Police protect Prachin Buri flood barrier

[webfact]

Police protect flood barrier
The Nation



PRACHIN BURI: -- POLICE ARE watching over an earthen embankment erected recently to protect Prachin Buri's economic zone from flooding.

The strict surveillance follows allegedly deliberate damage to the barrier by some residents from a nearby housing estate late on Sunday night in a bid to ensure that floodwaters would not head their way.

The housing estate sits on almost the opposite side of the Sarit Yuttasilp Rd in Prachin Buri's Muang district.

"We have received reports that villagers damaged the embankment with hoes and spades," Prachin Buri police chief Colonel Yingyos Intaburan said yesterday.

He said police were called to the spot to stop the villagers but initially they refused to listen.

Their housing estate accommodates about 1,650 families. They are unhappy with the Muang Prachin Buri Municipality's decision to build the embankment, believing the structure would divert floodwater to their homes.

While Muang Prachin Buri Municipality's zone was briefly flooded three times this year, the housing estate remained dry. However, its residents now suspect the newly erected embankment might change the situation.

Many parts of Prachin Buri are now deep under floodwater, spreading fear and concern.

People in Muang Prachin Buri want the embankment to stay. The municipality's deputy mayor Tossapon Pinijtanapark and Muang Prachin Buri district chief Somsak Itthivorakul rushed to talk to villagers from nearby housing estates.

"The villagers have agreed to stop damaging the embankment in exchange for the municipality's promise to not raise the level of the embankment, to not fix the damage that has already been done to the structure, and to help form sandbag walls around the housing estate," Yingyos said.

He said that after the agreement, police would still need to watch over the embankment out of concern that residents of the housing estate might change their minds.

"We have now conducted patrols along the embankment," he said.

In Prachin Buri's Prachantakham district, the floodwater level was more than two metres deep at the worst-hit spots.

In the province's Ban Sang district, flooding has already ravaged vast areas of farmland.

Chachoengsao Governor Anukul Tangkananukulchai said run-off water from Prachin Buri had caused flooding in his province.

"Now, we are trying to push the excess water out to sea as fast as possible," he said. Officials can now drain about 30 million cubic metres of water out of the province.

Assoc Prof Sucharit Koontakakulvong, who heads the Water Resources Engineering Department at Chulalongkorn University's Faculty of Engineering, said the flooding situation in the Eastern region indicated each area has varying sensitivities and their early-warning criteria needed to be different.

"For example, rainfall not exceeding 60 millimetres may be a sound criterion in a general farming area but not in community, economic and industrial zones," he pointed out.

The Eastern region includes Prachin Buri and Chachoengsao.


-- The Nation 2013-10-15

[SOTIRIOS]

....earthen embankment.......

....how many billions was that.......

....and blame the villagers.....of course it will wash away...even a child could tell you that.....

[siampolee]

A fine example of the villagers being made the sacrifice so as to protect the industrial estate which no doubt is either owned or controlled by a person or persons of influence.

Surely with a little forward planing both areas could have been protected from possible flooding.

Ooop's, forgot, this is Thailand thus proactive actions are indeed unheard of as are the rights of the ordinary Thai person even by this government that we hear forever espousing their idea of equality for all.

A calculated risk that if those people houses on the state were to flood they might and I emphasis the word ''might'' be inline for a 5,000 baht compensation payment no doubt the house flooding scenario would indeed be a cheaper option than the flooding of the industrial estate with also a possible ''commission'' payable to those handling the compensation monies out too.

Seems though that even now '' some are more equal than others.''

[tompelli]

Yingluck's pal Silpa Archa promised he would take care of it by 6th October - maybe he wants to come back & explain?

[monkeycountry]

A fine example of the villagers being made the sacrifice so as to protect the industrial estate which no doubt is either owned or controlled by a person or persons of influence.

Surely with a little forward planing both areas could have been protected from possible flooding.

Ooop's, forgot, this is Thailand thus proactive actions are indeed unheard of as are the rights of the ordinary Thai person even by this government that we hear forever espousing their idea of equality for all.

A calculated risk that if those people houses on the state were to flood they might and I emphasis the word ''might'' be inline for a 5,000 baht compensation payment no doubt the house flooding scenario would indeed be a cheaper option than the flooding of the industrial estate with also a possible ''commission'' payable to those handling the compensation monies out too.

Seems though that even now '' some are more equal than others.''

Who do you think works at the industrial estate? Personally I would rather have my house flooded than lose my salary for say 3-6 months (or perhaps permanently) because my workplace was flooded and all the machinery had to be replaced.

[Wat dee]

A fine example of the villagers being made the sacrifice so as to protect the industrial estate which no doubt is either owned or controlled by a person or persons of influence.

Surely with a little forward planing both areas could have been protected from possible flooding.

Ooop's, forgot, this is Thailand thus proactive actions are indeed unheard of as are the rights of the ordinary Thai person even by this government that we hear forever espousing their idea of equality for all.

A calculated risk that if those people houses on the state were to flood they might and I emphasis the word ''might'' be inline for a 5,000 baht compensation payment no doubt the house flooding scenario would indeed be a cheaper option than the flooding of the industrial estate with also a possible ''commission'' payable to those handling the compensation monies out too.

Seems though that even now '' some are more equal than others.''

Who do you think works at the industrial estate? Personally I would rather have my house flooded than lose my salary for say 3-6 months (or perhaps permanently) because my workplace was flooded and all the machinery had to be replaced.

Would you flood you house for your neigbours job ?

[belg]

no more floods in 7 days, who said that again

[siampolee]

Who do you think works at the industrial estate? Personally I would rather have my house flooded than lose my salary for say 3-6 months (or perhaps permanently) because my workplace was flooded and all the machinery had to be replaced.

Have you ever experienced your house being flooded and the subsequent loss of irreplaceable items family memories etc, the filth left behind and the appalling stench and of course the expense of replacing those lost items if they can be replaced?

If the answer is no, you should try flooding your house to experience what fun it is.

Edited October 15, 2013 by siampolee

[monkeycountry]

Who do you think works at the industrial estate? Personally I would rather have my house flooded than lose my salary for say 3-6 months (or perhaps permanently) because my workplace was flooded and all the machinery had to be replaced.

Have you ever experienced your house being flooded and the subsequent loss of irreplaceable items family memories etc, the filth left behind and the appalling stench and of course the expense of replacing those lost items if they can be replaced?

If the answer is no, you should try flooding your house to experience what fun it is.

I have had several houses flooded yes, but usually managed to move stuff out of the way first. Also have had several cars and bikes flooded. If the house is made from concrete, and there is no wooden floor or similar, then it is not a problem. A good cleaning and all is fine. Wooden doors etc. that cannot be moved (many can) may need to be replaced as they may no longer fit the frame. Power lines etc will dry out, and sockets etc. can be cleaned too.

Cars and bikes can be taken apart (seats and everything out) and cleaned properly. I guess some cars may not survive though. In any case, if you are a bit smarter than me, you simply move your cars and bikes out of harms way prior to the flood.

I am not saying floods are fun, I am just saying that I would worry much more about my workplace, job and income than about my house - assuming of course the flood will not destroy the house itself, which may be the case for wooden houses.

[monkeycountry]

A fine example of the villagers being made the sacrifice so as to protect the industrial estate which no doubt is either owned or controlled by a person or persons of influence.

Surely with a little forward planing both areas could have been protected from possible flooding.

Ooop's, forgot, this is Thailand thus proactive actions are indeed unheard of as are the rights of the ordinary Thai person even by this government that we hear forever espousing their idea of equality for all.

A calculated risk that if those people houses on the state were to flood they might and I emphasis the word ''might'' be inline for a 5,000 baht compensation payment no doubt the house flooding scenario would indeed be a cheaper option than the flooding of the industrial estate with also a possible ''commission'' payable to those handling the compensation monies out too.

Seems though that even now '' some are more equal than others.''

Who do you think works at the industrial estate? Personally I would rather have my house flooded than lose my salary for say 3-6 months (or perhaps permanently) because my workplace was flooded and all the machinery had to be replaced.

Would you flood your home for your neighbours job??

No of course not. I simply assumed, probably wrongly, that a very large housing estate right next to an industrial estate meant that many people in the housing estate worked at the industrial estate, which would make sense. Of course it sucks for those who do not work there. However, if I did work there, and I liked my job, then yes, I would prefer my house to flood instead of my workplace.

[siampolee]

A fair reply, however you have to admit that the financial and I presume the labour sources you have at hand indeed far surpass the average Thai and no doubt many foreigners too. those Thais do have the luxury of the sources you can command in your hours of need, nor often the time either..

However I see your point and it is indeed a devil of a dilemma.

[robblok]

Having been flooded in 2011, i can tell you that if you see dams that keep the water at your side to protect others after a while you really want those dams torn down. I did not like the flooding one bit but the duration of it was what got to me. It was almost 2 months. Had they let the water through then it would have certainly be gone a lot faster. Just flooding someplace and use it as water catchment area to spare others is cruel especially if its a residential area (crops and such too bad but residential area's is an other problem)

Thing is sometimes there is no logic to who they let flood and who not its all about face and money. Water should flow and it should not be blocked and allowed to accumulate even higher in a residential area to spare others. 10-20 cm for a short period is ok, but for weeks / months its not. Better to share the pain then and be done with it quickly. Though those who are spared would of course not think like that and those who are flooded do think like that. I know I talked with my neighbors during the flooding they hated the dams that kept us flooded longer.

[h90]

....earthen embankment.......

....how many billions was that.......

....and blame the villagers.....of course it will wash away...even a child could tell you that.....

billions....earth extra imported from Dubai

[SjaakNL2013]

As Dutch you know that a small hole in a earth wall, dike, grow in a few minutes to a big and not to stop water flood. See the last flooding when the villagers take the dams down around the old airport. The water level lowers with almost 40 cm in just 1 day by most of them. That 40 cm was enough that people could drive, shop, go to work and take up their normal life again.

Yes DM got a higher level of about 10 cm and the so beloved Bangkok Center got water out the sewers up to 15 cm in Bkk Center.

The most dams here but are not build to keep areas dry but make the area's basins to kept the water. All to keep Bangkok dry.

[monkeycountry]

A fair reply, however you have to admit that the financial and I presume the labour sources you have at hand indeed far surpass the average Thai and no doubt many foreigners too. those Thais do have the luxury of the sources you can command in your hours of need, nor often the time either..

However I see your point and it is indeed a devil of a dilemma.

I assume that was a reply to my post, and I agree. However, poorer people usually have fewer and cheaper assets than wealthier people, hence fewer and cheaper assets to protect from floods.

Time is a problem, as you cannot work and secure your house at the same time, but some employers (hopefully most) will give their staff some time off in order for them to go home and secure their assets, if their house is about to flood.

[monkeycountry]

Having been flooded in 2011, i can tell you that if you see dams that keep the water at your side to protect others after a while you really want those dams torn down. I did not like the flooding one bit but the duration of it was what got to me. It was almost 2 months. Had they let the water through then it would have certainly be gone a lot faster. Just flooding someplace and use it as water catchment area to spare others is cruel especially if its a residential area (crops and such too bad but residential area's is an other problem)

Thing is sometimes there is no logic to who they let flood and who not its all about face and money. Water should flow and it should not be blocked and allowed to accumulate even higher in a residential area to spare others. 10-20 cm for a short period is ok, but for weeks / months its not. Better to share the pain then and be done with it quickly. Though those who are spared would of course not think like that and those who are flooded do think like that. I know I talked with my neighbors during the flooding they hated the dams that kept us flooded longer.

I both agree and understand you - especially the 2 months part, but if things were done right (which I know they are not), and not just based on who has the right money/connections, it does make sense financially to let some less valuable places be flooded in order to protect more valuable ones, rather than just flood and ruin everything in the name of fairness. Of course this is only reasonable if the ones saved at the expense of others pay their share of the damages.

In short, if you have 2 houses, one worth 20 baht and the other 10 baht. You can flood them both equally and lose 20 baht and 10 baht respectively, a total of 30 baht, or you can flood just the cheaper one, and each pay 5 baht for repairs, totalling 10 baht - the latter would obviously be the best option for both parties.

Edited October 15, 2013 by monkeycountry

[laurentbkk]

A fine example of the villagers being made the sacrifice so as to protect the industrial estate which no doubt is either owned or controlled by a person or persons of influence.

Surely with a little forward planing both areas could have been protected from possible flooding.

Ooop's, forgot, this is Thailand thus proactive actions are indeed unheard of as are the rights of the ordinary Thai person even by this government that we hear forever espousing their idea of equality for all.

A calculated risk that if those people houses on the state were to flood they might and I emphasis the word ''might'' be inline for a 5,000 baht compensation payment no doubt the house flooding scenario would indeed be a cheaper option than the flooding of the industrial estate with also a possible ''commission'' payable to those handling the compensation monies out too.

Seems though that even now '' some are more equal than others.''

Who do you think works at the industrial estate? Personally I would rather have my house flooded than lose my salary for say 3-6 months (or perhaps permanently) because my workplace was flooded and all the machinery had to be replaced.

Thats probably because your house never been flooded .

[Benmart]

....earthen embankment.......

....how many billions was that.......

....and blame the villagers.....of course it will wash away...even a child could tell you that.....

Seems like a lot of unknown elements here. Haven't seen the embankment or the figures on the cost. I'm not a qualified engineer with flood diversion experience, so I can't comment further. Anyone out there have more information and experience in these matters? Thanks.

[h90]

Having been flooded in 2011, i can tell you that if you see dams that keep the water at your side to protect others after a while you really want those dams torn down. I did not like the flooding one bit but the duration of it was what got to me. It was almost 2 months. Had they let the water through then it would have certainly be gone a lot faster. Just flooding someplace and use it as water catchment area to spare others is cruel especially if its a residential area (crops and such too bad but residential area's is an other problem)

Thing is sometimes there is no logic to who they let flood and who not its all about face and money. Water should flow and it should not be blocked and allowed to accumulate even higher in a residential area to spare others. 10-20 cm for a short period is ok, but for weeks / months its not. Better to share the pain then and be done with it quickly. Though those who are spared would of course not think like that and those who are flooded do think like that. I know I talked with my neighbors during the flooding they hated the dams that kept us flooded longer.

But in 2011, if the dams torn down, the inner city of Bangkok where all the politicians have properties would have seen 10-20 cm water.

That is complete unacceptable and you can't expect that these important people sacrifice so much, just because you don't want to stay 2 month under 1.5 meter water.

And lets recall the private buildings that state workers protected with sandbags meant for Bangkok.....That alone should show where the priorities are.

[siampolee]

The problem is that in many cases the flood plains (monkeys cheeks) have been developed and as a result those flood plains have become inhabited area with high density populations of both housing and industrial units.

Until such time as there is in place a decent set of zoning laws, common sense along with an effective national water control system there will be flooding and it will get worse due to the haphazard planning and the pursuit of easy profits by the developers who walk away with big bank accounts and th end consumers are unaware that they are sitting on the equivalent of an aquatic time bomb .

Swampy is a fine example of a development that never should have been permitted in the area it now is.

Swamp land and part of a monkeys cheek. We lived near there for a number of years and I recall how we used to go collecting marsh plant vegetables and go fishing.

All the year round there was water and in the rainy season there was a great deal of water, however the local area that was developed, Lad Krabang industrial estate and Lad Krabang town and the surrounding villages experienced little or easily managed flooding unlike now.,

We all know what has happened don't we ?

Influential people, in fact one it was one of Thailand's current leading political family was in the know and they bought large parcels of land followed by a bigger parcel of cash when they sold their land off to enable the airport construction to go ahead.

Until we have right over might the situation is not going to change sad to say and the gullible innocents are the ones who will be suffering.

[Local Drunk]

Are the police going to arrest the earthen embankment if it fails? Are they going to arrest the builders of the embankment? Are they going to arrest the whoever in the government for improper flood management or the developers? It's clearly someone's fault.

[monkeycountry]

Having been flooded in 2011, i can tell you that if you see dams that keep the water at your side to protect others after a while you really want those dams torn down. I did not like the flooding one bit but the duration of it was what got to me. It was almost 2 months. Had they let the water through then it would have certainly be gone a lot faster. Just flooding someplace and use it as water catchment area to spare others is cruel especially if its a residential area (crops and such too bad but residential area's is an other problem)

Thing is sometimes there is no logic to who they let flood and who not its all about face and money. Water should flow and it should not be blocked and allowed to accumulate even higher in a residential area to spare others. 10-20 cm for a short period is ok, but for weeks / months its not. Better to share the pain then and be done with it quickly. Though those who are spared would of course not think like that and those who are flooded do think like that. I know I talked with my neighbors during the flooding they hated the dams that kept us flooded longer.

But in 2011, if the dams torn down, the inner city of Bangkok where all the politicians have properties would have seen 10-20 cm water.

That is complete unacceptable and you can't expect that these important people sacrifice so much, just because you don't want to stay 2 month under 1.5 meter water.

And lets recall the private buildings that state workers protected with sandbags meant for Bangkok.....That alone should show where the priorities are.

I do not know if your 10-20 cm is just grabbed out of thin air or an actual estimate by some professionals (not the government)?

10-20 cm might not be a disaster, however, flooding central Bangkok to an extend where power and thereby internet would have to be cut for an extended period of time would be a major problem for everyone in Thailand.

Central bank servers would no longer work, which means no more money from banks or ATM's including those in the provinces as they all connect to the central servers. The stock exchange (SET) would also shut down, which would do serious damage to the whole economy.

Many major countrywide companies would have difficulty operating, as all their logistics, not just transport, but also communication, salaries, banking etc. is run from their head office in Bangkok, and would therefore affect the provinces as well, both for their staff and for their customers. And even if their headoffice is not in central Bangkok they still cannot pay bills and salaries as the bank servers are down.

Phone companies, internet service providers, tv and radio stations might also have to at least partially shut down, if their head offices and servers are under water and/or without power, which again would affect everyone in Thailand, not just Bangkok.

Then you have the millions of people in high rises who cannot live there as they will neither have power nor water (most highrises depend on electric pumps for water). You can evacuate a few thousand people in a village, but not a few million in central bangkok.

Then you have all the hospitals who not only take care of the sick from Bangkok, but also the many sick from the provinces who are so sick the facilities in the provinces are not adequate. Again, you can evacuate a hospital in a province, but not 100 hospitals in Bangkok.

Sewage would also quickly spread diseases in a crowded city of Bangkok's size. A problem that becomes much worse if the hospitals are not functioning.

Transport would also stop, which means noone can get to work, so even if the power was still on, everything would still come to a standstill.

The list goes on, but I assume you get my point. In short, most of Thailand would come to a standstill if central Bangkok was flooded to an extend where power would have to be cut for an extended period of time- and alot of people would die. Therefore it is in everyones interest not to let that happen - at all costs.

[monkeycountry]

A fine example of the villagers being made the sacrifice so as to protect the industrial estate which no doubt is either owned or controlled by a person or persons of influence.

Surely with a little forward planing both areas could have been protected from possible flooding.

Ooop's, forgot, this is Thailand thus proactive actions are indeed unheard of as are the rights of the ordinary Thai person even by this government that we hear forever espousing their idea of equality for all.

A calculated risk that if those people houses on the state were to flood they might and I emphasis the word ''might'' be inline for a 5,000 baht compensation payment no doubt the house flooding scenario would indeed be a cheaper option than the flooding of the industrial estate with also a possible ''commission'' payable to those handling the compensation monies out too.

Seems though that even now '' some are more equal than others.''

Who do you think works at the industrial estate? Personally I would rather have my house flooded than lose my salary for say 3-6 months (or perhaps permanently) because my workplace was flooded and all the machinery had to be replaced.

Thats probably because your house never been flooded .

See post #9

[Local Drunk]

Having been flooded in 2011, i can tell you that if you see dams that keep the water at your side to protect others after a while you really want those dams torn down. I did not like the flooding one bit but the duration of it was what got to me. It was almost 2 months. Had they let the water through then it would have certainly be gone a lot faster. Just flooding someplace and use it as water catchment area to spare others is cruel especially if its a residential area (crops and such too bad but residential area's is an other problem)

Thing is sometimes there is no logic to who they let flood and who not its all about face and money. Water should flow and it should not be blocked and allowed to accumulate even higher in a residential area to spare others. 10-20 cm for a short period is ok, but for weeks / months its not. Better to share the pain then and be done with it quickly. Though those who are spared would of course not think like that and those who are flooded do think like that. I know I talked with my neighbors during the flooding they hated the dams that kept us flooded longer.

But in 2011, if the dams torn down, the inner city of Bangkok where all the politicians have properties would have seen 10-20 cm water.

That is complete unacceptable and you can't expect that these important people sacrifice so much, just because you don't want to stay 2 month under 1.5 meter water.

And lets recall the private buildings that state workers protected with sandbags meant for Bangkok.....That alone should show where the priorities are.

I do not know if your 10-20 cm is just grabbed out of thin air or an actual estimate by some professionals (not the government)?

10-20 cm might not be a disaster, however, flooding central Bangkok to an extend where power and thereby internet would have to be cut for an extended period of time would be a major problem for everyone in Thailand.

Central bank servers would no longer work, which means no more money from banks or ATM's including those in the provinces as they all connect to the central servers. The stock exchange (SET) would also shut down, which would do serious damage to the whole economy.

Many major countrywide companies would have difficulty operating, as all their logistics, not just transport, but also communication, salaries, banking etc. is run from their head office in Bangkok, and would therefore affect the provinces as well, both for their staff and for their customers. And even if their headoffice is not in central Bangkok they still cannot pay bills and salaries as the bank servers are down.

Phone companies, internet service providers, tv and radio stations might also have to at least partially shut down, if their head offices and servers are under water and/or without power, which again would affect everyone in Thailand, not just Bangkok.

Then you have the millions of people in high rises who cannot live there as they will neither have power nor water (most highrises depend on electric pumps for water). You can evacuate a few thousand people in a village, but not a few million in central bangkok.

Then you have all the hospitals who not only take care of the sick from Bangkok, but also the many sick from the provinces who are so sick the facilities in the provinces are not adequate. Again, you can evacuate a hospital in a province, but not 100 hospitals in Bangkok.

Sewage would also quickly spread diseases in a crowded city of Bangkok's size. A problem that becomes much worse if the hospitals are not functioning.

Transport would also stop, which means noone can get to work, so even if the power was still on, everything would still come to a standstill.

The list goes on, but I assume you get my point. In short, most of Thailand would come to a standstill if central Bangkok was flooded to an extend where power would have to be cut for an extended period of time- and alot of people would die. Therefore it is in everyones interest not to let that happen - at all costs.

So Sukhkumvit, Silom and Rama Nine get a bit wet and can't connect to Line, Instagram or FB... Too bad about the people that live in high rise condos having to take the stairs. You really have my sympathy.

[siampolee]

Are the police going to arrest the earthen embankment if it fails? Are they going to arrest the builders of the embankment? Are they going to arrest the whoever in the government for improper flood management or the developers? It's clearly someone's fault.

Superb comment, can't like you my daily quota has been used up

No doubt a Democrat will be found in possession of assorted magic spells, charms, amulets etc and will be charged with using said paraphernalia to induce rain and embankment collapse as well as the aforementioned paraphernalia affecting and thus hindering the local officials and no doubt national officials too attempts to control the floodwater.

The resultant resurrection of the Salem Witch Trials and the ensuing burning at the stake of the guilty parties will of course become a tourist attraction along with attending autopsies too thus boosting tourist figures along with the income from tourism to new dizzy heights.

Hence the resultant revenue then can and no doubt will be spent on improving the current flood control farce programme.

Thailands current ruling political parties and the police yet again rise to the top.

As an aside though doesn't certain human waste also rise to the top too.

Edited October 15, 2013 by siampolee

[robblok]

Having been flooded in 2011, i can tell you that if you see dams that keep the water at your side to protect others after a while you really want those dams torn down. I did not like the flooding one bit but the duration of it was what got to me. It was almost 2 months. Had they let the water through then it would have certainly be gone a lot faster. Just flooding someplace and use it as water catchment area to spare others is cruel especially if its a residential area (crops and such too bad but residential area's is an other problem)

Thing is sometimes there is no logic to who they let flood and who not its all about face and money. Water should flow and it should not be blocked and allowed to accumulate even higher in a residential area to spare others. 10-20 cm for a short period is ok, but for weeks / months its not. Better to share the pain then and be done with it quickly. Though those who are spared would of course not think like that and those who are flooded do think like that. I know I talked with my neighbors during the flooding they hated the dams that kept us flooded longer.

But in 2011, if the dams torn down, the inner city of Bangkok where all the politicians have properties would have seen 10-20 cm water.

That is complete unacceptable and you can't expect that these important people sacrifice so much, just because you don't want to stay 2 month under 1.5 meter water.

And lets recall the private buildings that state workers protected with sandbags meant for Bangkok.....That alone should show where the priorities are.

I do not know if your 10-20 cm is just grabbed out of thin air or an actual estimate by some professionals (not the government)?

10-20 cm might not be a disaster, however, flooding central Bangkok to an extend where power and thereby internet would have to be cut for an extended period of time would be a major problem for everyone in Thailand.

Central bank servers would no longer work, which means no more money from banks or ATM's including those in the provinces as they all connect to the central servers. The stock exchange (SET) would also shut down, which would do serious damage to the whole economy.

Many major countrywide companies would have difficulty operating, as all their logistics, not just transport, but also communication, salaries, banking etc. is run from their head office in Bangkok, and would therefore affect the provinces as well, both for their staff and for their customers. And even if their headoffice is not in central Bangkok they still cannot pay bills and salaries as the bank servers are down.

Phone companies, internet service providers, tv and radio stations might also have to at least partially shut down, if their head offices and servers are under water and/or without power, which again would affect everyone in Thailand, not just Bangkok.

Then you have the millions of people in high rises who cannot live there as they will neither have power nor water (most highrises depend on electric pumps for water). You can evacuate a few thousand people in a village, but not a few million in central bangkok.

Then you have all the hospitals who not only take care of the sick from Bangkok, but also the many sick from the provinces who are so sick the facilities in the provinces are not adequate. Again, you can evacuate a hospital in a province, but not 100 hospitals in Bangkok.

Sewage would also quickly spread diseases in a crowded city of Bangkok's size. A problem that becomes much worse if the hospitals are not functioning.

Transport would also stop, which means noone can get to work, so even if the power was still on, everything would still come to a standstill.

The list goes on, but I assume you get my point. In short, most of Thailand would come to a standstill if central Bangkok was flooded to an extend where power would have to be cut for an extended period of time- and alot of people would die. Therefore it is in everyones interest not to let that happen - at all costs.

Partially it makes sense wont deny it but 20 cm does not mean the power is cut. Here at 70-80 cm still power was not cut. So loads of things would go on but other stuff would not. 20 cm would not be a total disaster but sure damage would be done. But there are some good points. But really power wont be shut of at 20 cm and so high rise would go on ect. 20 cm would still allow for traffic and such. Its not major.

[h90]

Having been flooded in 2011, i can tell you that if you see dams that keep the water at your side to protect others after a while you really want those dams torn down. I did not like the flooding one bit but the duration of it was what got to me. It was almost 2 months. Had they let the water through then it would have certainly be gone a lot faster. Just flooding someplace and use it as water catchment area to spare others is cruel especially if its a residential area (crops and such too bad but residential area's is an other problem)

Thing is sometimes there is no logic to who they let flood and who not its all about face and money. Water should flow and it should not be blocked and allowed to accumulate even higher in a residential area to spare others. 10-20 cm for a short period is ok, but for weeks / months its not. Better to share the pain then and be done with it quickly. Though those who are spared would of course not think like that and those who are flooded do think like that. I know I talked with my neighbors during the flooding they hated the dams that kept us flooded longer.

But in 2011, if the dams torn down, the inner city of Bangkok where all the politicians have properties would have seen 10-20 cm water.

That is complete unacceptable and you can't expect that these important people sacrifice so much, just because you don't want to stay 2 month under 1.5 meter water.

And lets recall the private buildings that state workers protected with sandbags meant for Bangkok.....That alone should show where the priorities are.

I do not know if your 10-20 cm is just grabbed out of thin air or an actual estimate by some professionals (not the government)?

10-20 cm might not be a disaster, however, flooding central Bangkok to an extend where power and thereby internet would have to be cut for an extended period of time would be a major problem for everyone in Thailand.

Central bank servers would no longer work, which means no more money from banks or ATM's including those in the provinces as they all connect to the central servers. The stock exchange (SET) would also shut down, which would do serious damage to the whole economy.

Many major countrywide companies would have difficulty operating, as all their logistics, not just transport, but also communication, salaries, banking etc. is run from their head office in Bangkok, and would therefore affect the provinces as well, both for their staff and for their customers. And even if their headoffice is not in central Bangkok they still cannot pay bills and salaries as the bank servers are down.

Phone companies, internet service providers, tv and radio stations might also have to at least partially shut down, if their head offices and servers are under water and/or without power, which again would affect everyone in Thailand, not just Bangkok.

Then you have the millions of people in high rises who cannot live there as they will neither have power nor water (most highrises depend on electric pumps for water). You can evacuate a few thousand people in a village, but not a few million in central bangkok.

Then you have all the hospitals who not only take care of the sick from Bangkok, but also the many sick from the provinces who are so sick the facilities in the provinces are not adequate. Again, you can evacuate a hospital in a province, but not 100 hospitals in Bangkok.

Sewage would also quickly spread diseases in a crowded city of Bangkok's size. A problem that becomes much worse if the hospitals are not functioning.

Transport would also stop, which means noone can get to work, so even if the power was still on, everything would still come to a standstill.

The list goes on, but I assume you get my point. In short, most of Thailand would come to a standstill if central Bangkok was flooded to an extend where power would have to be cut for an extended period of time- and alot of people would die. Therefore it is in everyones interest not to let that happen - at all costs.

Well we had here 1.5 meter and internet and electric worked. So by spreading the amount to a wider area it is unlikely that it would get higher than that inside Bangkok. So electric and internet would continue.

International standard is that bank servers have several backups on complete different places. For Germany it is said that they would work without interruption in a full scale nuclear war. So I guess Thailands server should be able to stand 20 cm water and we could place sandbags as well.

The outer districts of Bangkok were flooded with all the problems you mention without everyone die from cholera. So I guess the Hi-So downtown people wouldn't have died from a limited time of a few cm water.

[monkeycountry]

Having been flooded in 2011, i can tell you that if you see dams that keep the water at your side to protect others after a while you really want those dams torn down. I did not like the flooding one bit but the duration of it was what got to me. It was almost 2 months. Had they let the water through then it would have certainly be gone a lot faster. Just flooding someplace and use it as water catchment area to spare others is cruel especially if its a residential area (crops and such too bad but residential area's is an other problem)

Thing is sometimes there is no logic to who they let flood and who not its all about face and money. Water should flow and it should not be blocked and allowed to accumulate even higher in a residential area to spare others. 10-20 cm for a short period is ok, but for weeks / months its not. Better to share the pain then and be done with it quickly. Though those who are spared would of course not think like that and those who are flooded do think like that. I know I talked with my neighbors during the flooding they hated the dams that kept us flooded longer.

But in 2011, if the dams torn down, the inner city of Bangkok where all the politicians have properties would have seen 10-20 cm water.

That is complete unacceptable and you can't expect that these important people sacrifice so much, just because you don't want to stay 2 month under 1.5 meter water.

And lets recall the private buildings that state workers protected with sandbags meant for Bangkok.....That alone should show where the priorities are.

I do not know if your 10-20 cm is just grabbed out of thin air or an actual estimate by some professionals (not the government)?

10-20 cm might not be a disaster, however, flooding central Bangkok to an extend where power and thereby internet would have to be cut for an extended period of time would be a major problem for everyone in Thailand.

Central bank servers would no longer work, which means no more money from banks or ATM's including those in the provinces as they all connect to the central servers. The stock exchange (SET) would also shut down, which would do serious damage to the whole economy.

Many major countrywide companies would have difficulty operating, as all their logistics, not just transport, but also communication, salaries, banking etc. is run from their head office in Bangkok, and would therefore affect the provinces as well, both for their staff and for their customers. And even if their headoffice is not in central Bangkok they still cannot pay bills and salaries as the bank servers are down.

Phone companies, internet service providers, tv and radio stations might also have to at least partially shut down, if their head offices and servers are under water and/or without power, which again would affect everyone in Thailand, not just Bangkok.

Then you have the millions of people in high rises who cannot live there as they will neither have power nor water (most highrises depend on electric pumps for water). You can evacuate a few thousand people in a village, but not a few million in central bangkok.

Then you have all the hospitals who not only take care of the sick from Bangkok, but also the many sick from the provinces who are so sick the facilities in the provinces are not adequate. Again, you can evacuate a hospital in a province, but not 100 hospitals in Bangkok.

Sewage would also quickly spread diseases in a crowded city of Bangkok's size. A problem that becomes much worse if the hospitals are not functioning.

Transport would also stop, which means noone can get to work, so even if the power was still on, everything would still come to a standstill.

The list goes on, but I assume you get my point. In short, most of Thailand would come to a standstill if central Bangkok was flooded to an extend where power would have to be cut for an extended period of time- and alot of people would die. Therefore it is in everyones interest not to let that happen - at all costs.

Partially it makes sense wont deny it but 20 cm does not mean the power is cut. Here at 70-80 cm still power was not cut. So loads of things would go on but other stuff would not. 20 cm would not be a total disaster but sure damage would be done. But there are some good points. But really power wont be shut of at 20 cm and so high rise would go on ect. 20 cm would still allow for traffic and such. Its not major.

As I said in the beginning of my post, I did not know where the other poster had the 10-20 cm from, and I also said 10-20 cm might not cause a big problem, but once it reaches a level where power has to be cut and/or where most traffic/transport has to stop (whatever level that is), it will be a major disaster - for all of Thailand

Edited October 15, 2013 by monkeycountry

[Sheryl]

Who do you think works at the industrial estate? Personally I would rather have my house flooded than lose my salary for say 3-6 months (or perhaps permanently) because my workplace was flooded and all the machinery had to be replaced.

Would you flood your home for your neighbours job??

No of course not. I simply assumed, probably wrongly, that a very large housing estate right next to an industrial estate meant that many people in the housing estate worked at the industrial estate, which would make sense. Of course it sucks for those who do not work there. However, if I did work there, and I liked my job, then yes, I would prefer my house to flood instead of my workplace.

No, very different socioec groups. Workers in the industrial estate come from small villages outside the Muang District or on its fringes. The housing estate folk are solidly middle/upper middle class urban.

This is always the problem with dams, to protect one location they always worsen flooding elsewhere and it does lead to a lot of social conflict. Damming also often prolongs the problem (ref the Big Bag Barrier of 2011). The water has to get to the sea and the less it is impeded in doing so the sooner it will be over for everyone.

[newatthis]

A fine example of the villagers being made the sacrifice so as to protect the industrial estate which no doubt is either owned or controlled by a person or persons of influence.

Surely with a little forward planing both areas could have been protected from possible flooding.

Ooop's, forgot, this is Thailand thus proactive actions are indeed unheard of as are the rights of the ordinary Thai person even by this government that we hear forever espousing their idea of equality for all.

A calculated risk that if those people houses on the state were to flood they might and I emphasis the word ''might'' be inline for a 5,000 baht compensation payment no doubt the house flooding scenario would indeed be a cheaper option than the flooding of the industrial estate with also a possible ''commission'' payable to those handling the compensation monies out too.

Seems though that even now '' some are more equal than others.''

Who do you think works at the industrial estate? Personally I would rather have my house flooded than lose my salary for say 3-6 months (or perhaps permanently) because my workplace was flooded and all the machinery had to be replaced.

Would you flood your home for your neighbours job??

No of course not. I simply assumed, probably wrongly, that a very large housing estate right next to an industrial estate meant that many people in the housing estate worked at the industrial estate, which would make sense. Of course it sucks for those who do not work there. However, if I did work there, and I liked my job, then yes, I would prefer my house to flood instead of my workplace.

I may not like your logic MonkeyCountry, but I agree with you. I live outside Ayutthaya and in 2011 we had 3 metres of water in our area. Although our house is highset, we had to move for 2 months. Coming back was upsetting, tearful but repairable. However, our young neighbours [both husband and wife] worked at Canon [which got badly flooded] and that company decided to move the majority of its factory to Korat. My young neighbours couldn't go. So now they have to try and make a living selling cooked fish from home. The retrenchment package they got from Canon helped them set up for the present but, without a company job, they worried a lot when the waters started to rise again this year.