How To Prevent The Next Flood

[smiling mantis]

Lots of finger-pointing going on but not a lot of constructive criticism, nor do I see any new ideas on how to better deal with flooding here in Thailand. Maybe the best thing we can do right now is create a space where people can just throw out ideas without fear of being called crazy, stupid or off their meds. I know there's a lot of smart people here because I've met some of you in person... you probably have lots of really good ideas but you can't or don't want to deal with being ridiculed.

I've got two probably very stupid ideas but I don't know enough about science or technology to shoot them down myself so I invite you all to do so in my stead and hopefully my surviving this will encouraging the more intelligent amongst you to volunteer your own ideas, and maybe we can help Thailand, even if not today.

Stupid idea #1:

I don't understand why it is so difficult to know where the floodwaters are going to go next. Some of you may remember NASA's Shuttle Radar Topography Mission. This was the Space Shuttle flying around the Earth measuring exactly how high everything was above sea level. This information should be enough to give us a very accurate map of where water will flow, if you combine it with rainfall measurements around the country and measurements of how high the floodwaters are in those areas affected. Shouldn't this be enough information that if fed into a computer will provide good predictions on which way the water is going to move? I get it that it's probably an enormous computation, but isn't this exactly what weather forecasters are doing all of the time, only with air pressure in the atmosphere? What's the difference?

I did a little Googling on this and one onerous issue has to do with the fact that the U.S. government has decided to only release the most accurate data for the terrain the United States itself sits on. Everybody else has to make do with a sort of demo-ware version of the data. I don't know if this limited accuracy is actually an impediment to improving the prediction technology we have today (which is obviously very poor) but surely exceptions can be made in cases like Thailand, where the military applications of such data (which is what I presume the reason is for not sharing) are less relevant than, for example, the Middle East.

Maybe farmers throughout the country could be given secondary occupations as weathermen, and be tasked with the job of measuring rainfall, and when necessary, the height of the floodwaters at their location? There really should be no excuse for not having the information needed to know what areas are going to be affected next.

If this is already happening, then excuse my ignorance, but then please explain why knowing where the floodwaters are going to be in advance is so problematic. If you know where the water is, its volume, and what the terrain is, how is it not possible to know where it's going to be tomorrow?

Stupid idea #2:

There's a branch of physics concerned with how fluid behaves, and one of the terms used to describe how fluid moves is elasticity. The more elastic a fluid is, the faster it moves. The process by which a fluid becomes elastic is called polymerization. I'm a layman so I probably got this wrong, but not too wrong I hope.

So the question is, is there a way of polymerizing floodwaters so that they become more elastic and thus move down the rivers and canals more quickly?

I would just point out that even a small increase in the rate of flow would make all of the difference in the world here. I don't know whether we're talking chemical additives, or electrical charge, or vengeful meditation, but if there's any way of doing it, it needs to be explored.

The point of an exercise like this shouldn't be a platform to criticize the current government for whatever failures it's perceived to be guilty of. Rather, it should be a platform upon which to criticize the next government which fails to implement any sensible conclusions this exercise might avail it.

[paulian]

Great Ideas, I've relayed them to my friend in the Army corp of Engineers. In the meantime ....... If you look at Thailand's History, I mean really look at it. These floods have been with this country for over 6000 years and maybe even longer. In some reports I have read they were digging canals 4000 years ago to divert the waters to the sea. Don't you think after so many years even a group of monkeys would be able to figure out the fix ? Maybe they just do not want a fix because their too involved in whose in charge of making the next useless change "scheme" as they call them. I don't know the first thing about controlling floods, guess I would probably suggest something stupid like keeping the strom drains clean of debris, however, I consider myself a good judge of character and I really think after 6000 years they couldn't really give a hoot about the flooding, just Politics.

[theblether]

Go ask the Indians, ( as in India ) for advice on water management. I know the Dutch are famed for keeping the water out of their country by using Dykes etc, but the Indians have a tremendous grip on water control in the Northern areas.

In effect they have a series of interlinked ponds that prevent water from running off too quickly, hence creating a better water table and allowing crops to grow, and preserves the soil etc This could be adapted to Thai needs, by preserving water from the rainy season to ensure there was plenty of water available for the rice crops etc.

This water can then be released into the river systems at the latter part of the dry season, and the ponds can then be ready to capture excess rainfall in the new wet season. A side benefit of this is that the ponds could also be used as fish farms, hence ensuring a further economic benefit to the country. A rolling release program from North to South would ensure that the river systems are not overloaded, and nutrient rich outflows will also benefit all of the users downstream.

One other benefit of this system is that it is not as costly as some of the giant dam projects that have been proposed, and will not have the same impact on the environment. In effect every village and township should have / could have one ( or more ) of these ponds in place.

So mathematically, if each pond is 100 x 100 metres, and 10 metres deep, each man made pond will contain 100,000 cubic metres of water each, x let's say 1,000 ponds = 100,000,000 cubic metres of water. Give me a JCB, some pond lining, some local knowledge, an outlet valve, and some pipes and I'll have you a pond ready in a month. There you go, there's my crazy idea.

Incidentally, if you think this is a crazy idea, consider this. It is believed there is not one singular free running river or water source running between Colorado and the Pacific. ( remember I said believed ), apparently all the water resources have been interfered with in some way to the benefit of man. The US is becoming reliant on the Great Lakes for water, as the US water table is diminishing. Water may well be the next great battle.

[manarak]

I think animistic rituals should be tried.

[canuckamuck]

Dig a big ditch

[theblether]

I think animistic rituals should be tried.

You been watching Avatar again?

[chiangmaibruce]

You don't need to brainstorm and you don't need crazy ideas to establish a solution as to how to minimise the negative impacts of future floods in Thailand.

The answers are known but they have yet to be implemented in Thailand because they are too damned hard.

The solution lies in many separate actions and initiatives implemented on a coordinated basis. These range across engineering solutions, public education initiatives, enforcement of existing laws, stricter land use and environmental controls, maintenance of existing infrastructure, and so on.

What will happen instead is some token contracts will go out to tender amidst much fanfare, a large slab of available funds will be siphoned off to different pockets, and the remainder will fund an incomplete, poorly-constructed and destined not to be maintained, partial solution. And there will be another even bigger flood

[LennyW]

Instead of holding the water back each year in a vain attempt to spare Bangkok, just let the water flow naturally from the start of the rainy season and dont try to hold it back, then no massive build up to deal with - could it really be that simple?.

[astral]

Dig a big ditch

My thought too.

I large channel to divert part of the river water round Bangkok, not all right through the middle.

It would probably have spin off of providing additonal irrigation water

to areas not so well supplied now?

A massive task, but something has to be done.

[Payboy]

Dig a big ditch

Try saying that 10 times holding your breath.

[Payboy]

Let's all start praying to the water goddess now.

[zorro1]

Dig a big ditch

Try saying that 10 times holding your breath.

thanks now i cant stop sayin it.

great thread!

[Soutpeel]

Lots of magical amulets ?...

or employ Moses.....

shouldnt have a problem with a work permit, as the profession obviously can't be put on a restricted occupation list for Thai's only as very apparant nobody in country who can manage floods...

[Payboy]

Lots of magical amulets ?...

or employ Moses.....

shouldnt have a problem with a work permit, as the profession obviously can't be put on a restricted occupation list for Thai's only as very apparant nobody in country who can manage floods...

Moses may have a problem having 4 Thai followers to maintain that 4:1 ratio for the labor dept.

[Soutpeel]

Lots of magical amulets ?...

or employ Moses.....

shouldnt have a problem with a work permit, as the profession obviously can't be put on a restricted occupation list for Thai's only as very apparant nobody in country who can manage floods...

Moses may have a problem having 4 Thai followers to maintain that 4:1 ratio for the labor dept.

This is true and how many sheckels are there to the THB as needs to form a THB 2.0 mil Ltd company....of course he could marry a local lass and the criteria is halved...

[Payboy]

Lots of magical amulets ?...

or employ Moses.....

shouldnt have a problem with a work permit, as the profession obviously can't be put on a restricted occupation list for Thai's only as very apparant nobody in country who can manage floods...

Moses may have a problem having 4 Thai followers to maintain that 4:1 ratio for the labor dept.

This is true and how many sheckels are there to the THB as needs to form a THB 2.0 mil Ltd company....of course he could marry a local lass and the criteria is halved...

And dont forget he needs to get tested for STD - to protect the Thais.

[onionluke]

To add to the problem there is the viscocity of a fluid substance . We should find a way to keep the viscocity below that of peanut butter or 150000 to 250000 centipoise .

[Soutpeel]

To add to the problem there is the viscocity of a fluid substance . We should find a way to keep the viscocity below that of peanut butter or 150000 to 250000 centipoise .

Thought there was a beer shortage in Thailand ?....."Onionluke" seems to have found an ample supply...

[GooEng]

mr mantis - quite an admirable sentiment starting this thread.

for my money chiangmaibruce's answer kinda nails it tho - it's a show-stopper.

as an aside, and in no way meant as a joke at your expense - polymerisation of water to make it flow faster is like suggesting making air thicker to slow wind down.

polymerisation is the creation of long chain type molecules the basic links or blocks of which are a rather more simple molecule which is repeated - like a long string of pearls, with each pearl being a simple repeated molecular unit.

typical examples are plastics which are made by polymerisation of hydrocarbons.

water is a simple molecule that made by two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom (H20), and with out going into the nitty-gritty of the chemistry of a water molecule, suffice it to say that is is not a suitable molecule to use as a building block for a polymer.

so, not possible at all i'm afraid.

you seem like an inquisitive chap though so, so for further reading have a google at water molecules and the hydrogen bond - an interesting quirk of chemistry without which water would not exist as it does and neither would any life as we know it.

[onionluke]

To add to the problem there is the viscocity of a fluid substance . We should find a way to keep the viscocity below that of peanut butter or 150000 to 250000 centipoise .

Thought there was a beer shortage in Thailand ?....."Onionluke" seems to have found an ample supply...

Ahhh , amber nectar , with a viscocity of 47 cp .

[Berkshire]

Clearly, prevention plans for natural disasters cost money. Big money. Does anyone remember Hurricane Katrina and the devastation that it caused to the US city of New Orleans back in 2005? The estimated damage was US$80 billion + (in 2005 dollars). Over a 1,000 died. 80% of the city flooded. Could it have been prevented? Yes, largely. Why was it not done? Because it cost money. No one ever thought it would be necessary.

It's pretty much the same in Thailand. This is the worst flooding in some 50 years. If this sort of thing were naturally occurring, every few years or so, I'm sure the Thais would have done something about it. But no one ever thought it would be necessary.

Things could have been done better. And for the sake of the Thais, I hope preventive measures are taken in the future. Both the Thai and US governments miscalculated and were also very unlucky. But what ever prevention plans they come up with, you can bet your ass one thing: it will cost money. Big money.

[gennisis]

Dig a big ditch

My thought too.

I large channel to divert part of the river water round Bangkok, not all right through the middle.

It would probably have spin off of providing additonal irrigation water

to areas not so well supplied now?

A massive task, but something has to be done.

A less expensive scheme might get ALL the canals dredged and rubbish,weeds etc removed.The river could also be dredged,again to allow a greater flow.

I would have thought that in Bangkok, water for crop irregation was not needed,so every canal should be 100% open to the sea.

[chiangmaibruce]

Clearly, prevention plans for natural disasters cost money. Big money. <snip> Things could have been done better. And for the sake of the Thais, I hope preventive measures are taken in the future. <snip> But what ever prevention plans they come up with, you can bet your ass one thing: it will cost money. Big money.

"Close inspection has uncovered that many structures have been built illegally on 26 waterways in eastern Bangkok, leading to estuaries being redirected or blocked altogether - one of the key reasons why it is taking so long to drain the floods, the Natural Resources and Environment Ministry said yesterday.

According to most up to date maps, the Chuad Ta Thim canal in Bang Na district seems to have disappeared altogether and has been replaced by a luxury housing complex. In addition, many golf courses and apartments have allegedly been illegally built on canals, not to mention several slums along the riverside, sources involved with the inspection said. Suvarnabhumi Airport and several roads are also allegedly blocking waterways and water catchment areas." (see the news section in thaivisa for full article and relation discussion)

Apart from the money that wouldn't have slipped into some guy's pocket, how much would it have cost to stop this happening? Now multiply this by XXXXX times

Ok, yes, when things have been allowed to slip as far as they have in Thailand, it is going to cost big bucks to put things right. But not taking approprate measures is going to cost Thailand far more than doing it right first time.

It need never have been allowed to get this bad

[travelmann]

Peoples greed selfishness and stupidity will win out overall.....................especially here, no need for any plans.

[monty1412]

Frickin simple.... get SINGAPORE to manage Thailand....

On a semi more serious note... if you polymerize water ( which would be novel chemistry) you will only cause linear chains which will be less free to move due to chain entanglement and increased hydrogen bonding. In effect you would also decrease the density of the water as the chains move-from each other similar to what you see in expansion of water as it freezes.

So presuming you could keep this polymeric water liquid you would only increase the volume of water not the mass which of course is going the wrong direction.

However delving into this more there is a more insidious side to this in that all street cart vendor gas bottle would have to be turned off and no smoking/ naked flames anywhere as presumably your polymerisation would be via an Oxygen to oxygen bond with expulsion of presumably one molecule of hydrogen per two molecules of water that are polymerised. The level of released hydrogen from all the water in conjunction with 20% Oxygen levels in the atmosphere would create a potentially very explosive mixture...

Of course nothing to stop one putting in a giant electric element in the river then simultaneously sucking the atmosphere down to lower pressure emulating a high mountain environment and the voila water boils at lower temperature and you convert your liquid to steam which by similar feats of great engineering you hook up giant fans and blow the steam clouds out to sea...preferably in direction of US Navy fleet whom you have snubbed in their offer of help.. just to show the Thais have it covered.

Of course the other idea of actually repositioning earth closer to the sun in effect raising temperature and boiling off the water has some degree of feasibility limitations but no doubt it will appear on this thread as a suggestion in due course.

[smiling mantis]

as an aside, and in no way meant as a joke at your expense - polymerisation of water to make it flow faster is like suggesting making air thicker to slow wind down.

polymerisation is the creation of long chain type molecules the basic links or blocks of which are a rather more simple molecule which is repeated - like a long string of pearls, with each pearl being a simple repeated molecular unit.

typical examples are plastics which are made by polymerisation of hydrocarbons.

water is a simple molecule that made by two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom (H20), and with out going into the nitty-gritty of the chemistry of a water molecule, suffice it to say that is is not a suitable molecule to use as a building block for a polymer.

so, not possible at all i'm afraid.

Ok, polymerization is the wrong term then. Somebody else mentioned changing the viscosity. Is that like changing its weight?

So what if you add salt to the water. Makes it denser, and thus heavier, no? Wouldn't that increase the rate of flow? Bonus, no obvious environmental damage when discharged out to sea.

I know we're talking about insane amounts of salt here but there is the Gulf of Thailand close by and we can and do harvest large quantities of salt all of the time from water like this and of course we're not talking about doing it all at once... I'm imagining this to be an ongoing effort over many years where you harvest and then transport the stuff up country and stockpile it for the day when its needed.

[monty1412]

as an aside, and in no way meant as a joke at your expense - polymerisation of water to make it flow faster is like suggesting making air thicker to slow wind down.

polymerisation is the creation of long chain type molecules the basic links or blocks of which are a rather more simple molecule which is repeated - like a long string of pearls, with each pearl being a simple repeated molecular unit.

typical examples are plastics which are made by polymerisation of hydrocarbons.

water is a simple molecule that made by two hydrogen atoms and an oxygen atom (H20), and with out going into the nitty-gritty of the chemistry of a water molecule, suffice it to say that is is not a suitable molecule to use as a building block for a polymer.

so, not possible at all i'm afraid.

Ok, polymerization is the wrong term then. Somebody else mentioned changing the viscosity. Is that like changing its weight?

So what if you add salt to the water. Makes it denser, and thus heavier, no? Wouldn't that increase the rate of flow? Bonus, no obvious environmental damage when discharged out to sea.

I know we're talking about insane amounts of salt here but there is the Gulf of Thailand close by and we can and do harvest large quantities of salt all of the time from water like this and of course we're not talking about doing it all at once... I'm imagining this to be an ongoing effort over many years where you harvest and then transport the stuff up country and stockpile it for the day when its needed.

again go back to chemistry 101..... to change the viscosity of water you would have to add salt in large amounts such that essentially you have supersaturated the water.

However let me go back to first principles here.. there is an underlying thread that heavier will move faster.. a chap many years ago called Galileo who showed from a funny leaning tower in Pisa Italy that heavier doesn't mean faster.. suspend lead in the water it aint going to move any faster.

You seem to be stuck on a notion of speeding up water will alleviate the woes.. unfortunately this is not a finite eperimental situation.. you have a huge mass of water in the gulf subject to a force more powerful then all the water combined in the flood and that force is simply gravity.... the moons gravitational effect on the tides is a far more encompassing factor to rate of water drainage than whatever means or ideas man can dream up.

Water is what it is and in large quantities you cannot hope to change its fundamental nature.

rgds

[smiling mantis]

However let me go back to first principles here.. there is an underlying thread that heavier will move faster.. a chap many years ago called Galileo who showed from a funny leaning tower in Pisa Italy that heavier doesn't mean faster.. suspend lead in the water it aint going to move any faster.

I want to say you're wrong but I'm not sure I know how. I would just point out that gravity isn't the only thing operating here, you also have the momentum of the water to consider. More mass means more momentum. More momentum means it goes faster. If it goes faster, it gets off the land sooner.

You seem to be stuck on a notion of speeding up water will alleviate the woes.. unfortunately this is not a finite eperimental situation.. you have a huge mass of water in the gulf subject to a force more powerful then all the water combined in the flood and that force is simply gravity.... the moons gravitational effect on the tides is a far more encompassing factor to rate of water drainage than whatever means or ideas man can dream up.

Well, yes, this is true, but only during times of high tide, right? The idea would be to exploit periods of low tide to get more of the water out so that high tide isn't as much of an issue.

I get it that it seems far-fetched, but then too, I'm watching them using pumps to try to move the water along. Against that, stockpiling massive quantities of salt doesn't seem so crazy.

[katana]

Building a floodway to divert the water, similar to the Red River Floodway in Canada (suggested by bkkjames).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_River_Floodway

[monty1412]

However let me go back to first principles here.. there is an underlying thread that heavier will move faster.. a chap many years ago called Galileo who showed from a funny leaning tower in Pisa Italy that heavier doesn't mean faster.. suspend lead in the water it aint going to move any faster.

I want to say you're wrong but I'm not sure I know how. I would just point out that gravity isn't the only thing operating here, you also have the momentum of the water to consider. More mass means more momentum. More momentum means it goes faster. If it goes faster, it gets off the land sooner.

You seem to be stuck on a notion of speeding up water will alleviate the woes.. unfortunately this is not a finite eperimental situation.. you have a huge mass of water in the gulf subject to a force more powerful then all the water combined in the flood and that force is simply gravity.... the moons gravitational effect on the tides is a far more encompassing factor to rate of water drainage than whatever means or ideas man can dream up.

Well, yes, this is true, but only during times of high tide, right? The idea would be to exploit periods of low tide to get more of the water out so that high tide isn't as much of an issue.

I get it that it seems far-fetched, but then too, I'm watching them using pumps to try to move the water along. Against that, stockpiling massive quantities of salt doesn't seem so crazy.

What is it about this salt thing chaps ??? The quantity of salt you would need to alter the density of the water would be so huge you would probably need stockpiles as big as the flooded are itself. However lets come back to a guiding principle here and its momentum as the previous poster identified. Momentum = mass x velocity.

So lets say you are able to physically increase the mass of the water flowing by adding salt which as above you cant do due to physical constraints but lets say you do. Against a defined force i.e the water pressure exerted against the water flowing then an increased mass of water would only result in a lower velocity....

Its quite simple.. forget frigging around wit the ionic content of water... you cant do it effectively and it has no effect, in fact negative effect if you consider that increased ionic strength of water would only cause deposition and encrustation of any metal/ cement/ rocks in river thus increasing turbulence thus increase back pressure.... the only way to effectively move more water is to decrease the water mass back pressure.

Something akin to a Niagara falls scenario where the water just plummets off the cliff... so raising the whole Bangkok flood delta 50 feet off the ground would cause a water fall which would have lower back pressure than the current geographical arrangement and voila as above lower back pressure against a defined mass of water would increase velocity.

somewhat improbable that this is achievable to say the least...

Now having been negative or at least tried to point out the impossibilities and false assumptions in some of these posts let me add to the threads original intenet which I think is worthy.

Ok first what is the scenario we face as it pertains to next floods scenario

1) Bangkok is built on a natural river delta basin at sea level.

2) Thailand rivers are subject to seasonal flooding due to monsoonal variances

3) Allot of the natural canal and drainage pathways that were in existence have been plugged up

4) Water travelling through the north is also subject to collection points for rice irrigation purposes

5) Deforestation in natural catchment areas in the north has contributed to excessive water run off

6) Current drainage arrangement can probably handle unseasonal heavy rains in the Bangkok delta area but not when combined with huge monsoonal deliveries up north.

So solution would be to build a array of inland seas via viaducts that stem off the main flow lines of monsoonal rains... these inland seas are located well up north and are basically like big diversionary ponds interconnected with canals and control gates... The purpose of these ponds which would need to be numerous and large is to basically channel any huge monsoonal dumps. The water could be stored there and via series of sluice gates drained back into the main rivers and tributaries in such a manner that it doesn't casue appreciable flooding.

Some degree of aqua culture based industries could be established in some areas as well.

If the down stream geographical and political networks are never going to handle massive floods like this ( which i don't think they ever will do) then the idea is to alleviate serious monsoonal flooding up towards the source and perhaps do something useful with it.

Cost would be enormous of course but then so is cost of flooding.. potential to employ displaced farmers and villages in maintenance of ponds/ aqua cultural industries etc.

Gut call here is that if you let the wtaer approach Bangkok then there is nothing that can be done effectively.. better to trap or manage the water closer to source.

Rgds monty