Snip: "The highest Chao Phraya water level was 2.27 metres above sea level at the record volume of 5,500 cubic metres per second, back in 1995, when no walls had been built. The minimum height of the dykes along the Chao Phraya is 2.5 metres, while the maximum is 3 metres in areas facing higher risk.

Is this really true? The tide tables show high tides of 2.6 meters over the next week. See them here: EasyTide Combine this with massive amounts of water from the north and the current rain we are experiencing and we may soon have a heck of a flood in Bangkok and surrounding areas.

I have been checking the river level at the seawalls around here (Phrapradaeng). Yesterday afternoon I noticed that the river current had not reversed for high tide when it should have. This may indicate the flood waters from the north are already here and are creating a stronger current than the opposing flood tide current.

The government must warn the public of the flood threat - not incite panic, of course, but tell the public to prepare. The sugar-coated statements from all these ministers is making me sick!

Excellent question ------ Is this true??? ------ And which version of the truth would you like???

A couple of short weeks ago, we were told, this was the worst in 30 years. Now we are being told that the worst was 16 years ago, when there were no flood walls.

Dutch consultants were employed less than a year ago, to advise on the protection of Bangkok. Did they issue a report? and where is it?

Re the truth; TAT take great pleasure in telling us that tourist numbers are up 30% (make up your own number), but official GDP figures almost always state that tourism accounts for 6% of GDP.

Tis all very strange ----- make up your own figures ---- they will be closer to ''The Truth''

The Hub of association of different numbers, perhaps.

I would imagine the ambiguity put forth reflects a combination of factors:

1. actual uncertainty and lack of information

2. feigned uncertainty

a. resulting from the knowledge that certain areas will definitely be flooded and there's nothing anyone can do

b. resulting from the knowledge that certain areas will definitely be protected because that's been the plan all along

c. resulting from the need to tell everyone that they are doing something for them due to threats, bribes, calling in favours, answering to the public, etc.

This is what inevitably must happen in a society with such a strain between its democratic and aristocratic elements.

Don't you take into account that Bangkok already sits higher (about two meters (6.5 ft) above sea level)when you calculate the high tides? If the high tide is 2.9 meters, then wouldn't it make sense that .9 meters is the difference? If the walls are 3 meters tall, you only have about 1 meter of protection, am I correct, or is it 5 meters (3 + 2 )? Let me know your thoughts about this.

fortune tower sits elevated higher than ratchada road

there is about 8 steps leading up to the entrance rising it up about 2m higher than road level ,somebody has built a thick wall of sandbags at the top of those steps rising it up another 1.5 m or so

if the water comes anywhere near those sandbags , a lot of dindaeng will be fcked