Flood-Weary Residents Lash Out In Bangkok

[robblok]

Robblok (and others): Can you demonstrate conclusively, and objectively, that flooding inner Bangkok will actually help other flooded areas significantly? I doubt it, in which case I retract my earlier retraction about your judgment and level of maturity. You just want to punish people because you're mad, and the gods save us from that kind of irrationality.

Think you should read my post better, im against flooding BKK. But im for BKK paying up to those they sacrifice. I do believe it can go faster if they flood BKK but i cant back it up with any research. Just as you cant back it up that it wont help.

I am quite sure that building dams and holding water up does not make the water move faster downstream. Im sure everyone knows that. If it were to go through BKK (would not be too deep) and pumped out at its lowest point. It would go much faster as it goes now. Because now its not moving.

But I already said that is not a valid option for many so then let BKK pay up and really compensate those flooded longer and deeper for their safety.

[robblok]

Robblok (and others): Can you demonstrate conclusively, and objectively, that flooding inner Bangkok will actually help other flooded areas significantly? I doubt it, in which case I retract my earlier retraction about your judgment and level of maturity. You just want to punish people because you're mad, and the gods save us from that kind of irrationality.

perhaps by releasing thru Bangkok it will allow the water to flow out faster (instead of pooling) causing a drop in the north and allowing the Honda companies & all to get going again.

Wouldn't it be more sensible to get the economy going again - there are many industrial estates out of action & workers idle without pay.

Not much been manufactured in Bangkok is there ?

Worth a try

perhaps perhaps perhaps

Paddybkk

Except that flooding Bangkok would slow the economy even more, and money that would be spent on getting the industrial estates going again would need to be spent on repairing infrastructure in Bangkok. There also would be a lot of Bangkok people out of work or businesses going bankrupt.

There isn't much being manufactured in Bangkok, but there is a lot of business done. A lot of that is already being slowed due to the overall flooding situation. It would come to complete standstill if Bangkok was flooded.

Instead of looking at pure GDP ($) numbers a lot of countries have adapted to a "happiness index", giving a better indication of the general well being of humanity. So apart for the absolute critical business and great shopping in the center of Bangkok I can personally assure that there is a lot of happiness going on at Sukhumvit. This highly concentrated happiness far outweigh a wet sofa in some obscure suburb of Bangkok.

BBB stay where it is, end of story!

On the bright side, in a couple of months when we enter the dry season, the flooded areas should have great fertilized ground from all the sewage water. Ideal for gardening and lush green front lawn.

Even people in flooded area's wont be baited by that one. I might have lashed out when the water was rising here. But not anymore. But im sure people harder hit then me at the moment wont think its funny.

[animatic]

The lay of the land will determine more of which sections get trashed than any works by man. Saving some of the city as an economic engine means:

Major disaster,

but somethings saved partly from geography and partly by mans actions

versus

Complete disaster everywhere

and slower recovery EVERYWHERE.

But the idea that doing nothing helps speed this water up is essentially saying;

Rather than make any efforts to control and partially save, we do nothing at all,

AND emotionally saying that;

It shares the pain with the allegedly more fortunate 'to be fair'.

With no consideration that in doing so now, later in reconstruction, the poor will pay yet again more, because the amounts available will be spread that much farther and thinner. We are suffering, so you must suffer too, no matter what it cost us all later.... is not a sound recovery strategy.

But this all has more to do with geography,

who bought houses in areas impossible to save

and who built on higher ground and possibly can be saved.

Either way;

the more we save, the less the dispersal of reconstruction funds to more places,

no matter HOW LONG your place was inundated.

It sucks, but picking the lesser of two evils is always the way to go,

even if it is bad for some. Cut the rigging and kill two sailors

or sink the ship and lose the whole crew.

Being Captain is a bitch.

Edited November 15, 2011 by animatic

[robblok]

The lay of the land will determine more of which sections get trashed than any works by man. Saving some of the city as an economic engine means:

Major disaster,

but somethings saved partly from geography and partly by mans actions

versus

Complete disaster everywhere

and slower recovery EVERYWHERE.

But the idea that doing nothing helps speed this water up is essentially saying;

Rather than make any efforts to control and partially save, we do nothing at all,

AND emotionally saying that;

It shares the pain with the allegedly more fortunate 'to be fair'.

With no consideration that in doing so now, later in reconstruction, the poor will pay yet again more, because the amounts available will be spread that much farther and thinner.

But this all has more to do with geography,

who bought houses in areas impossible to save

and who built on higher ground and possibly can be saved.

Either way;

the more we save, the less the dispersal of reconstruction funds to more places,

no matter HOW LONG your place was inundated.

It sucks, but picking the lesser of two evils is always the way to go,

even if it is bad for some. Cut the rigging and kill two sailors

or sink the ship and lose the whole crew.

Being Captain is a bitch.

My house is a lot higher then all of BKK, but if BKK puts big dams somewhere so that everything in front of it floods then high ground wont help you. Compared to the rest of the people around here our village was not hit as badly.

Yes cut the rigging and kill two sailors then compensate their wives and loved ones. That is the part what is not being done. Hold a collection among those who are saved because of this (property tax in BKK) Here the wife and loved ones get a one meal and then sorry that's it.

I understand that you cant save everyone but if you build dams that influence others who are on higher ground as you. You better pay up because you give them your problem. (does not count if those dams where there already before that said house was build)

[sparebox2]

The lay of the land will determine more of which sections get trashed than any works by man. Saving some of the city as an economic engine means:

Major disaster,

but somethings saved partly from geography and partly by mans actions

versus

Complete disaster everywhere

and slower recovery EVERYWHERE.

But the idea that doing nothing helps speed this water up is essentially saying;

Rather than make any efforts to control and partially save, we do nothing at all,

AND emotionally saying that;

It shares the pain with the allegedly more fortunate 'to be fair'.

With no consideration that in doing so now, later in reconstruction, the poor will pay yet again more, because the amounts available will be spread that much farther and thinner. We are suffering, so you must suffer too, no matter what it cost us all later.... is not a sound recovery strategy.

But this all has more to do with geography,

who bought houses in areas impossible to save

and who built on higher ground and possibly can be saved.

Either way;

the more we save, the less the dispersal of reconstruction funds to more places,

no matter HOW LONG your place was inundated.

It sucks, but picking the lesser of two evils is always the way to go,

even if it is bad for some. Cut the rigging and kill two sailors

or sink the ship and lose the whole crew.

Being Captain is a bitch.

"Being Captain is a bitch." - I agree too.

[animatic]

The lay of the land will determine more of which sections get trashed than any works by man. Saving some of the city as an economic engine means:

Major disaster,

but somethings saved partly from geography and partly by mans actions

versus

Complete disaster everywhere

and slower recovery EVERYWHERE.

But the idea that doing nothing helps speed this water up is essentially saying;

Rather than make any efforts to control and partially save, we do nothing at all,

AND emotionally saying that;

It shares the pain with the allegedly more fortunate 'to be fair'.

With no consideration that in doing so now, later in reconstruction, the poor will pay yet again more, because the amounts available will be spread that much farther and thinner.

But this all has more to do with geography,

who bought houses in areas impossible to save

and who built on higher ground and possibly can be saved.

Either way;

the more we save, the less the dispersal of reconstruction funds to more places,

no matter HOW LONG your place was inundated.

It sucks, but picking the lesser of two evils is always the way to go,

even if it is bad for some. Cut the rigging and kill two sailors

or sink the ship and lose the whole crew.

Being Captain is a bitch.

My house is a lot higher then all of BKK, but if BKK puts big dams somewhere so that everything in front of it floods then high ground wont help you. Compared to the rest of the people around here our village was not hit as badly.

Yes cut the rigging and kill two sailors then compensate their wives and loved ones. That is the part what is not being done. Hold a collection among those who are saved because of this (property tax in BKK) Here the wife and loved ones get a one meal and then sorry that's it.

I understand that you cant save everyone but if you build dams that influence others who are on higher ground as you. You better pay up because you give them your problem. (does not count if those dams where there already before that said house was build)

I can't dispute the pay up idea.

But the money needs to be MADE somewhere somehow, and that's why you must save what you can. Some you can't save and we can blame the dam mismanagement guys, and several generations of political hacks for this.

If only those wingnuts could be made to pay.

Edited November 15, 2011 by animatic

[robblok]

The lay of the land will determine more of which sections get trashed than any works by man. Saving some of the city as an economic engine means:

Major disaster,

but somethings saved partly from geography and partly by mans actions

versus

Complete disaster everywhere

and slower recovery EVERYWHERE.

But the idea that doing nothing helps speed this water up is essentially saying;

Rather than make any efforts to control and partially save, we do nothing at all,

AND emotionally saying that;

It shares the pain with the allegedly more fortunate 'to be fair'.

With no consideration that in doing so now, later in reconstruction, the poor will pay yet again more, because the amounts available will be spread that much farther and thinner.

But this all has more to do with geography,

who bought houses in areas impossible to save

and who built on higher ground and possibly can be saved.

Either way;

the more we save, the less the dispersal of reconstruction funds to more places,

no matter HOW LONG your place was inundated.

It sucks, but picking the lesser of two evils is always the way to go,

even if it is bad for some. Cut the rigging and kill two sailors

or sink the ship and lose the whole crew.

Being Captain is a bitch.

My house is a lot higher then all of BKK, but if BKK puts big dams somewhere so that everything in front of it floods then high ground wont help you. Compared to the rest of the people around here our village was not hit as badly.

Yes cut the rigging and kill two sailors then compensate their wives and loved ones. That is the part what is not being done. Hold a collection among those who are saved because of this (property tax in BKK) Here the wife and loved ones get a one meal and then sorry that's it.

I understand that you cant save everyone but if you build dams that influence others who are on higher ground as you. You better pay up because you give them your problem. (does not count if those dams where there already before that said house was build)

I can't dispute the pay up idea.

But the money needs to be MADE somewhere somehow, and that's why you must save what you can. Some you can't save and we can blame the dam mismanagement guys, and several generations of political hacks for this.

If only those wingnuts could be made to pay.

The posts i made are not about flooding BKK but about FAIR compensation. Not a 5k handout that wont even come close to repairing the damages. I can handle my own damages they are minimal (40k or so) But many of my Thai neighbors lost their cars (i got mine to higher ground long before that). I would have been able to safe more if i had more information. But in my case the government was saying it all is well. This was before the scale of the disaster became apparent.

[animatic]

The lay of the land will determine more of which sections get trashed than any works by man. Saving some of the city as an economic engine means:

Major disaster,

but somethings saved partly from geography and partly by mans actions

versus

Complete disaster everywhere

and slower recovery EVERYWHERE.

But the idea that doing nothing helps speed this water up is essentially saying;

Rather than make any efforts to control and partially save, we do nothing at all,

AND emotionally saying that;

It shares the pain with the allegedly more fortunate 'to be fair'.

With no consideration that in doing so now, later in reconstruction, the poor will pay yet again more, because the amounts available will be spread that much farther and thinner.

But this all has more to do with geography,

who bought houses in areas impossible to save

and who built on higher ground and possibly can be saved.

Either way;

the more we save, the less the dispersal of reconstruction funds to more places,

no matter HOW LONG your place was inundated.

It sucks, but picking the lesser of two evils is always the way to go,

even if it is bad for some. Cut the rigging and kill two sailors

or sink the ship and lose the whole crew.

Being Captain is a bitch.

My house is a lot higher then all of BKK, but if BKK puts big dams somewhere so that everything in front of it floods then high ground wont help you. Compared to the rest of the people around here our village was not hit as badly.

Yes cut the rigging and kill two sailors then compensate their wives and loved ones. That is the part what is not being done. Hold a collection among those who are saved because of this (property tax in BKK) Here the wife and loved ones get a one meal and then sorry that's it.

I understand that you cant save everyone but if you build dams that influence others who are on higher ground as you. You better pay up because you give them your problem. (does not count if those dams where there already before that said house was build)

I can't dispute the pay up idea.

But the money needs to be MADE somewhere somehow, and that's why you must save what you can. Some you can't save and we can blame the dam mismanagement guys, and several generations of political hacks for this.

If only those wingnuts could be made to pay.

The posts i made are not about flooding BKK but about FAIR compensation. Not a 5k handout that wont even come close to repairing the damages. I can handle my own damages they are minimal (40k or so) But many of my Thai neighbors lost their cars (i got mine to higher ground long before that). I would have been able to safe more if i had more information. But in my case the government was saying it all is well. This was before the scale of the disaster became apparent.

The 5k figure is ludicrous~ gone the 1st morning.

[MikeyIdea]

Robblok (and others): Can you demonstrate conclusively, and objectively, that flooding inner Bangkok will actually help other flooded areas significantly? I doubt it, in which case I retract my earlier retraction about your judgment and level of maturity. You just want to punish people because you're mad, and the gods save us from that kind of irrationality.

perhaps by releasing thru Bangkok it will allow the water to flow out faster (instead of pooling) causing a drop in the north and allowing the Honda companies & all to get going again.

Wouldn't it be more sensible to get the economy going again - there are many industrial estates out of action & workers idle without pay.

Not much been manufactured in Bangkok is there ?

Worth a try

perhaps perhaps perhaps

Paddybkk

Except that flooding Bangkok would slow the economy even more, and money that would be spent on getting the industrial estates going again would need to be spent on repairing infrastructure in Bangkok. There also would be a lot of Bangkok people out of work or businesses going bankrupt.

There isn't much being manufactured in Bangkok, but there is a lot of business done. A lot of that is already being slowed due to the overall flooding situation. It would come to complete standstill if Bangkok was flooded.

Instead of looking at pure GDP ($) numbers a lot of countries have adapted to a "happiness index", giving a better indication of the general well being of humanity. So apart for the absolute critical business and great shopping in the center of Bangkok I can personally assure that there is a lot of happiness going on at Sukhumvit. This highly concentrated happiness far outweigh a wet sofa in some obscure suburb of Bangkok.

BBB stay where it is, end of story!

On the bright side, in a couple of months when we enter the dry season, the flooded areas should have great fertilized ground from all the sewage water. Ideal for gardening and lush green front lawn.

GDP can be translated to tax revenue that pays for the flood rehabilitation, a happiness index (HI?) cannot

Well being of humanity include money to rebuild infrastructure, to rebuild a thousand government schools in flooded areas, buying new school material, you name it, all need money. Money comes right after saving lives in importance. Difficult decisions must be taken, one fact of life is that flood management doesn't solve flood problems, it just manages the scale and the time factors.

Scale is more important than money but time is generally not. It's a balancing act where everybody simply cannot be satisfied. Reduce time of flooding too much in a critical area like north of the big bag barrier and you prolong the time it takes for flooded areas in other areas of the country to be rehabilitated - because flooding new areas will reduce government income leaving less money to perform the rebuild with. Another way of seeing it: already flooded people cost relatively less to keep than flooding new

The government of a country must listen to their advisors and take long-term decisions in the best interest of all the citizens of the country. Compensating people north of the barrier more than other flood victims does not sound right to me

Another question flying around here is: Should Bangkok pay (more)? Bangkok contribute to 40% of GDP and more than that of the governments tax income, hence, Bangkok already pays a major part of the flood effort. Should it pay even more? If it is in the best interest of all citizens of Thailand that Bangkok does that, then by all means, if it is not, then of course no

Edited November 15, 2011 by MikeyIdea

[gregb]

I'm happy to see we are moving away from the name calling and more towards a consensus. It seems most rational people agree, it is cheaper to keep the outlying areas flooded longer than it is to allow the flood to take the quickest route through inner Bangkok.

And as a consequence of that man made decision, in a world where there is any kind of justice the people who are being asked to sacrifice deserve some kind of compensation for what they are giving. Even if the people of inner Bangkok were made to bear the entire brunt of this it is still cheaper than allowing them to be flooded.

This is much more promising than the childish "you are emotional and I'm not arguments which were going around previously."

So we are left with details of exactly how to devise a formula on who should pay what. A complex problem to be sure, but it seems we are actually closer than when we started this thread. Possibly the first time I've seen that happen in Thai Visa.

Edit: I would just like to add to MikeyIdea's comment when he says "If it is in the best interest of all citizens of Thailand" that I would state it differently. If it is in the interests of justice, fairness and equality then it should be done. After all, these goals are in the interests of all Thai citizens.

Edited November 15, 2011 by gregb

[longtom]

When people in outer Bangkok get much higher compensation, the hundreds of thousands all over Thailand who were hit much harder than e.g. Roblok, would demand the same, and rightly so. How do you decide which part of somone's damage (all over the country!) is due to sacrifice for the greater good, or due to miss-managment? Where does the buck stop, at 100'000, 500'000? You're in for a huge bill, for this and all future disasters. Or for riots, if one group in Bangkok gets much higher compensation (e.g. for their submerged cars) than Somchai in Nakhon Sawan who gets 5000 Bhat for loosing his existance.

Seriously, can anyone even imagine the set up and implementation of a fair compensation scheme in this country?

Life isn't fair, even less so here in Thailand.

[gregb]

When people in outer Bangkok get much higher compensation, the hundreds of thousands all over Thailand who were hit much harder than e.g. Roblok, would demand the same, and rightly so. How do you decide which part of somone's damage (all over the country!) is due to sacrifice for the greater good, or due to miss-managment? Where does the buck stop, at 100'000, 500'000? You're in for a huge bill, for this and all future disasters. Or for riots, if one group in Bangkok gets much higher compensation (e.g. for their submerged cars) than Somchai in Nakhon Sawan who gets 5000 Bhat for loosing his existance.

Seriously, can anyone even imagine the set up and implementation of a fair compensation scheme in this country?

Life isn't fair, even less so here in Thailand.

Obviously the compensation would need to be based on the relative values of the destroyed areas throughout the entire country, not just outer Bangkok. Those in Lopburi and Ayuttaya who helped hold the flood waters are no different than myself. I don't think it would be impossible to establish some kind of regional metric that established the valuation of an area combined with the extent of damage they sustained and offer a proper amount.

Then some kind of arbitration process to contest the results for those who somehow fell through the cracks. Overall, the government would probably need to allocate about 300 billion instead of the 3 billion they are giving right now, but that isn't much in the grand scheme of things, and I would argue that the brunt of that increase should be paid through taxes on those who received the direct benefits of the sacrifices made on their behalf.

Edit: BTW, insurance adjusters do this kind of thing all the time, just not on such a grand scale. While it clearly would be a daunting task, I don't think it would be an impossible one.

Edited November 15, 2011 by gregb

[RickBradford]

But it could backfire -- from what I've read from posters in northern Bangkok, what is surrounding them is not so much water, as a soup containing human and animal waste, chemicals, rotting food and vegetation, oil and gasoline, and probably some dead animals as well.

Having carefully cooked up this soup by deliberately holding the water back in a stagnant position, the authorities are readying a massive disaster if they unleash this on the downtown area.

[robblok]

When people in outer Bangkok get much higher compensation, the hundreds of thousands all over Thailand who were hit much harder than e.g. Roblok, would demand the same, and rightly so. How do you decide which part of somone's damage (all over the country!) is due to sacrifice for the greater good, or due to miss-managment? Where does the buck stop, at 100'000, 500'000? You're in for a huge bill, for this and all future disasters. Or for riots, if one group in Bangkok gets much higher compensation (e.g. for their submerged cars) than Somchai in Nakhon Sawan who gets 5000 Bhat for loosing his existance.

Seriously, can anyone even imagine the set up and implementation of a fair compensation scheme in this country?

Life isn't fair, even less so here in Thailand.

Lets get 1 thing straight, im demanding compensation for the people behind the BBB as there is a direct relation to their extra suffering and keeping BKK dry. (at least they say that the BBB is necessary)

I am not flooded in that area i am in Bangyai / Bang Bua Thong. So i claim no extra money also, the money i claim goes to the wife not me as she could not work for a while. Also 5K is noting compared to the damage but i can take it myself. Here there are no dams keeping the water here.

[robblok]

But it could backfire -- from what I've read from posters in northern Bangkok, what is surrounding them is not so much water, as a soup containing human and animal waste, chemicals, rotting food and vegetation, oil and gasoline, and probably some dead animals as well.

Having carefully cooked up this soup by deliberately holding the water back in a stagnant position, the authorities are readying a massive disaster if they unleash this on the downtown area.

So let the people up north suffer in it ? Sounds rather selfish.

[RickBradford]

But it could backfire -- from what I've read from posters in northern Bangkok, what is surrounding them is not so much water, as a soup containing human and animal waste, chemicals, rotting food and vegetation, oil and gasoline, and probably some dead animals as well.

Having carefully cooked up this soup by deliberately holding the water back in a stagnant position, the authorities are readying a massive disaster if they unleash this on the downtown area.

So let the people up north suffer in it ? Sounds rather selfish.

Did I say that? No, I didn't.

I am simply pointing out the situation that the authorities have got themselves into.

[robblok]

But it could backfire -- from what I've read from posters in northern Bangkok, what is surrounding them is not so much water, as a soup containing human and animal waste, chemicals, rotting food and vegetation, oil and gasoline, and probably some dead animals as well.

Having carefully cooked up this soup by deliberately holding the water back in a stagnant position, the authorities are readying a massive disaster if they unleash this on the downtown area.

So let the people up north suffer in it ? Sounds rather selfish.

Did I say that? No, I didn't.

I am simply pointing out the situation that the authorities have got themselves into.

Ok we agree there and yes its bad. But here where the water is flowing (quite fast on the road less fast in the village) the water is not that bad. But keeping it from flowing makes things much worse

[letitbe]

Robblok (and others): Can you demonstrate conclusively, and objectively, that flooding inner Bangkok will actually help other flooded areas significantly? I doubt it, in which case I retract my earlier retraction about your judgment and level of maturity. You just want to punish people because you're mad, and the gods save us from that kind of irrationality.

perhaps by releasing thru Bangkok it will allow the water to flow out faster (instead of pooling) causing a drop in the north and allowing the Honda companies & all to get going again.

Wouldn't it be more sensible to get the economy going again - there are many industrial estates out of action & workers idle without pay.

Not much been manufactured in Bangkok is there ?

Worth a try

perhaps perhaps perhaps

Paddybkk

Except that flooding Bangkok would slow the economy even more, and money that would be spent on getting the industrial estates going again would need to be spent on repairing infrastructure in Bangkok. There also would be a lot of Bangkok people out of work or businesses going bankrupt.

There isn't much being manufactured in Bangkok, but there is a lot of business done. A lot of that is already being slowed due to the overall flooding situation. It would come to complete standstill if Bangkok was flooded.

Which is exactly why everyone is recognizing that saving an area that can be saved is a laudable goal and should be attempted. On the other hand, not compensating those people who are sacrificing to allow it is not. Everyone needs to share in the pain. Those who can be saved should share through higher taxes to compensate those who the government elected not to defend. By your own reasoning, this would be cheaper for you than letting inner Bangkok flood, and therefore represents an optimal solution for all.

But of course, those in inner Bangkok want to believe they are superior to everyone else and owe nothing to those who are sacrificing for them. That is the crux of the argument. And anyone who can say the inner Bangkokians are behaving without emotion in this is clearly limiting his vision to only the things he wants to see.

As for proving whether flooding inner Bangkok will help, I can show you very easily how building a big wall creates a water gradient that causes one side to experience significantly more damage than the other. Come see my house. You pay the 2000 baht it will cost to rent a boat to get there. How anyone can claim to be rational and not recognize that flooding one area to the point of evacuation while leaving another section of the city high and dry is not hurting those who are forced to evacuate is beyond me. Yes. If the water level at my estate was allowed to drop down to 50 cm or so in order that power could be restored life would be substantially better.

I would say that if anyone needs to prove something, it is the other way around. Prove to me that removing all barriers and sharing the city pumps equally won't reduce the flooding at my house. I bet you can't. You just want to punish people to conceal your own guilt.

Leaving me under 2 meters of water so that you can enjoy your morning jaunt to Starbucks without getting your feet wet is not something you inherently deserve because of your bloodline. I am sacrificing for you. I ask that you recognize my sacrifice, thank me, and pay me for the damages I incur. That is all. That is hardly an emotional request.

The claims of being emotional as opposed to logical are simply absurd, and I truly would expect more from some of the long time members on this board.

just live with it lifes not fair and thats that. Nothing will change and certainly this government wont do anything to help poor or affected at expense of rich and elite because they are only interested in getting more for themselves. I also doubt all those who voted for this lot of robber baron clowns will learn or those supporters of reds and Taksin here on TV will ever understand that their hero is nothing more than a very clever evil robber baron as are most of those around him. I woud love the whole stinking lot of them and all red shirt thugs to drown in their own mess but as I said lifes not fair and they will just continue getting away with robbing the country and poor blind. I have to live with that and sorry you have to live with life's not fair

[KarenBravo]

Surely, those that want compensation should have taken out flood insurance.

That's the way it works in the rest of the world.......

[AleG]

Surely, those that want compensation should have taken out flood insurance.

That's the way it works in the rest of the world.......

I, for one, am really intrigued by this new concept being proposed, those that not live in flood risky areas have to pay a premium to bail out those that do live in flood risk areas.

I should talk with my insurer about this brave new world. Imagine, you don't have to pay car insurance, someone else, without a car would pay it for you!

[robblok]

Surely, those that want compensation should have taken out flood insurance.

That's the way it works in the rest of the world.......

I, for one, am really intrigued by this new concept being proposed, those that not live in flood risky areas have to pay a premium to bail out those that do live in flood risk areas.

I should talk with my insurer about this brave new world. Imagine, you don't have to pay car insurance, someone else, without a car would pay it for you!

I think your missing the point here, others are flooded because the will to protect BKK. If all the upper provinces had just let the water come and not kept it at order of YL then damage would be a lot less but BKK had to deal with it.

So when you <Snip!> someone over you have to pay for it.

Edited November 15, 2011 by metisdead
Expletive removed.

[ExpatOilWorker]

Robblok (and others): Can you demonstrate conclusively, and objectively, that flooding inner Bangkok will actually help other flooded areas significantly? I doubt it, in which case I retract my earlier retraction about your judgment and level of maturity. You just want to punish people because you're mad, and the gods save us from that kind of irrationality.

perhaps by releasing thru Bangkok it will allow the water to flow out faster (instead of pooling) causing a drop in the north and allowing the Honda companies & all to get going again.

Wouldn't it be more sensible to get the economy going again - there are many industrial estates out of action & workers idle without pay.

Not much been manufactured in Bangkok is there ?

Worth a try

perhaps perhaps perhaps

Paddybkk

Except that flooding Bangkok would slow the economy even more, and money that would be spent on getting the industrial estates going again would need to be spent on repairing infrastructure in Bangkok. There also would be a lot of Bangkok people out of work or businesses going bankrupt.

There isn't much being manufactured in Bangkok, but there is a lot of business done. A lot of that is already being slowed due to the overall flooding situation. It would come to complete standstill if Bangkok was flooded.

Instead of looking at pure GDP ($) numbers a lot of countries have adapted to a "happiness index", giving a better indication of the general well being of humanity. So apart for the absolute critical business and great shopping in the center of Bangkok I can personally assure that there is a lot of happiness going on at Sukhumvit. This highly concentrated happiness far outweigh a wet sofa in some obscure suburb of Bangkok.

BBB stay where it is, end of story!

On the bright side, in a couple of months when we enter the dry season, the flooded areas should have great fertilized ground from all the sewage water. Ideal for gardening and lush green front lawn.

Robblok: "Even people in flooded area's wont be baited by that one. I might have lashed out when the water was rising here. But not anymore. But im sure people harder hit then me at the moment wont think its funny."

It is pretty funny. Regardless of what we do, think and write here, the water will still flow, Thai style.

At one point I thought I would get sea view from my condo, but that never happened. Do I get any compensation? NO, life ain't fair :cheesy: .

Edited November 15, 2011 by ExpatOilWorker

[AleG]

Surely, those that want compensation should have taken out flood insurance.

That's the way it works in the rest of the world.......

I, for one, am really intrigued by this new concept being proposed, those that not live in flood risky areas have to pay a premium to bail out those that do live in flood risk areas.

I should talk with my insurer about this brave new world. Imagine, you don't have to pay car insurance, someone else, without a car would pay it for you!

I think your missing the point here, others are flooded because the will to protect BKK. If all the upper provinces had just let the water come and not kept it at order of YL then damage would be a lot less but BKK had to deal with it.

So when you <Snip!> someone over you have to pay for it.

Fine, prove that flooding inner Bangkok would have prevented the flooding in other areas and I'm all for it.

[robblok]

Surely, those that want compensation should have taken out flood insurance.

That's the way it works in the rest of the world.......

I, for one, am really intrigued by this new concept being proposed, those that not live in flood risky areas have to pay a premium to bail out those that do live in flood risk areas.

I should talk with my insurer about this brave new world. Imagine, you don't have to pay car insurance, someone else, without a car would pay it for you!

I think your missing the point here, others are flooded because the will to protect BKK. If all the upper provinces had just let the water come and not kept it at order of YL then damage would be a lot less but BKK had to deal with it.

So when you <Snip!> someone over you have to pay for it.

Fine, prove that flooding inner Bangkok would have prevented the flooding in other areas and I'm all for it.

Not that hard, provinces were ordered to keep the water for BKK so they had more time to prepare. The BBB is there to protect BKK at the expense of those in don Mueng.

Also because the other provinces had to use damms to keep the water in their provinces (not out) it got flooded here. I believe the governor of Pattani was removed for not keeping the water long enough in his province.

If you look at a elevations map you will see BKK is the lowest point so its real natural that all the water would flow there.

Its safe to say that if they had let the water go earlier from those other provinces it would not have been so widespread but BKK would have been hit earlier and harder.

But really the biggest example is that BBB that was not there before nobody could plan for it but it was build to keep water in one area (flood it) to save BKK.

The reason i keep talking about that and not the other points i made is that the relation is much clearer there and its easier to prove. The other points are much harder to prove.

[AleG]

Not that hard, provinces were ordered to keep the water for BKK so they had more time to prepare. The BBB is there to protect BKK at the expense of those in don Mueng.

Also because the other provinces had to use damms to keep the water in their provinces (not out) it got flooded here. I believe the governor of Pattani was removed for not keeping the water long enough in his province.

If you look at a elevations map you will see BKK is the lowest point so its real natural that all the water would flow there.

Its safe to say that if they had let the water go earlier from those other provinces it would not have been so widespread but BKK would have been hit earlier and harder.

But really the biggest example is that BBB that was not there before nobody could plan for it but it was build to keep water in one area (flood it) to save BKK.

The reason i keep talking about that and not the other points i made is that the relation is much clearer there and its easier to prove. The other points are much harder to prove.

That only shows that inner Bangkok could have flooded if it didn't have defenses, it doesn't prove that other areas would not had flooded if the water, somehow, would be allowed to flush right through the city.

That's my peeve with people that say that flooding inner Bangkok would alleviate the situation, they don't know how that would work, just that it needs to be done.

Inner Bangkok its surrounded on the West and South by the Chao Phraya river, if it floods from the North all water can only slowly creep through the city into the river on the South or spill over the West; then you may just as well divert the water to the river and the West side before flooding the city center, the drainage would be the same.

So flooding the city would do diddly squat for speeding drainage and wreck 40% of the economy, no deal.

[robblok]

Not that hard, provinces were ordered to keep the water for BKK so they had more time to prepare. The BBB is there to protect BKK at the expense of those in don Mueng.

Also because the other provinces had to use damms to keep the water in their provinces (not out) it got flooded here. I believe the governor of Pattani was removed for not keeping the water long enough in his province.

If you look at a elevations map you will see BKK is the lowest point so its real natural that all the water would flow there.

Its safe to say that if they had let the water go earlier from those other provinces it would not have been so widespread but BKK would have been hit earlier and harder.

But really the biggest example is that BBB that was not there before nobody could plan for it but it was build to keep water in one area (flood it) to save BKK.

The reason i keep talking about that and not the other points i made is that the relation is much clearer there and its easier to prove. The other points are much harder to prove.

That only shows that inner Bangkok could have flooded if it didn't have defenses, it doesn't prove that other areas would not had flooded if the water, somehow, would be allowed to flush right through the city.

That's my peeve with people that say that flooding inner Bangkok would alleviate the situation, they don't know how that would work, just that it needs to be done.

Inner Bangkok its surrounded on the West and South by the Chao Phraya river, if it floods from the North all water can only slowly creep through the city into the river on the South or spill over the West; then you may just as well divert the water to the river and the West side before flooding the city center, the drainage would be the same.

So flooding the city would do diddly squat for speeding drainage and wreck 40% of the economy, no deal.

I take the don muang BBB as an example.. there people are flooded for BKK. THe water would be lower for them if the bags were not there. Now prove your point that they are not being hurt to safe BKK.

[bendejo]

This was not another Katrina, which was a devastating hurricane, which all happened in a few days. This disaster became evident in July or August, and steps should have been taken to solve it back then. It should not have involved politics, but rather engineers and experts who specialize in various aspects of the impending disaster.

Unfortunately where politics comes in is that incompetent people are put in these positions due to cronyism, reward for political alliance, etc. It isn't until they're actually called upon to do something that it is revealed the person is charge is a numbskull.

Witness the guy who was head of US Federal Emergency Management who was too busy doing other things (probably Fantasy Football) to notice New Orleans was under water, and the boss declaring he was "doing a heck of a job."

Here in Thailand the floods were coming, and the best they could come up with was to get boats to push the river water into the sea? That one was worthy of Mr Bean!

I'm not playing party politics or shirt color here, this situation is a political disgrace for all. My guess is the previous gov't didn't take much action because they knew they were going to lose, and the floods would make the next gov't look bad. This is just as heinous as paying people to commit arson at select places in the city just for the sake of defaming the sitting gov't. Political gain at the cost of the country itself, it doesn't get more self-serving than that.

Sickening!

[ginjag]

Thai flood cause revealed

http://asiapacific.a...-revealed-rain/

http://en.wikipedia....floods#Disputes

Dam management was to blame--the thread on the subject explains it all. as my post earlier said - the intense rainfall coinciding with high water tides was a factor--BUT most of this deluge could have been stored-IF this dam water was released August before high tides in the gulf. MAN MADE I'm afraid.

Blaming dam management is a pathetic excuse. No one knows how much rain there would be. In any SOP, there would be an allowance for a certain amount of variance - but surely not for such excesses.

Not as pathetic as your reply-unless you didn't see the admission from him on the subject. OR choose to rebuff the dam bosses admittance, as I said the release of much water earlier did not happen, instead of losing a season crop of rice -had the rains not come we find the rains came big time, hence the full dams and torrential rain.. As I said it was a decision that proved costly.

so keep your comments like pathetic to yourself. it's the excess we are talking about isn't it ??? we should have had some leeway in half empty dams. So your comments sound like the minister was telling porky pies-lies- so you do not believe him-thats pathetic

[ExpatOilWorker]

Surely, those that want compensation should have taken out flood insurance.

That's the way it works in the rest of the world.......

I, for one, am really intrigued by this new concept being proposed, those that not live in flood risky areas have to pay a premium to bail out those that do live in flood risk areas.

I should talk with my insurer about this brave new world. Imagine, you don't have to pay car insurance, someone else, without a car would pay it for you!

I think your missing the point here, others are flooded because the will to protect BKK. If all the upper provinces had just let the water come and not kept it at order of YL then damage would be a lot less but BKK had to deal with it.

So when you <Snip!> someone over you have to pay for it.

No, he is not missing the point. They flooded areas would still have been flooded, with or without protecting Bangkok.

[MikeyIdea]

Interesting statistics for Bpumipol and Sirikit Dams

Bhumipol clearly shows support for the theory - keep water to save the rice crops. Release averages 25 mil cu.m per day for the whole of September and then oupps, dam is full and release spikes enormously. Nearly 140 mil cu. m 6 Oct. and average up to 25 Oct some 75 mil cu.m

Comments?

http://www.thaiwater.net/DATA/REPORT/php/rid_lgraph.php

Edited November 15, 2011 by MikeyIdea