Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Puerto Rico is a literal disaster zone with 3.4 million people living in it. Power will be out for weeks or months, a major dam is not supplying water and is at risk of collapse, hundreds of thousands of homes are uninhabitable, food and water is running out. People are dying, especially the old and the infirm. Crops have been destroyed, topsoil eroded away, trees stripped bare, local agriculture devastated.

Yet for several days after Maria it was hardly mentioned in the press. Only in the last two days has there started to be significant coverage.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/25/us/puerto-rico-maria-fema-disaster-.html?_r=0

https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2...terphotos-from-a-battered-puerto-rico/540975/
20170926-105636-stebl.jpg
20170926-105520-i940w.jpg

It's not simply the significant short term effects either. There's going to be death and despair in the coming weeks, but long term the island, essentially a part of the United States, is ruined. People are going to leave and come to the U.S. The consequences for Puerto Rico are enormous, but they will echo through the US as a whole for decades.

So I'm starting the "Current Event" thread because this is a highly significant current event, and one that will raise the obvious spectre of racism, and so be subject to a large amount of media spin around things like Trump's response, and the scale of the FEMA response compared to other states. Like other current event threads, the intent is to keep track of what is going on, and identify areas of misinformation.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And, of course, conspiracy theories. Like this one from Mike Adams:
https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-09...on-reveals-weather-weaponization-culprit.html
Basically he is saying the hurricane was deliberately engineered to make Donald Trump look bad. This is nonsense for a variety of reasons - you could equally say it was engineered to make him look good by allowing him to respond well to it - but the main objection is that nobody knows how to steer a hurricane, as explained here:
https://www.metabunk.org/debunked-hurricane-harvey-project-stormfury-conspiracy-theories.t9041/
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...4_story.html?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.cebbd7ac59cc
I think this typifies the current situation, people are just burning through what they have at hand. It's a logistical problem which has not yet fully hit. It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
 

Hevach

Senior Member
Disasters are good for competent presidents, or at least one who's competent with domestic policy, which has evaded even some good presidents. In general a hurricane is only going to make a president look bad if they already looked bad.

Targeting storms that carry the kinetic power of thermonuclear weapons seems overkill when it's been well proven all you have to do with this particular president is say something mean about him on Twitter.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And really, if Obama had the power to use the deep state to secretly steer hurricanes without anyone noticing, you'd think he'd just rig the election, or have Trump's brain zapped to incapacitate him. It seems rather disproportionate.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Those images are from different satellites, so I think we have to be careful when comparing colours.
Aqua images, Comparison of Sept 18 with Sept 24
20171005-082628-350tz.jpg 20171005-082554-s1jdv.jpg


And Sept 18 with Sept 29
20171005-082628-350tz.jpg 20171005-082744-48jwu.jpg


Even the time of day the image was taken can affect the resultant color though.
 

Marin B

Active Member
Those images are from different satellites, so I think we have to be careful when comparing colours.
Yeah, when I said "seems unbelievable", I meant it literally, though I realize my comment may not have come across that way (I do that sometimes just to see what reaction I get!)

I remembered a thread on this board about images of earth from space and how differences in the colors between two images might give an illusion that something is going on, when in actuality it's just differences in camera equipment or some other factor (I may not be remembering that particular thread accurately, but I believe that was the basic gist of it). So I was hoping that someone here would be able to explain the image I posted.

Quick search does show, however, that before & after satellite imagery is being used to help identify areas that were damaged.

From a quick read of that article I linked - looks like the imagery is only able to detect changes in urban areas
 
Last edited:
Top