A Tale of two Dam Failures

[SLD]

http://www.whchronicle.com/?p=2399

OK, so I read the above article and it is about two dams, the famous one in Mosul recently captured by ISIS and apparently recaptured by loyal soldiers the last day or so, and the other in Mozambique. According to this article both are set to fail, the first by sabotage from ISIS, and the second due to poor maintenance over the years.

But the next part stuns me. According to this article, the failure of the Mosul Dam would cause 500,000 casualties in Iraq, and the failure of the Mozambique Dam, would cause 2.5 million deaths. Those seem grossly high for a dam failure. Granted either one is not a pretty scenario, but how in the world do you come up with this kind of casualty figure. I'm skeptical that would really happen. I know that there,s been some pretty bad dam failures in the past. In Johnstown in the US there was one that killed about 2000 people. But 500,000 or even 2.5 Million? I'm skeptical.

Thoughts?

 

[credoconsolans]

http://www.whchronicle.com/?p=2399

OK, so I read the above article and it is about two dams, the famous one in Mosul recently captured by ISIS and apparently recaptured by loyal soldiers the last day or so, and the other in Mozambique. According to this article both are set to fail, the first by sabotage from ISIS, and the second due to poor maintenance over the years.

But the next part stuns me. According to this article, the failure of the Mosul Dam would cause 500,000 casualties in Iraq, and the failure of the Mozambique Dam, would cause 2.5 million deaths. Those seem grossly high for a dam failure. Granted either one is not a pretty scenario, but how in the world do you come up with this kind of casualty figure. I'm skeptical that would really happen. I know that there,s been some pretty bad dam failures in the past. In Johnstown in the US there was one that killed about 2000 people. But 500,000 or even 2.5 Million? I'm skeptical.

Thoughts?

Maybe they're factoring in loss of life from failure of farming due to loss of irrigation and deaths from lack of water?

 

[SLD]

It seems to me that humanitarian aid would poor into at least the Mozambique area and prevent a good deal of secondary deaths. I did find another dam failure in China in 1975 that killed over 100,000. So i guess they can get pretty bad. But five to 25 times worse? I just wondered if hey said, well there's all these people downstream, and so they'll all die, as if no one would be able to get warnings or be able to get out at all.

SLD

 

[Shadowy Man]

It's probably a simple calculation based on number of people living downstream. The article says "up to", so they admit the death toll could be less.

 

[steve_bnk]

They are saying it would flood Bagdad. That in itself would cripple Iraq. Look at Katrina and the current pictures of floods in Arizona.

Deaths would not be just from the flood, starvation and disease.

 

[SLD]

They are saying it would flood Bagdad. That in itself would cripple Iraq. Look at Katrina and the current pictures of floods in Arizona.

Deaths would not be just from the flood, starvation and disease.

I read some more on the Chinese dam failures and sure enough the deaths weemostly attributed to cholera and famine afterwards, and only about 15% from the actual failures. Plus that was actually a total of 65 dam failures, although they were interrelated. The Chinese were reluctant to admit any problems and thus there was no massive international relief effort. So a very different situation.

Granted though an international relief effort to Mosul would be extremely difficult. But we could still do a lot ofro that area as we are already doing on a limited scale.

SLD

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Where are you seeing anything about sabotage?

ISIS scared off the people who maintain it and the dam is a disaster waiting to happen but that's not sabotage.

 

[steve_bnk]

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

'...The earthen embankment dam is located on top of gypsum, a soft mineral which dissolves in contact with water. Continuous maintenance is required to plug, or "grout" new leaks with a liquefied slurry of cement and other additives.^[8] More than 50,000 tonnes (49,000 long tons; 55,000 short tons) of material have been injected into the dam since leaks began forming shortly after the reservoir was filled in 1986, and 24 machines currently continuously pump grout into the dam base. A September 2006 report by the United States Army Corps of Engineers noted, "In terms of internal erosion potential of the foundation, Mosul Dam is the most dangerous dam in the world." The report further outlined a worst-case scenario, in which a sudden collapse of the dam would flood Mosul under 65 feet (20 m) of water and Baghdad, a city of 7 million, to 15 feet (5 m), with an estimated death toll of 500,000.^[9] A report on 30 October 2007 by the US Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) said that the dam's foundations could give way at any moment.^[10]
In 2004, dam manager Abdulkhalik Thanoon Ayoub ordered the dam's water level, which can reach 330 feet (101 m) above sea level, to have a maximum of 319 feet (97 m), thus reducing the pressure on the structure. Nevertheless, Iraqi officials maintain that the U.S. government is overstating the risk. The Army Corps of Engineers has proposed that the Badush Dam under construction downstream be expanded to obstruct the large wave which would result if the Mosul Dam collapsed. This has been resisted by Iraqi officials, who note that the current plan for the Badush Dam is US$300 million to provide hydroelectric power and help irrigation while the proposed expansion would cost $10 billion.^[9]
In 2007, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers developed and executed a US$27 million plan to help continue maintenance and repairs on the dam in the short-term. The Iraq Government is implementing a long-term solution with includes the construction of 67 m (220 ft) deep walls around the dam foundation. The ongoing project is expected to cost $4 billion and last four to five years...'

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

Mosul 1.8million.

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

Baghdad 7 million.

If the dam was intentionally destroyed I don't see how any amount of aid would make much of a difference.

Sounds like the dam needs to be replaced.

 

[Malintent]

http://www.whchronicle.com/?p=2399

OK, so I read the above article and it is about two dams, the famous one in Mosul recently captured by ISIS and apparently recaptured by loyal soldiers the last day or so, and the other in Mozambique. According to this article both are set to fail, the first by sabotage from ISIS, and the second due to poor maintenance over the years.

But the next part stuns me. According to this article, the failure of the Mosul Dam would cause 500,000 casualties in Iraq, and the failure of the Mozambique Dam, would cause 2.5 million deaths. Those seem grossly high for a dam failure. Granted either one is not a pretty scenario, but how in the world do you come up with this kind of casualty figure. I'm skeptical that would really happen. I know that there,s been some pretty bad dam failures in the past. In Johnstown in the US there was one that killed about 2000 people. But 500,000 or even 2.5 Million? I'm skeptical.

Thoughts?

Maybe they're factoring in loss of life from failure of farming due to loss of irrigation and deaths from lack of water?

Bingo. Loosly related deaths are counted to get that number as high as possible to get as many people as possible to give a shit. I don't think they take certain things into consideration... like haivng legs to move out of the way of a flood, or seeking another water supply, etc..

If 500,000 people chain themselves down on the floor in their homes and do not take any action of any kind... then alot of them could drown in 6 inches of water... so, apparently this is what is thought of the level of intelligence of those folks.. somewhere between "chicken" and "turkey".

 

[Underseer]

http://www.whchronicle.com/?p=2399

OK, so I read the above article and it is about two dams, the famous one in Mosul recently captured by ISIS and apparently recaptured by loyal soldiers the last day or so, and the other in Mozambique. According to this article both are set to fail, the first by sabotage from ISIS, and the second due to poor maintenance over the years.

But the next part stuns me. According to this article, the failure of the Mosul Dam would cause 500,000 casualties in Iraq, and the failure of the Mozambique Dam, would cause 2.5 million deaths. Those seem grossly high for a dam failure. Granted either one is not a pretty scenario, but how in the world do you come up with this kind of casualty figure. I'm skeptical that would really happen. I know that there,s been some pretty bad dam failures in the past. In Johnstown in the US there was one that killed about 2000 people. But 500,000 or even 2.5 Million? I'm skeptical.

Thoughts?

This is an obvious lie in order to get the masses to accept continued subjugation by the Communist Dictatorship that rules our nation. If it were possible for dam failure to cause such catastrophic loss of life, we would not allow governments to run dams. Ergo, this claim is the product of a communist conspiracy to destroy our freedoms. [/conservolibertarian]

 

[fromderinside]

This is an obvious lie in order to get the masses to accept continued subjugation by the Communist Dictatorship that rules our nation. If it were possible for dam failure to cause such catastrophic loss of life, we would not allow governments to run dams. Ergo, this claim is the product of a communist conspiracy to destroy our freedoms. [/conservolibertarian]

Or

This is an obvious lie in order to get the masses to accept continued subjugation by our capitalist overlords. If it were possible for dam failure to cause such catastrophic loss of life we could not allow corporations to run dams. Ergo this claim is the product of a conspiracy to keep us under the thumb of our capitalist overlords.[/liberoproletarian]

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The worry about the Mosul dam isn't intentional destruction, but the lack of maintenance to deal with underseepage due to the rock beneath the dam. I believe they need to continually grout beneath the dam. Sounds like a pretty stupid place to have put a dam.

From reading some articles, there can be a misinterpretation that the dam itself is being grouted, which I don't believe it is. The Dam isn't the problem, the foundation is. Water is dissolving the rock, which creates cavities which can cause sinkholes... a dreadfully back thing for a dam to have beneath it. As the fissures get larger, larger cavities can form, and really foul up the entire formation. They've been grouting the bedrock for years, which gives you an idea as to the magnitude of the voids in the rock.

What seems screwier is that this is a known problem and has always been a known problem. Plenty of reports dating to 2007 in the US media about the dam. It sounds like they need something massive to be done that would probably include emptying the dam to line it, to keep water from seeping into the bedrock.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The worry about the Mosul dam isn't intentional destruction, but the lack of maintenance to deal with underseepage due to the rock beneath the dam. I believe they need to continually grout beneath the dam. Sounds like a pretty stupid place to have put a dam.

From reading some articles, there can be a misinterpretation that the dam itself is being grouted, which I don't believe it is. The Dam isn't the problem, the foundation is. Water is dissolving the rock, which creates cavities which can cause sinkholes... a dreadfully back thing for a dam to have beneath it. As the fissures get larger, larger cavities can form, and really foul up the entire formation. They've been grouting the bedrock for years, which gives you an idea as to the magnitude of the voids in the rock.

What seems screwier is that this is a known problem and has always been a known problem. Plenty of reports dating to 2007 in the US media about the dam. It sounds like they need something massive to be done that would probably include emptying the dam to line it, to keep water from seeping into the bedrock.

I doubt there's anything really to do, it's just too big. They built it in a totally unsuitable place.

 

[J842P]

http://www.whchronicle.com/?p=2399

OK, so I read the above article and it is about two dams, the famous one in Mosul recently captured by ISIS and apparently recaptured by loyal soldiers the last day or so, and the other in Mozambique. According to this article both are set to fail, the first by sabotage from ISIS, and the second due to poor maintenance over the years.

But the next part stuns me. According to this article, the failure of the Mosul Dam would cause 500,000 casualties in Iraq, and the failure of the Mozambique Dam, would cause 2.5 million deaths. Those seem grossly high for a dam failure. Granted either one is not a pretty scenario, but how in the world do you come up with this kind of casualty figure. I'm skeptical that would really happen. I know that there,s been some pretty bad dam failures in the past. In Johnstown in the US there was one that killed about 2000 people. But 500,000 or even 2.5 Million? I'm skeptical.

Thoughts?

The estimates for the 1975 Banqiao Dam failure are around 200,000 so that doesn't sound too high.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam#Casualties

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The worry about the Mosul dam isn't intentional destruction, but the lack of maintenance to deal with underseepage due to the rock beneath the dam. I believe they need to continually grout beneath the dam. Sounds like a pretty stupid place to have put a dam.

From reading some articles, there can be a misinterpretation that the dam itself is being grouted, which I don't believe it is. The Dam isn't the problem, the foundation is. Water is dissolving the rock, which creates cavities which can cause sinkholes... a dreadfully back thing for a dam to have beneath it. As the fissures get larger, larger cavities can form, and really foul up the entire formation. They've been grouting the bedrock for years, which gives you an idea as to the magnitude of the voids in the rock.

What seems screwier is that this is a known problem and has always been a known problem. Plenty of reports dating to 2007 in the US media about the dam. It sounds like they need something massive to be done that would probably include emptying the dam to line it, to keep water from seeping into the bedrock.

I doubt there's anything really to do, it's just too big. They built it in a totally unsuitable place.

They could line the base of the retained water area to prevent infiltration into the bedrock. This would of course be a major pain in the butt, cost a lot of money, and require the dam being out of service for a notable period of time. I blame Obama.

http://www.whchronicle.com/?p=2399

OK, so I read the above article and it is about two dams, the famous one in Mosul recently captured by ISIS and apparently recaptured by loyal soldiers the last day or so, and the other in Mozambique. According to this article both are set to fail, the first by sabotage from ISIS, and the second due to poor maintenance over the years.

But the next part stuns me. According to this article, the failure of the Mosul Dam would cause 500,000 casualties in Iraq, and the failure of the Mozambique Dam, would cause 2.5 million deaths. Those seem grossly high for a dam failure. Granted either one is not a pretty scenario, but how in the world do you come up with this kind of casualty figure. I'm skeptical that would really happen. I know that there,s been some pretty bad dam failures in the past. In Johnstown in the US there was one that killed about 2000 people. But 500,000 or even 2.5 Million? I'm skeptical.

Thoughts?

The estimates for the 1975 Banqiao Dam failure are around 200,000 so that doesn't sound too high.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam#Casualties

Geesh! Over 3 feet of rain in a day, 0.0005% storm indeed, though I doubt it would have survived a 0.001%'er.

 

[Underseer]

This is an obvious lie in order to get the masses to accept continued subjugation by the Communist Dictatorship that rules our nation. If it were possible for dam failure to cause such catastrophic loss of life, we would not allow governments to run dams. Ergo, this claim is the product of a communist conspiracy to destroy our freedoms. [/conservolibertarian]

Or

This is an obvious lie in order to get the masses to accept continued subjugation by our capitalist overlords. If it were possible for dam failure to cause such catastrophic loss of life we could not allow corporations to run dams. Ergo this claim is the product of a conspiracy to keep us under the thumb of our capitalist overlords.[/liberoproletarian]

I know the goal of the "both sides are exactly as bad" argument is to appear more reasonable, but it rarely produces that effect.