• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Woman on NC coast tells MSNBC she’s not evacuating her kids because there’s ‘strength in numbers’

phands

Veteran Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
1,976
Location
New York, Manhattan, Upper West Side
Basic Beliefs
Hardcore Atheist
Darwin award entry of the week. She can be as dumb as she likes, but to deliberately endanger her kids is reprehensible.....

MSNBC spoke to a North Carolina resident on Wednesday who said that she was not obeying a mandatory hurricane evacuation because there is “strength in numbers.”


Just hours before Hurricane Florence is set to strike the Carolinas, MSNBC’s Kerry Sanders spoke to a woman named Katie who lives in Carolina Beach, North Carolina with her three children.




Katie explained that she was refusing to evacuate and instead was planning to “just try to stay safe during the hurricane.”


“I think we are going to do everything normally,” she said.


“Why the decision to stay and not fall back further inland?” Sanders asked.


“From my experience, getting back into town after the storms is very difficult,” the Carolina Beach resident insisted. “Knowing that our family and friends and our home are all here, we didn’t want to leave them unprotected for a prolonged amount of time. We are going to try to stay put.”


“We have several neighbors saying put,” she added. “We feel there is strength in numbers. We checked in with one another. We are going band together and make it through.”


https://www.rawstory.com/2018/09/wo...-not-evacuating-kids-theres-strength-numbers/
 
Well, I hope they all end up OK. This looks to be a nasty one and ignoring the evacuation orders isn't the best choice.
 
There should be more resources to help people get out. I saw an interview with a family that said they didn't have the money to leave, and had no place to stay, if they did leave. They were avoiding shelters because the wife had an auto immune disease and she was afraid of catching something if she was in a very crowded facility. Sometimes we don't appreciate what difficulties some people have to deal with on a daily basis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WAB
I think that there would be a lot fewer people deciding to "ride it out" if the state would allow people back into the area after the storm has passed on. Typically, people are not allowed back for at least a week and often two or more weeks. Many of those who don't evacuate don't want to spend a couple weeks in some high school gymnasium with a few hundred others sleeping on cots or spending over a hundred dollars a night for a hotel room for those weeks.
 
There should be more resources to help people get out. I saw an interview with a family that said they didn't have the money to leave, and had no place to stay, if they did leave. They were avoiding shelters because the wife had an auto immune disease and she was afraid of catching something if she was in a very crowded facility. Sometimes we don't appreciate what difficulties some people have to deal with on a daily basis.

This. Frankly, I'd probably stay behind to try to help someone who couldn't get out, if I couldn't help them get out myself.
 
Families with pets or special needs have an extremely difficult time trying to evacuate, too.
 
Storm is currently passing 5 miles north of Carolina Beach. Strength in numbers?

I'm certain if things get too bad, they won't panic and try to get help. They'll say "We screwed ourselves" instead of put emergency rescue people at risk.
 
Storm is currently passing 5 miles north of Carolina Beach. Strength in numbers?

I'm certain if things get too bad, they won't panic and try to get help. They'll say "We screwed ourselves" instead of put emergency rescue people at risk.
You're speaking as if it was a voluntary evacuation where it might make sense for a duty to help to remain in effect. If it's a mandatory evacuation, it must be serious, so serious that it would be wrong to demand of and require that state sanctioned emergency rescue people enter into harms way.

You make it sound like it's the idiots that are the cause of there being a risk. It's that, I object to. The law may create a duty, but within that very same law are exceptions.

I think people should have a right to stay, but with the exercise of that right, I object to there being a persisting duty for first responders.
 
If it's a mandatory evacuation, it must be serious, so serious that it would be wrong to demand of and require that state sanctioned emergency rescue people enter into harms way.
The guy in the cube next to me? His son is on the rescue team that's been detailed to stay on station through the hurricane. It's kind of funny to watch. Bob is inordinately proud of his son, and nail-biting worried about what's going to happen to him.

As far as I know, he (son) hasn't been briefed that they only have to rescue people who made the right choices.
 
If it's a mandatory evacuation, it must be serious, so serious that it would be wrong to demand of and require that state sanctioned emergency rescue people enter into harms way.
The guy in the cube next to me? His son is on the rescue team that's been detailed to stay on station through the hurricane. It's kind of funny to watch. Bob is inordinately proud of his son, and nail-biting worried about what's going to happen to him.

As far as I know, he (son) hasn't been briefed that they only have to rescue people who made the right choices.

"Detailed to stay." Whoever gave that order, blame them, not the people who didn't make the right choice.
 
If it's a mandatory evacuation, it must be serious, so serious that it would be wrong to demand of and require that state sanctioned emergency rescue people enter into harms way.
The guy in the cube next to me? His son is on the rescue team that's been detailed to stay on station through the hurricane. It's kind of funny to watch. Bob is inordinately proud of his son, and nail-biting worried about what's going to happen to him.

As far as I know, he (son) hasn't been briefed that they only have to rescue people who made the right choices.
The rescue teams are stationed in safe areas during the storm. Their job is to go in to rescue those who didn't "make the right choice" after the storm blows through but only when it is safe for the rescue team to go in.

I really do wish that the media wouldn't go with this wall-to-wall coverage and the over the top hype of how "devastating" everything is going to be especially since much of their spiel is just to scare and isn't actually true. Example: I just saw one reporter carrying on about how the storm surge will destroy buildings along the area they are then showing... the reporter happened to be on the south side of the storm so the wind was blowing from the west meaning that the coming high tide would be much lower (not higher) than normal. The storm surge is caused by wind blowing the sea toward land. It is those on the north side of the eye that will see the storm surge.
 
I still remember from a few years back when there was a hurricane that was supposed to cause a lot of damage to New York but then kind of missed it.

CNN was still in the "OMG!!!! DEVASTATING STORM!!! YOU'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!" mode, and Anderson Cooper was out in the street with his serious face on telling people that the place was still dangerous and everybody needed to stay hiding indoors ... and then a couple of people came jogging down the street behind him.
 
If it's a mandatory evacuation, it must be serious, so serious that it would be wrong to demand of and require that state sanctioned emergency rescue people enter into harms way.
The guy in the cube next to me? His son is on the rescue team that's been detailed to stay on station through the hurricane. It's kind of funny to watch. Bob is inordinately proud of his son, and nail-biting worried about what's going to happen to him.

As far as I know, he (son) hasn't been briefed that they only have to rescue people who made the right choices.
The rescue teams are stationed in safe areas during the storm. Their job is to go in to rescue those who didn't "make the right choice" after the storm blows through but only when it is safe for the rescue team to go in.

I really do wish that the media wouldn't go with this wall-to-wall coverage and the over the top hype of how "devastating" everything is going to be especially since much of their spiel is just to scare and isn't actually true. Example: I just saw one reporter carrying on about how the storm surge will destroy buildings along the area they are then showing... the reporter happened to be on the south side of the storm so the wind was blowing from the west meaning that the coming high tide would be much lower (not higher) than normal. The storm surge is caused by wind blowing the sea toward land. It is those on the north side of the eye that will see the storm surge.

That's only partly true. The main driver of storm surge is low atmospheric pressure. You will still get higher than usual ocean levels on the southern side of the storm.
 
The rescue teams are stationed in safe areas during the storm. Their job is to go in to rescue those who didn't "make the right choice" after the storm blows through but only when it is safe for the rescue team to go in.

I really do wish that the media wouldn't go with this wall-to-wall coverage and the over the top hype of how "devastating" everything is going to be especially since much of their spiel is just to scare and isn't actually true. Example: I just saw one reporter carrying on about how the storm surge will destroy buildings along the area they are then showing... the reporter happened to be on the south side of the storm so the wind was blowing from the west meaning that the coming high tide would be much lower (not higher) than normal. The storm surge is caused by wind blowing the sea toward land. It is those on the north side of the eye that will see the storm surge.

That's only partly true. The main driver of storm surge is low atmospheric pressure. You will still get higher than usual ocean levels on the southern side of the storm.

The lower barometric pressure of the storm does contribute to the storm surge but is the minor player. The last I heard of the pressure in the eye was that it was at 960mb. This means a 1.12 foot surge due to lower pressure. Since they were predicting a nine foot storm surge, that means that about eight feet of that surge was due to the wind and about one foot due to lower pressure.

This means that the wind blowing from inshore would decrease the water level to a much, much lower level than the rise due to lower pressure.

ETA:
I just thought.... in the open ocean, you would be right. The wind speed wouldn't matter, only barometric pressure. However, at a shoreline there is no water flow from shore to replace the water blown by the wind. In the open ocean the wind would create a circular flow of water around the eye. At the shore that circular pattern would be disrupted so the water would pile up on the side approaching shore and drop on the side moving away from shore.
 
Last edited:
since much of their spiel is just to scare and isn't actually true. Example: I just saw one reporter carrying on about how the storm surge will destroy buildings along the area they are then showing... the reporter happened to be on the south side of the storm so the wind was blowing from the west meaning that the coming high tide would be much lower (not higher) than normal. The storm surge is caused by wind blowing the sea toward land. It is those on the north side of the eye that will see the storm surge.

But remember that this storm moved south when it hit land. So what WAS south of the storm is expected to become north of the storm in about the same time frame as high tide arriving.

So there is some truth to that warning.
 
The rescue teams are stationed in safe areas during the storm. Their job is to go in to rescue those who didn't "make the right choice" after the storm blows through but only when it is safe for the rescue team to go in.

I really do wish that the media wouldn't go with this wall-to-wall coverage and the over the top hype of how "devastating" everything is going to be especially since much of their spiel is just to scare and isn't actually true. Example: I just saw one reporter carrying on about how the storm surge will destroy buildings along the area they are then showing... the reporter happened to be on the south side of the storm so the wind was blowing from the west meaning that the coming high tide would be much lower (not higher) than normal. The storm surge is caused by wind blowing the sea toward land. It is those on the north side of the eye that will see the storm surge.

That's only partly true. The main driver of storm surge is low atmospheric pressure. You will still get higher than usual ocean levels on the southern side of the storm.

The lower barometric pressure of the storm does contribute to the storm surge but is the minor player. The last I heard of the pressure in the eye was that it was at 960mb. This means a 1.12 foot surge due to lower pressure. Since they were predicting a nine foot storm surge, that means that about eight feet of that surge was due to the wind and about one foot due to lower pressure.

This means that the wind blowing from inshore would decrease the water level to a much, much lower level than the rise due to lower pressure.

ETA:
I just thought.... in the open ocean, you would be right. The wind speed wouldn't matter, only barometric pressure. However, at a shoreline there is no water flow from shore to replace the water blown by the wind. In the open ocean the wind would create a circular flow of water around the eye. At the shore that circular pattern would be disrupted so the water would pile up on the side approaching shore and drop on the side moving away from shore.

But waves - even large waves - are a surface phenomenon, and draw their water 'supply' from immediately in front of themselves. Proximity to shore only matters when the water is very shallow, and the waves 'break'.

The big waves generated by a hurricane are present on both sides - you will see big waves breaking on the shore both north and south of the storm.

Waves are not simply driven ahead of the wind. They are eliptical and relatively shallow; And they appear to move towards the shore in almost all circumstances - even against the wind - due to the disruption of their flow caused by shallow water. The motion of the waves is largely independent of the motion of the majority of the water column, which is tiny even in a massive hurricane.

That's a good thing, because even a small vertical displacement of the entire water column is far more devastating than the biggest storm driven waves - such whole column phenomena are called 'tsunamis', and while they have very little impact on shipping in deep water, their impact on making landfall is truly scary.

Go to the beach on any day with an offshore wind, and you will still see waves 'coming ashore'. Wind speed counts. Wind direction, not so much.

There is almost no wind related rotary water current in the ocean, even under a huge cyclone. Rotary ocean currents are on a much larger scale, and they affect the atmosphere FAR more thsn the atmosphere affects them.

Cyclonic storm surges, like tides, are amplified by shallow water. The storm surge due to the low pressure 'bulge' under a cyclone approaching the coast is no more reduced by offshore winds than the tidal bulge due to the moon is reduced by the moon moving away from the coast rather than towards it. Tides are no smaller on the west coast of a landmass than on the east.
 
The lower barometric pressure of the storm does contribute to the storm surge but is the minor player. The last I heard of the pressure in the eye was that it was at 960mb. This means a 1.12 foot surge due to lower pressure. Since they were predicting a nine foot storm surge, that means that about eight feet of that surge was due to the wind and about one foot due to lower pressure.

This means that the wind blowing from inshore would decrease the water level to a much, much lower level than the rise due to lower pressure.

ETA:
I just thought.... in the open ocean, you would be right. The wind speed wouldn't matter, only barometric pressure. However, at a shoreline there is no water flow from shore to replace the water blown by the wind. In the open ocean the wind would create a circular flow of water around the eye. At the shore that circular pattern would be disrupted so the water would pile up on the side approaching shore and drop on the side moving away from shore.

But waves - even large waves - are a surface phenomenon, and draw their water 'supply' from immediately in front of themselves. Proximity to shore only matters when the water is very shallow, and the waves 'break'.

The big waves generated by a hurricane are present on both sides - you will see big waves breaking on the shore both north and south of the storm.

Waves are not simply driven ahead of the wind. They are eliptical and relatively shallow; And they appear to move towards the shore in almost all circumstances - even against the wind - due to the disruption of their flow caused by shallow water. The motion of the waves is largely independent of the motion of the majority of the water column, which is tiny even in a massive hurricane.

That's a good thing, because even a small vertical displacement of the entire water column is far more devastating than the biggest storm driven waves - such whole column phenomena are called 'tsunamis', and while they have very little impact on shipping in deep water, their impact on making landfall is truly scary.

Go to the beach on any day with an offshore wind, and you will still see waves 'coming ashore'. Wind speed counts. Wind direction, not so much.

There is almost no wind related rotary water current in the ocean, even under a huge cyclone. Rotary ocean currents are on a much larger scale, and they affect the atmosphere FAR more thsn the atmosphere affects them.

Cyclonic storm surges, like tides, are amplified by shallow water. The storm surge due to the low pressure 'bulge' under a cyclone approaching the coast is no more reduced by offshore winds than the tidal bulge due to the moon is reduced by the moon moving away from the coast rather than towards it. Tides are no smaller on the west coast of a landmass than on the east.
What you say about wave dynamics is correct but has nothing to do with storm surge. Storm surge is driven by completely different physical principles than wave dynamics so is a red herring. Among several other factors, wind speed and direction is a primary driver of storm surge. Change the direction and the conclusion changes.

You may note that the hyperbolic news coverage has spent a lot of time showing damage from storm surge (such as a pier being destroyed) in areas north of where the eye came ashore. I have yet to see any coverage of areas just south of that point such as North Myrtle Beach. If North Myrtle Beach (a major tourist area) had experienced the damage they are showing then it would have been a major concentration of their coverage.
 
Last edited:
Every time there's a natural disaster, there are people who refuse to evacuate, then a reporter asks them why, they give a bad answer, then the reporter clucks and shakes his or her head disapprovingly.

I wonder how many of those people don't evacuate because for some reason or another, they simply can't afford it. What if their bad reasons for not evacuating are rationalizations made after the fact? It sure seems that a disproportionate number of "I refuse to evacuate" people are the elderly, and the elderly are certainly more likely to live in poverty.
 
Back
Top Bottom