Tornado Shelters?

[piano_learner]

I watched a documentary about Tornado's in the USA. One thing they said most people do, which is bad, is seek shelter under an overpass. Ironically, this is more dangerous than being out in the open.

So, if they know people seek shelter under overpasses, why can't they modify them in a way to make them Tornado safe?  Is it too expensive, difficult...other?

[Spatula]

that's a good question.

perhaps the weapons of mass distruction are tornadoes...so stop the war! build the bomb multiuse shelters (now thats ironic)

[BoliverAllmon]

there may not be a way to make them tornado proof. Where did you hear they were unsafe any way?

[piano_learner]

Where did you hear they were unsafe any way?

The Discovery Channel told me and it can't possibly be wrong.

[janice]

I live in tornado-land (aka  Iowa).  I have never been directly affected by one (house been destroyed), and I have always decided to stay home whenever there has been a tornado warning on the news.  I know to go to the basement if I were to see one.  I'm glad that technology is advanced enough to tell me the exact minute that a tornado would hit my neighborhood, so I would know how much time I had to go to the basement.  However, I DO know that if I am not home, that I should lie in a ditch.  A tornado would go over me.  I think it's better to be in a ditch than a basement (my opinion, I could be wrong) because if your house got destroyed (and my piano )I might be trapped in the basement. 

[benji]

The goal during a tornado is to get below ground. Some overpasses might not be safe because they are above the ground around them, which is why they may be dangerous. And my guess is it would be really expensive to make them tornado-resisant.

Another Iowan! 

[xvimbi]

From the NOAA:

It is our contention that highway overpasses are inadequate tornado sheltering locations for the following meteorological reasons. First, ALL tornadoes have some amount of debris within their near-surface flow. In the case of a strong or violent tornado, much more debris would be present, traveling at much higher speeds, especially when debris from man-made structures is involved. In strong and violent tornadoes, typically harmless everyday items such as shingles, boards, pop cans, dishes (or pieces thereof) become dangerous missiles and are responsible for most tornado casualties. Second, by climbing up under an overpass, people will be exposed to higher wind speeds and more flying debris. Third, the narrow passage underneath an overpass might cause an increase in the wind speed under the bridge. The extent to which this is true, and the circumstances under which it could happen are not known, but this is at least a possibility. Fourth, most overpasses don't have girders or support beams for handholds or small ledges into which to crawl. And, finally, if an overpass is directly in the path of a tornado, the wind will change direction nearly 180 degrees as the vortex passes. Thus, if one side of the overpass was protected from the highest wind speeds as the tornado approached, that same side of the bridge will be completely exposed to the wind and flying debris as the tornado moves away and vice-versa.


Seeking shelter under a highway overpass is to become a stationary target for flying debris, with a substantial risk of being blown out and carried by the tornado winds. Safety in such a location is merely an illusion. Further explanation of all of these points, with examples will be given in the slides to follow.

[piano_learner]

From the NOAA:

Fourth, most overpasses don't have girders or support beams for handholds or small ledges into which to crawl.

Ok, getting closer to the issue. Why can't they install handholds or build small ledges in which you can crawl for protection. Has this *ever* been considered or do they just tell people "Overpasses are dangerous and we won't do anything about it. Seek shelter somewhere else"

[xvimbi]

Ok, getting closer to the issue. Why can't they install handholds or build small ledges in which you can crawl for protection. Has this *ever* been considered or do they just tell people "Overpasses are dangerous and we won't do anything about it. Seek shelter somewhere else"

In the land where individual rights are above everything else and the government is limited, the citizens have to take care of these things themselves. However, no citizen will do what you suggest, because that would potentially benefit somebody else. Instead, people build little tornado shelters in their own yard. It's the same principle that applies to potholes: people don't fix them by paying taxes to take care of them once and for all, they rather buy a bigger SUV.

[BoliverAllmon]

unfortunately they are correct. People are always looking at ways to make themselves better and everyone else can continue to suffer. I know there are exceptions but that tends to be a big issue. Take taxes for example. If the government gives tax breaks the private businessmen and the rich, the common man gets teeved off. They don't see the whole picture. If businesses are getting tax breaks, they can then lower there price (cuz they have more money) which in turns makes the big guys lower there prices to stay competitive. So therefore the money that I have is now going to go farther than previously. The common man doesn't care though. They want the money in there pocket.

here is another example:

Some people get very annoyed that we give money to Israel and Egypt. We give them  x amount of money ( I don't remember the exacts) basically for passage on the suez canal. If we didn't use that canal to import our oil, we would have to spend billions more to travel south of Africa to get it here. Therefore gas prices go through the roof. another benefactor of all this is that egypt and israel have come to rely on our money. They realize if they invade each other we would pull our money out and there economy would suffer greatly. Therefore it is a way of keeping peace also. Again, common man doesn't see this. they see that we are "giving away our precious money".

boliver

[xvimbi]

unfortunately they are correct. People are always looking at ways to make themselves better and everyone else can continue to suffer. I know there are exceptions but that tends to be a big issue. Take taxes for example. If the government gives tax breaks the private businessmen and the rich, the common man gets teeved off. They don't see the whole picture. If businesses are getting tax breaks, they can then lower there price (cuz they have more money) which in turns makes the big guys lower there prices to stay competitive. So therefore the money that I have is now going to go farther than previously. The common man doesn't care though. They want the money in there pocket.

You realize, though, that there is a big flaw with this kind of reasoning? If the government was responsible enough to use taxes in a constructive way to provide for the basic needs of everyone (energy, water, defense, culture, sport, education, roads, public transportation, tornado shelters, etc.), people wouldn't have to spend their money on those things. Instead, they just pay more taxes (you gotta pay one way or the other). Doing things on a large scale is very efficient and cost-effective. It does, however, require a competent governatorial structure that can be trusted and citizens who believe it is more productive to work together than everybody struggling on his/her own. That's one of the big differences between Europe and the US.

[BoliverAllmon]

I don't see the flaw really. I know what you are saying. I think the government as a whole does an ok job. I don't want to be taxed more, just so people can have something that maybe i am not interested in (like big football stadiums). but simple things like boost economy, prevent monopolies, and other things. The problem with the government providing all of your basic needs is that it keeps everyone on a level playing field and makes it harder to be successful and stand out. In America though the government doesn't pay everything therefore not everyone is on a level playing field, but it makes it easier to become successful. I personally feel that it is one's own responsibility to take care of yourself and those whom you are responsible and to do the best you can for those that are around you. i do not however believe in letting someone who doesn't work there tail off at what they do get the same treatment as someone who does. It is like this. Say i work for the next 5 years really hard and make it into the chopin competition. Now, I would be ecstatic and felt that my hard work payed off. Now on the other hand someone else who has never played really at all decides that he wants to just join the comp. Because we are all on a level playing field he is allowed to compete. Now that isn't fair. The same goes in society. i think you should be rewarded and paid according to your worth and how hard you work, not just because of a title.

I hope this makes somewhat sense. I had to type this while listening to a guitar ensemble butcher Pachabel's Canon.

boliver

[xvimbi]

I don't see the flaw really. I know what you are saying. I think the government as a whole does an ok job. I don't want to be taxed more, just so people can have something that maybe i am not interested in (like big football stadiums). but simple things like boost economy, prevent monopolies, and other things. The problem with the government providing all of your basic needs is that it keeps everyone on a level playing field and makes it harder to be successful and stand out. In America though the government doesn't pay everything therefore not everyone is on a level playing field, but it makes it easier to become successful. I personally feel that it is one's own responsibility to take care of yourself and those whom you are responsible and to do the best you can for those that are around you. i do not however believe in letting someone who doesn't work there tail off at what they do get the same treatment as someone who does. It is like this. Say i work for the next 5 years really hard and make it into the chopin competition. Now, I would be ecstatic and felt that my hard work payed off. Now on the other hand someone else who has never played really at all decides that he wants to just join the comp. Because we are all on a level playing field he is allowed to compete. Now that isn't fair. The same goes in society. i think you should be rewarded and paid according to your worth and how hard you work, not just because of a title.

I am not talking about a welfare state. There is nothing wrong with rewarding those who work hard. It is about giving everybody the same chance to show that they can be constructive and succesful. It is not the role of a good government to KEEP everyone on a level playing field, but to PROVIDE a certain level from which everybody can take off. If it was really about "everybody is responsible for their own success", then everybody should start from the same level. However, if, for example, a family is wealthy, it is much easier for their kids to become successful. They can pay their way into Yale, although they may not have any right (intellectually) to be there, or they have access to better medical treatments, just because their dad makes more money (i.e. he is successful, not his kids, but they profit from it). The point of having the government provide a certain "playig field", as you say, is to give everybody the same chance.

Concerning the football stadium: it all evens out. You may not need a football stadium, but you like a nice music hall, whereas your neighbor may not care at all about Lang Lang. You may benefir from nice roads, your neighbor likes to take the subway. Everybody benefits somehow.

[Hmoll]

From the NOAA:

Fourth, most overpasses don't have girders or support beams for handholds or small ledges into which to crawl.

Ok, getting closer to the issue. Why can't they install handholds or build small ledges in which you can crawl for protection. Has this *ever* been considered or do they just tell people "Overpasses are dangerous and we won't do anything about it. Seek shelter somewhere else"

In 2003 there were 54 tornado fatalities in the US. In most of those cases the people killed were in their homes or at work. Three people were killed by tornadoes in 2003 while they were outside, and it's doubtful that they were in a highway underpass. The statistics for 2002 were similar.

Put into perspective, each year in the US there are about 40,000 automobile accident fatalities, about 38,000 people die from the flu, over 900,000 from cardiovascular disease, more than 11,000 from alcohol related liver disease, 30,000 from everyday infections, etc.

There are about 9-10 states in the U.S. where tornadoes occur regularly during the summer months. The combined area of those states is more than 500,000 square miles about 1/5 the size of England. There lots and lots of bridge underpasses in those areas. Some are maintained by the federal government, some by the states, some by counties and other local governments. People who live in those states are educated about tornadoes and how to survive them.

That's why we are not rushing out to retrofit our bridges.