversight department.
Like I said, just speculation on my part, does someone better informed than me care to comment?