 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / September 2005Poynter Online: Slideshow of images from Hurricane Katrina
Some remarkable photojournalism here. **Warning: includes images that some people may find upsetting:** http://www.poynterextra.org/Katrina/gallery/index.htm Background at: http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=68&aid=88304 > Some remarkable photojournalism here. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=68&aid=88304 It leaves me speechless. Katrina, I think, has been the strongest hurricane yet. These photographs show the fury of nature, the nature of humans coming to the aid of others in need, and unfortunately, those who profit in times of adversity and must loot or create wrong. ~Robert C. >> Some remarkable photojournalism here. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >them, floods destroy them: what about bricks at least they are stronger >given their climatic extremes. I assume it is cheaper in the short term. >>> Some remarkable photojournalism here. >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >>stronger given their climatic extremes. I assume it is cheaper in the >>short term. You're right; look at the picture of the McDonald's: The building is still standing although the windows are all blown out. Actually, I asked an architect once why we build our houses out of wood, and his explanation was due to our (in Canada) cold environment: wood is a good insulator. I wonder if in the States it is the same reason: to insulate or for economic reasons (?). > You're right; look at the picture of the McDonald's: The building is still > standing although the windows are all blown out. Actually, I asked an > architect once why we build our houses out of wood, and his explanation was > due to our (in Canada) cold environment: wood is a good insulator. I wonder > if in the States it is the same reason: to insulate or for economic reasons > (?). The amount of wood between the inside and the outside is nothing that adds to insulation. It's there for structure. Brick cladding (or wood clapboard or alu or...) with thick 3/4" tarboard to cut the wind and the space in between filled with fibreglass insulation. The wood adds almost no insulation value ... covers only a few % (if that) of the surface. If the house were a log cabin, then it would be both structure and some insulation, but it's nowhere as efficient (on a volume, weight or cost basis) as 3.75" of pink fibreglass or blue foam insulation. Wood works in most of North America as a construction material because: -it is plentiful and cheap here -the humidity level is relatively low year round (compared to most of Europe) in most places. -allows for high variation in modeling and re-modeling of houses. Many "do-it-yourself-ers" gleefully tear down walls and add new ones or add additions to their houses. Were our houses made of concrete, there would be much less opportunity to do so. There are many houses here well over 200 years old that are wood frame with a stone cladding. No problem. As long as there is "breathing" space, the wood is good indefinitely. Cheers, Alan.  Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >>> Some remarkable photojournalism here. >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >>stronger given their climatic extremes. I assume it is cheaper in the >>short term. Diane, Houses and building of brick and mortar were also destroyed in the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina. One cannot imagine the overwhelming strength of a category five (or just under like Katrina when she hit land) hurricane unless one has lived through one. Nothing is safe. Jim >Fantastic photos, but can anyone explain to me why the Americans continue >to build their houses out of timber. Tornadoes destroy them, fire destroys >them, floods destroy them: what about bricks at least they are stronger >given their climatic extremes. I assume it is cheaper in the short term. Bricks are only the facade. The interior walls, the rest of the building is wood. >> Some remarkable photojournalism here. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > in need, and unfortunately, those who profit in times of adversity and > must loot or create wrong. Katrina was a strong storm, but the real tragedy here is the total lack of preparedness by our own governments. We've known for decades that this may happen, and we did nothing. This tragedy could have been much less if New Orleans had levees that were sufficient. > ~Robert C. >This tragedy could have been much less if New >Orleans had levees that were sufficient. I just heard on CNN it would have cost 2.5 billion to repair them the way the Engineer Corps wanted to. Now the estimated cost is 200 billion. >>This tragedy could have been much less if New >>Orleans had levees that were sufficient. > > I just heard on CNN it would have cost 2.5 billion to repair them the > way the Engineer Corps wanted to. Now the estimated cost is 200 > billion. Yes. Losing a good horse is frequently 100x more expensive that putting a good lock on the barn door...... >>This tragedy could have been much less if New >>Orleans had levees that were sufficient. > > I just heard on CNN it would have cost 2.5 billion to repair them the > way the Engineer Corps wanted to. Now the estimated cost is 200 > billion. As I understand the news being reported about the Corps of Engineering report, the levees that were supposed to be repaired are not the levees that failed. CNN seems to have their version of news as opposed to news being reported over the Fox network. >>> This tragedy could have been much less if New Orleans had levees that >>> were sufficient. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that failed. CNN seems to have their version of news as opposed to news > being reported over the Fox network. Go with CNN. Fox isn't the most reliable. >>>> This tragedy could have been much less if New Orleans had levees that >>>> were sufficient. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Go with CNN. Fox isn't the most reliable. I don't know if we are voting on this or not, but if we are....My vote is with Fox News..... >>>>>This tragedy could have been much less if New Orleans had levees that >>>>>were sufficient. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I don't know if we are voting on this or not, but if we are....My vote is > with Fox News..... The Cops of Engineer report was fully discussed on Fox news. Charles Kruthammer (sp) the columnist discussed the subject with panelists. Sections of the report were shown on the air and there was no questioning the areas that the Corps of Engineering was concern about were not the areas that failed. It was said the areas of concern were built to withstand a level 3 hurricane and was theoretically determined the areas could withstand a level 4 but the concern was only a level 3 could be assured. The report said the areas should be reinforced to withstand a level 4 hurricane. But those areas withstood the level 5 hurricane. Why anyone interested in obtaining news would watch CNN for actual news remains a mystery. William Graham wrote in part: > "no_name" <no_name@no.where.invalid> wrote in part: >>Go with CNN. Fox isn't the most reliable. For breaking stories, FOX is very good. They often get reporters and cameras on the scene ahead of anybody else, and do a good job of getting bulletins out. It's just that after they catch their breath they compose themselves, remember whom they exist to serve, and start dutifully lying out their a.ses again. > I don't know if we are voting on this or not, but if we are....My vote is > with Fox News..... If by "Fair and Balanced(TM)," they mean "consistently fellating W," well by cracky I guess they are. SignatureIt Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries. http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net The Julio Franco of rsfc. > William Graham wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > If by "Fair and Balanced(TM)," they mean "consistently fellating W," well > by cracky I guess they are. No campaigning within 100 yards of the voting booth...... > William Graham wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > themselves, remember whom they exist to serve, and start dutifully lying > out their a.ses again. Respectfully, .... I strongly doubt the implication. >> I don't know if we are voting on this or not, but if we are....My vote >> is with Fox News..... > > If by "Fair and Balanced(TM)," they mean "consistently fellating W," > well by cracky I guess they are. >>>> This tragedy could have been much less if New Orleans had levees >>>> that were sufficient. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Go with CNN. Fox isn't the most reliable. Neither is CNN. >> Go with CNN. Fox isn't the most reliable. > > Neither is CNN. My experience is that when CNN & Fox disagree, CNN is usually correct. And when they prove fallible, they correct the mistake, something I've never seen Fox do. >>> Go with CNN. Fox isn't the most reliable. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > And when they prove fallible, they correct the mistake, something I've > never seen Fox do. I used to watch CNN almost religiously. Slowly I awakened to the fact CNN was writing the news as CNN wanted the viewer to understand and grasp the news. I found many instances where CNN reported news that wasn't accurate or possibly true. For example, during the Watts riots CNN claimed the Rioters were contained by the National Guard when in fact the National Guard arrived 4 days (without ammo) after the riots had started. The containment of rioters was accomplished by armed home owners and shop keepers who stopped the riots from spreading out to neighboring communities. CNN never disclosed that information, but other news agencies reported the information. There is much that CNN does not disclose. As for Fox news, the first thing that has to happen is for Fox to make a mistake. :) "nick c" <n-chen@comcast.net> wrote in message news:rfadnamsQsbZE7LenZ2dnUVZ_s-> As for Fox news, the first thing that has to happen is for Fox to make a > mistake. :) Of course, that has never happened. If it ever does, all the hounds of Hell will descend upon their fannys, and they will be drummed out of existence. There are 50 million liberals watching them every minute of the broadcasting day, hoping to catch them in a mistake....:^) > "nick c" <n-chen@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:rfadnamsQsbZE7LenZ2dnUVZ_s-> As for Fox news, the first thing that has [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > There are 50 million liberals watching them every minute of the broadcasting > day, hoping to catch them in a mistake....:^) LOL ....... |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.