Huge tornado near Oklahoma City kills at least 24 (was 91)

[Charles Kozierok]

The death toll is up to at least 91 in the horrific tornado that struck Moore, OK yesterday. There were early reports suggesting it might have been the strongest tornado on record, but the preliminary estimate by the NWS is that it was an F4, the second strongest type.

Obviously the whole nation feels for those who were killed or injured or had their homes wiped out. A number of people are asking questions about preparedness for this sort of event within Tornado Alley, and also commenting on the fact that homes in the area do not have basements, leaving people nowhere to even have a chance of riding out something like this. Because tornadoes can form suddenly and disappear just as quickly, and affect only a narrow area, there's usually only a few minutes' warning, and general evacuations of the sort done for hurricanes are not practical.

This time lapse is sort of amazing and terrifying at the same time. (Turn off your audio as it just has some awful noise in it.)

 

[randomrogue]

I'm kinda cold and heartless when it comes to Hurricanes and Tornadoes. You get notice. You have a way to avoid dying to them. I grew up with giant Earthquakes and those give you zero warning. These are preventable deaths in so many cases. It's such a waste of human life.

 

[OILFIELDTRASH]

I'm kinda cold and heartless when it comes to Hurricanes and Tornadoes. You get notice. You have a way to avoid dying to them. I grew up with giant Earthquakes and those give you zero warning. These are preventable deaths in so many cases. It's such a waste of human life.

Change cold and heartless to idiotic and unsympathetic and I'll agree. A hurricane you get days warnings and even then the extremely poor cant afford to pack everything up and drive 200 miles away. As far as tornadoes if you consider no time to 10 minutes ample warning then I don't know what to tell you. Next time you look around at how shitty your life is ask yourself is it the big mean world or is it me.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I'm kinda cold and heartless when it comes to Hurricanes and Tornadoes. You get notice. You have a way to avoid dying to them. I grew up with giant Earthquakes and those give you zero warning. These are preventable deaths in so many cases. It's such a waste of human life.

Did you read what I wrote about the difference between hurricanes and tornadoes? They are not remotely the same. The notice in many cases is only a few minutes, and they can affect such a wide area that evacuation of every possible place that could be hit is impossible.

 

[techs]

Now that the damage is done will the same Republicans that voted against government aid to the victims of Hurricane Sandy vote for relief for the tornado victims?

 

[randomrogue]

Look I battered myself about being cold and heartless to spare you guys the effort. It's just how I feel. When you get a 7.2 Earthquake on your head with zero notice it's a different ball game. When I have been in tornado country you can look at the sky and go, hey, it's tornado weather. It's pretty damn obvious. Did this one just pop out of thin air? Now I didn't live there for very long and I completely understand that running to a shelter is unreasonable every time one of those monstrosity weather systems in in your area (and I would not recommend evacuation like with Hurricanes), but a 10 minute notice is a HUGE difference compared to no notice. The ones that really have no chance are those in their cars stuck on the freeway. I still don't understand why they don't build shelters into homes since public buildings require shelters. As far as hurricanes I'll go so far as to say that those people are stupid. If you can't afford to leave a hurricane zone then maybe you should save up the $100 that you'll need for these things. Take out a loan. Sell your bottle cap collection. I have an Earthquake preparedness kit, I don't head out onto the ice without being prepared for falling in, I bring a compass/water/granola bars/kit with me when I go hiking, and I don't let the grass grow super long around my house in a fire prone area.

 

[Craig234]

Random, that's not reasonable or moral. There's a lot more to good government policy than telling people who don't act just how you like 'screw you'.

That kind of attitude is similar to the ones telling people they can't have healthcare, that if they're poor who cares, and any number of things you blame them for.

If I see a drunk driver who crashes his car and is lying injured, my feeling is one of fury that he made such a dangerous choice for himself and especially others, that I want efforts made to get people not to do that, that I want him punished - and that I want him to get medical services for his injury. I don't walk over to him and twist his broken bone a bit and laugh, ha ha you got what you deserved.

When you look at the devastation of this tornado it's amazing how low the casualties are. If some didn't do something just right, and is injured, you have warped priorities to make that a reason to not care about it. There is an ignorance about governance that fails to understand the obligcation to people even if they're idiots in many cases, and happily denies things with finger pointing. Imagine Republicans voting against AIDS research to 'punish' people for behavior they don't approve of.

My response is to disagree with your attitude for people who did things wrong, whatever that might be. But tell me what the third graders did wrong killed when their safe building - a school with eight inch reinforced concrete - was levelled by one of the strongest tornados in a long time.

Your position simply lacks humanity and common sense. You are way too interested in blaming the people lacking perspective on the moral obligations to help people.

 

[Mixolydian]

Tornadoes are extremely unpredictable. Yes, we are now able to predict severe weather outbreaks days in advance, but you still never know if/when/where a tornado will occur.

That said, Moore has a history with tornadoes. They were struck directly with a mile-wide F5 back on 05/03/1999. Fewer casualties with that tornado, but just as much destruction. You would think that they would've learned from that experience - changing building codes to require safe-rooms in all new homes.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Now that the damage is done will the same Republicans that voted against government aid to the victims of Hurricane Sandy vote for relief for the tornado victims?

It would be neat if we could at least wait until they're finished pulling bodies from the wreckage before we begin the usual efforts to exploit a tragedy to make political points.

It's just how I feel.

This is a discussion forum, where we try to make reasonable points and debate issues. It's utterly ridiculous to drop a turd on a tragedy thread essentially blaming the victims of that tragedy, and then respond to people who try to explain why your assessment is invalid with "It's just how I feel".

When you get a 7.2 Earthquake on your head with zero notice it's a different ball game.

The fact that an earthquake gives zero immediate notice doesn't mean that a tragedy with close-to-zero notice is something worth scoffing at.

And by the way, earthquakes tend to happen mostly in specific geographic areas. So do the people who fall victim to them deserve their fates for not moving?

When I have been in tornado country you can look at the sky and go, hey, it's tornado weather. It's pretty damn obvious.

The sky can look like that across thousands of square miles for many days all through the spring and summer. So what's your suggestion? Evacuate several million people over and over? Where are they going to go? How are they supposed to do their jobs in the meantime? How are children supposed to learn in school if they're being evacuated constantly? And who's going to pay for all of it?

Now I didn't live there for very long and I completely understand that running to a shelter is unreasonable every time one of those monstrosity weather systems in in your area (and I would not recommend evacuation like with Hurricanes), but a 10 minute notice is a HUGE difference compared to no notice.

Again this nonsensical comparison. You admit that it's unreasonable for them to run to a shelter every time, so what the hell does it matter that an earthquake gives even less notice? They've got ten minutes to do what, exactly, if they don't have a cellar to go into?

As far as hurricanes I'll go so far as to say that those people are stupid.

And couldn't someone just as easily say you're stupid for living in an earthquake zone? I'm sure your little earthquake kit is going to make a huge difference if your whole neighborhood gets leveled. Maybe you will then go onto the Internet and find uncompassionate, ignorant comments about how it's your fault for living there, to make you feel better.

 

[Mixolydian]

And couldn't someone just as easily say you're stupid for living in an earthquake zone?

I can't think of a single location on this earth that doesn't experience natural disasters. Does that mean everyone is stupid?

 

[cubby1223]

Now that the damage is done will the same Republicans that voted against government aid to the victims of Hurricane Sandy vote for relief for the tornado victims?

As long as the bill does not include spending increases not related to the event. Try to keep up.

 

[Craig234]

It would be neat if we could at least wait until they're finished pulling bodies from the wreckage before we begin the usual efforts to exploit a tragedy to make political points.

I think that making political points at this time is less important than other things, dealing with the disaster, but that it's the right time to do it. People don't make the connection between a bad policy position and the cost of that policy if you wait to point it out. A problem with those positions is that they're cheap and easy when there's no disaster to deal with - indeed asking the Republicans cutting Embassy security before Benghazi, ask the Republicans - including both Senators from Oklahoma who voted against FEMA.

To say the political points have to wait is to pretend the politics aren't matters of life and death deserving serious consideration, that they're just the entertainment of talking heads yelling at each other on TV. And that's not correct. It's a problem that people don't take the issues seriously and take responsibility for the consequences of not supporting things that are needed, and immediately facing some of those consequences is the time to remind.

It shouldn't be cheap or insulting or unproductive point-scoring, it should be a thoughtful constructive point to inform people of the effects of bad policy choices.

I was watching one show covering the disaster that took a moment to mention which Senators had voted for and against FEMA and Sandy help - some Republicans voted to help.

The commentator mentions that with two recent disasters - this one and one in Texas weeks ago - those two states, Oklahoma and Texas used 25% of FEMA's budget. While all four Republican Senators from those states had voted against FEMA funding. He made a comment about it being sensitive to bring that up at this time, and the guest said 'this is EXACTLY the right time to bring that up'. Then they got back to coverage. I think it probably is the right time to bring it up. It's forgotten and not important later.

Not for cheap political points, but because people who don't understand or appreciate why the policies are important, can learn they are and vote better learning they're wrong.

This comes up a lot - you can't talk about gun control after an Aurora or Sandy Hook, it has to wait months for things to 'cool down', then you can discuss it. Makes no sense.

It's again pretending the policies aren't important, just cheap entertainment. Too many people treat them as cheap entertainment already, voting down needed things.

 

[chucky2]

Now that the damage is done will the same Republicans that voted against government aid to the victims of Hurricane Sandy vote for relief for the tornado victims?

Absolutely (although I'm not a Rep). I'll vote with the exact same logic that should have been applied before the fleecing of the Fed gov with Sandy:

Each town should take care of itself unless it needs help, in which case it contacts the county it's in.

Each county should take care of itself unless it needs help, in which case it contacts the state it's in.

Each state should take care of itself unless it needs help, in which case it contacts the Fed gov.

Note that help can be people aide, material aide, or monetary aide. What we did with Sandy was give rich states a shitton of money so they could have a bunch of non-critical stuff (at least that's how I remember the breakdown). Unless you're happy paying for a bunch of stuff these towns don't need but rather want, you should be using the same logic I've posted above.

So you'll be voting like me, right?

Chuck

 

[Craig234]

Absolutely (although I'm not a Rep). I'll vote with the exact same logic that should have been applied before the fleecing of the Fed gov with Sandy:

Each town should take care of itself unless it needs help, in which case it contacts the county it's in.

Each county should take care of itself unless it needs help, in which case it contacts the state it's in.

Each state should take care of itself unless it needs help, in which case it contacts the Fed gov.

Note that help can be people aide, material aide, or monetary aide. What we did with Sandy was give rich states a shitton of money so they could have a bunch of non-critical stuff (at least that's how I remember the breakdown). Unless you're happy paying for a bunch of stuff these towns don't need but rather want, you should be using the same logic I've posted above.

So you'll be voting like me, right?

Chuck

Or, we could do what's efficient by having national organization and resources, and act like we're the UNITED States, not the independent colonies.

 

[smackababy]

Confirmed dead has been brought down to 24.

 

[Craig234]

Confirmed dead has been brought down to 24.

Source? That makes no sense unless there was a big error by someone.

Edit: CNN is reporting 24.

How the heck did they say 51 then 91, when the reporting said the number was from the medical examiner as victims were taken there?

This is a mystery.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Source? That makes no sense unless there was a big error by someone.

Original numbers get inflated because people are unaccounted for.

And when different people report the numbers; a summation can occur.

 

[Craig234]

Original numbers get inflated because people are unaccounted for.

That is not the case here. They were reporting confirmed casualties and unaccounted as different numbers. That's what the word 'confirmed' is about.

 

[smackababy]

That is not the case here. They were reporting confirmed casualties and unaccounted as different numbers. That's what the word 'confirmed' is about.

Possibly they came back to life? Or the original numbers (like with every tragedy in recent history) were inflated because "missing" people are counted as dead until they are found?


Dead until proven alive! That is our new system.

 

[Craig234]

Smackababy, see post 18.

 

[smackababy]

Smackababy, see post 18.

Craig, see post 19.

See how that works? Now, the previous reported numbers were wrong or the new reported number is wrong. Either way, someone was accounting for, or not account for, people whom may or may not be dead.

The truth is, it will take awhile for the real, accurate number to come out.

 

[Craig234]

Craig, see post 19.

See how that works?

Yes, I see how that works.

1. Person suggests that maybe the error was based on unaccounted people being counted as killed.

2. I responsed that that doesn't explain it because the reporting I saw reported confirmed and unaccounted as different numbers.

3. You then repeat the same suggestion as #1 as if it hadn't been answered.

4. I appropriately refer you to where I already addressed that point.

5. You then pointlessly parrot the referral to your repetition of an already-answered point.

Yes, I see how that works. But why you posted it, that's a mystery.

 

[chucky2]

Or, we could do what's efficient by having national organization and resources, and act like we're the UNITED States, not the independent colonies.

We could do that, but then, someone from CO is subsidizing someone elses problem needlessly. It's not the United Federal Colony, it's the United States of America. I'd like to keep it that way. If a state is overwhelmed and truly needs help, I have no problem with the Fed gov helping out...that's the United part. What I don't need to see is a town get leveled and all of a sudden it's getting Federal money/resources (well, resources that the Fed will eat and not be compensated by the state for).

Opening up the 'have the Fed be responsible for everything' path just gets us more under one all consuming Fed power, negating the existance of the states. Not a road I want to go down...

Chuck

 

[Craig234]

We could do that, but then, someone from CO is subsidizing someone elses problem needlessly. It's not the United Federal Colony, it's the United States of America. I'd like to keep it that way. If a state is overwhelmed and truly needs help, I have no problem with the Fed gov helping out...that's the United part. What I don't need to see is a town get leveled and all of a sudden it's getting Federal money/resources (well, resources that the Fed will eat and not be compensated by the state for).

Opening up the 'have the Fed be responsible for everything' path just gets us more under one all consuming Fed power, negating the existance of the states. Not a road I want to go down...

Chuck

The Federal Government doesn't just go and create a disaster relief organization from scratch when they get a call 'hey, this one is more than we can do ourselves'.

They build it in advance and have it ready to respond.

Your system reduces efficiency, prevents timely assistance, makes less help than is needed available, among other flaws inthe name of some misguided 'it's still 1789' ideology.

Just as times have changes since national defense meant 'organize a militia now'.

 

[chucky2]

The Federal Government doesn't just go and create a disaster relief organization from scratch when they get a call 'hey, this one is more than we can do ourselves'.

They build it in advance and have it ready to respond.

Your system reduces efficiency, prevents timely assistance, makes less help than is needed available, among other flaws inthe name of some misguided 'it's still 1789' ideology.

Just as times have changes since national defense meant 'organize a militia now'.

States are welcome to have their own disaster response teams, and in fact, would be expected to. The Feds can certainly have theirs, and they are welcome to show up if they're a.) either close enough where it'd make sense doing so and/or b.) the state(s) call them to do so. No need to go Socialist on this, counties and states are perfectly able to help themselves without big brother deficit spending more $$$ to setup national response teams for Everyone.

Chuck