PDA

View Full Version : New Orleans: 972 Dead, 8000 Dead - What's the difference?


Nbadan
10-04-2005, 03:36 PM
Cataldie, a former medical examiner, acknowledged that identifying and releasing bodies has been painfully slow. Of the nearly 8,000 bodies taken to the morgue, he said, just 32 have been identified positively and another 340 have been identified tentatively.

Because many bodies decomposed in heat and floodwaters after being left uncollected, Cataldie said, some victims never will be identified and their cause of death never known.

Forensic specialists supervised by the Federal Emergency Management Agency are taking X-rays and fingerprints of the corpses, but identifying bodies and notifying next-of-kin is being handled by state officials. Their greatest fear is misidentifying a corpse in the deluge of bodies

Concord Monitor (http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051002/REPOSITORY/510020403/1037/NEWS04)

Compare and Contrast:




The search for Katrina victims ended in Louisiana with a death toll substantially less than the 10,000 victims some officials feared.

The toll Tuesday stood at 972, eight more than Monday, the state health department said.

A private company has been hired by the state and will remove any other
bodies that are found.

CNN News (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/10/04/neworleans.bodies.ap)
SpursWoman
10-04-2005, 03:50 PM
7028
MannyIsGod
10-04-2005, 03:52 PM
how reliable is that 8k number? How often is it repeated?
Hook Dem
10-04-2005, 03:53 PM
Interesting!
Vashner
10-04-2005, 04:40 PM
Where was clinton when 750+ died in Chicago from Heat wave?

Not in Chicago....

Where was clinton during the 1st WTC bombing? He didn't visit the site...

I'll tell you where he was.. getting head from a girl the age of his daughter...
Yonivore
10-04-2005, 04:42 PM
7028
Nice math SW
Nbadan
10-04-2005, 04:50 PM
Actually wouldn't that be 8,972?

I don't know how realiable the 8,000 figure is, it's the first time I've seen it, but there reports of about 9,800 reported missing in NO, including about 2,500 children.
SpursWoman
10-04-2005, 04:51 PM
Actually wouldn't that be 8,972?



New Orleans: 972 Dead, 8000 Dead - What's the difference?
MannyIsGod
10-04-2005, 04:55 PM
Well, the most pertinent question here is how credible is the 8k figure?
SpursWoman
10-04-2005, 04:58 PM
I don't know how realiable the 8,000 figure is, it's the first time I've seen it, but there reports of about 9,800 reported missing in NO, including about 2,500 children.
Nbadan
10-04-2005, 05:02 PM
New Orleans: 972 Dead, 8000 Dead - What's the difference?

Ahhh, Touche'

:hat
MannyIsGod
10-04-2005, 05:11 PM
Didn't catch that before. I woudln't be suprised to see that number go much higher. I believe the dead count at the moment is based upon actual bodies, and we all know in a situation such as this there will be a large number of bodies that are never found.
Cant_Be_Faded
10-04-2005, 05:12 PM
Where was clinton when 750+ died in Chicago from Heat wave?

Not in Chicago....

Where was clinton during the 1st WTC bombing? He didn't visit the site...

I'll tell you where he was.. getting head from a girl the age of his daughter...


Youre such a douchebag if you think "visiting a site" makes a fucking difference



I can hit a random guy in the face with a bat, to make him look and act like a complete utter disgrace to what I stand for, fly him in Air Force 1 over the deluge of NO, and it still wouldnt cause any more or less life to be lost, any quicker or slower cleanup of the problem...
boutons
10-04-2005, 05:26 PM
"we all know"

the bodies in NO should all be found. What would have moved them away?

bodies in MS and in LA outside of NO killed by the violence of the storm could be anywhere.
MannyIsGod
10-04-2005, 05:35 PM
Yeah, water never carries anything away.
boutons
10-04-2005, 05:41 PM
the water in NO was pumped out.

Do you think your missing bodies got sucked into the pumps unnoticed?
MannyIsGod
10-04-2005, 05:44 PM
I think whenever you have that amount of flooding and that volume of water in a place, you are going to have a large amount of bodies that are never found.
SpursWoman
10-04-2005, 05:50 PM
Youre such a douchebag if you think "visiting a site" makes a fucking difference[/B]...


Then there were a lot of douchbags around here and in the media criticizing Bush for not *visiting the site* for 3 days or whatever. I think that was his point, although I could be wrong.

:fro
Cant_Be_Faded
10-04-2005, 05:57 PM
Then there were a lot of douchbags around here and in the media criticizing Bush for not *visiting the site* for 3 days or whatever. I think that was his point, although I could be wrong.

:fro


yeah and thats retarded

so is claiming that he eventually did visit the site is such a noble act
SpursWoman
10-04-2005, 06:01 PM
Not really ... I think it's his job to some degree, at least to show that he knows what's going on. Although since security for the POTUS drains a lot of local resources that they didn't have near enough of to begin with, it would have been foolish for him to go there until the area was more secure.
Cant_Be_Faded
10-04-2005, 06:06 PM
Not really ... I think it's his job to some degree, at least to show that he knows what's going on. Although since security for the POTUS drains a lot of local resources that they didn't have near enough of to begin with, it would have been foolish for him to go there until the area was more secure.


Maybe. I know actions speak louder than words, but to say that clinton was wrong for not visiting chicago is bunk, just like using Bush's little fly in air force 1 over NO as a reason he's a good leader is bunk.

A good "leader" will get what needs to be done done. The NO thing has been criticized as botched, and Bush visited like twice. I can see how it is comforting to some people to see the president visiting, but I care more about what he really does in trying to alleviate the situation, not how much face time he gets looking really sad in the middle of a disaster.
Hook Dem
10-04-2005, 06:30 PM
Maybe. I know actions speak louder than words, but to say that clinton was wrong for not visiting chicago is bunk, just like using Bush's little fly in air force 1 over NO as a reason he's a good leader is bunk.

A good "leader" will get what needs to be done done. The NO thing has been criticized as botched, and Bush visited like twice. I can see how it is comforting to some people to see the president visiting, but I care more about what he really does in trying to alleviate the situation, not how much face time he gets looking really sad in the middle of a disaster.
You are indeed a "good" Democrat! Many of your partners were in here a day or two after the storm shouting "where is Bush?" Do you not remember?
Cant_Be_Faded
10-04-2005, 06:32 PM
You are indeed a "good" Democrat! Many of your partners were in here a day or two after the storm shouting "where is Bush?" Do you not remember?


I might have said that too, but in a condescending way. I'm not a democrat, im a constitutionalist.
clooneyschick04
10-05-2005, 02:46 PM
Where was clinton when 750+ died in Chicago from Heat wave?

Not in Chicago....

Where was clinton during the 1st WTC bombing? He didn't visit the site...

I'll tell you where he was.. getting head from a girl the age of his daughter...


That's exactly the point I bring up in my history class. We have loads of new students from UNO and Tulane and none of them want to hear this. All they want to hear about is how the President failed them. And yes Bush could've definitely handled it better but having said that I believe the real failures of this tragedy are Blanco and Nagin.
JoeChalupa
10-05-2005, 02:57 PM
I put responsibility from the bottom up and yes, both Nagin and Blanco need to take the bulk of the blame for it was their city and state at risk.
That being said I do feel that President Bush should have visited the area sooner and down on the ground not by air.
And I like a President who is down with the people and I do feel Bush has that qualify which was why I was surprised by his late appearance in the devastated region. To me, that was very unlike Bush.
But I don't blame him for any of the fiasco that was post-Katrina and I've commended him taking charge and getting things done.




Oh, and I love my man Bill but come on. That BJ couldn't have lasted that long.

Bringing up the past is no excuse for the present.
SpursWoman
10-05-2005, 03:33 PM
That being said I do feel that President Bush should have visited the area sooner and down on the ground not by air.


You feel it was necessary to pull badly needed resources away from the rescue effort for a presidential visit?
JoeChalupa
10-05-2005, 03:50 PM
You feel it was necessary to pull badly needed resources away from the rescue effort for a presidential visit?

Good point. But from what I've learned it wasn't like badly needed resources were pouring in but anyways I'm just saying it wasn't like Bush to wait so long is my point. I guess I was just expecting the Bush that I have come to know to have responded in a more personal way.
Oh well. Kay sarah, kay sarah.
Aggie Hoopsfan
10-05-2005, 10:11 PM
I'm gonna put that one right up there with all the Al Jazeera bullshit saying 20,000 US troops are dead and Bush is just hiding it from us all.

Guess he silenced the families too...
Nbadan
10-06-2005, 01:46 AM
I'm gonna put that one right up there with all the Al Jazeera bullshit saying 20,000 US troops are dead and Bush is just hiding it from us all.

Guess he silenced the families too...

He's not hiding them silly, they are being cared for by the illuminati on UFOs.

Seriously, only those troops that die in Iraq are counted. Those that are injured in Iraq, but die on the way to Germany and/or back to the U.S. aren't counted.

I think the 8000 dead figure in the original article has been debunked as a misprint between the web edition of the story and the print version of the newspaper, so, the original number was 800 corpses. There, everyone can rest easy now.
cecil collins
10-06-2005, 03:42 AM
You feel it was necessary to pull badly needed resources away from the rescue effort for a presidential visit?

They did at some point anyway, so why not sooner? Either way, I think his visiting the site is overrated, and mostly a chance for him to pretend he gives a damn. Everyone fucked up to a degree, and it makes no sense for anyone on the outside looking in to act like they know who's fault it was. I just hope Bush doesn't try to prevent this investigation.
RandomGuy
10-06-2005, 02:35 PM
Not really ... I think it's his job to some degree, at least to show that he knows what's going on. Although since security for the POTUS drains a lot of local resources that they didn't have near enough of to begin with, it would have been foolish for him to go there until the area was more secure.


The area was plenty secure. Surprisingly enough the reports of widepsread mayhem were greatly exaggarated.
RandomGuy
10-06-2005, 02:44 PM
I found the discreptency.

Follow the link provided in the first post and read the source article.

Cataldie, a former medical examiner, acknowledged that identifying and releasing bodies has been painfully slow. Of the nearly 800 bodies taken to the morgue, he said, just 32 have been identified positively and another 340 have been identified tentatively.

Dan added an extra zero by mistake.

In his defense he may have been thinking about this number:

A Category 4 storm killed an estimated 8,000 people in Galveston, Texas, in 1900. Another storm killed 1,836 people in South Florida 28 years later.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/28/katrina.dead/

Either way, it is a tragedy.