On 2013-09-16 8:46 AM, Nancy Young wrote:

>> And I would have too! Not because Christie said so but because it was
>> a good bloody idea!! Mother Nasture may spank you ass othewise, and
>> Father Darwin yanking your stupid genes out of the gene pool may be
>> impending otherwise! DUH!!
>
> Yet every time, there are a bunch of people who have to walk out
> on the jetties. Then there have to be other people risking their
> lives to make sure someone doesn't die. So thoughtless.
>

If I ran the world things would be different. There would be stupid
insurance with hefty premiums for people who needlessly risk their
lives. The insurance would cover the cost of rescuing the stupid people
who do things like that. Emergency response outfits would bill the
victim or their estates for the cost of rescue or body recovery.

On 2013-09-16 10:37 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

> I trust the water coming out of my faucet because it has been treated.
> Flood water may carry raw sewage, dog shit, garbage, chemicals from
> flooded industrial complexes, cleaning fluids from a flooded
> supermarket, oil and gas from flooded cars and probably more.
>
> But don't let me stop you. If you want to jump in your little boat and
> take a ride, go right ahead. And don't expect the rescue crews to risk
> their lives if you have a problem.



Seems to me that they had to go and rescue people /recover bodies in New
Orleans in the wake of Katrina because they had refused to evacuate. I
would think it would be more cost effective to tend to those at the
evacuation centre and leave those who refused to evacuate to fend for
themselves. I make no apologies for a total lack of sympathy for those
who refuse to evacuate and then expect others to risk life and limb to
save them.

On 2013-09-16 12:03 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

>>
>
> Jaywalking will get you fined.
>
> None of that stuff should be banned, but you should also have to pay for
> your rescue when you screw up, not my tax dollars. Not the normal
> things, just the extreme off the regular path type of stuff like
> climbing the side of a rock face.


There was some discussion about stuff like that over the last couple
years in regards to back country skiers in the mountains of British
Columbia. People were going back there despite well published and well
signed avalanche risk. A bunch of them would get swept away in an
avalanche and rescue teams have to go out and look for survivors and
recover bodies. There is still high risk of avalanche so the rescuers
are at risk during the search.

wrote in message ...

On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 06:17:57 -0500, John Kuthe >
wrote:

>On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 11:21:48 +0100, "Ophelia"
> wrote:
>
>>I hope no one here lives there and if they do they are safe
>>
>>Absolutely terrifying
>>
>>
>>http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news
>>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HShXhJMQdA
>>
>>
>>--
>
>Yep! That'as a LOTTA rain really fast. Best to stay away from that
>fast moving water if you don't know what you are doing. I saw a video
>of some crazy kayayers acrtually kayakiing a flooded Boulder Creek:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dD817QzDW8

The problem with the kayak is what is rushing along in the water,
sizeable rocks, other debris, if that clonks his kayak hard, problem.

~~~~~~~
He has also put himself in a position where scarce resources would be needed
to rescue him if he is hit by fast-moving debris or gets hung up on trees in
the middle of that raging stream. He has deliberately put himself in this
position for "fun," at a time when thousands of others are in desperate need
of help.

MaryL

sf wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 10:50:57 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> > notbob wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2013-09-15, Ophelia > wrote:
> > >
> > > >> There's a fine line between crazy and stupid! I'd not put on that
> > > >> water unlelss I KNEW it was a clear float for miles below, and a
> > > >> guaranteed easy exit point.
> > > >
> > > > Too right!
> > >
> > > The CO governor came on TV this morning and declared anyone caught
> > > rafting or kayaking the floodwaters would be arrested. I personally
> > > don't understand it, except to take the heat off overworked rescue
> > > workers. CO's biggest industry, other than beef, is river
> > > rafting/kayaking. Ppl die every year doing it. That's what it's all
> > > about. Dancing with death.
> > >
> > > nb
> >
> > Creeping nanny-statism...
> >
> > I went kayaking in CO a month or so ago (Arkansas river, Lower Brown's
> > Canyon) and had a blast.
>
> Except this is the end of summer and the water is tame.

Not really. Lower water levels make more rapids due to increased
exposure of the rocks and other bottom features that make the white
water. This also wasn't supposed to be an expert outing is was an
intermediate one. Still had some pretty good and fast drops to negotiate
and I got through most without dumping.

On 2013-09-16 1:52 PM, Pete C. wrote:

>>> I went kayaking in CO a month or so ago (Arkansas river, Lower Brown's
>>> Canyon) and had a blast.
>>
>> Except this is the end of summer and the water is tame.
>
> Not really. Lower water levels make more rapids due to increased
> exposure of the rocks and other bottom features that make the white
> water. This also wasn't supposed to be an expert outing is was an
> intermediate one. Still had some pretty good and fast drops to negotiate
> and I got through most without dumping.

And you don't think that they would have been more treacherous with a
lot more water. Greater volume of water, more sediment in the water,
various flotsam and jetsam all make for increased risk.
>

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 2013-09-16 1:52 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> >>> I went kayaking in CO a month or so ago (Arkansas river, Lower Brown's
> >>> Canyon) and had a blast.
> >>
> >> Except this is the end of summer and the water is tame.
> >
> > Not really. Lower water levels make more rapids due to increased
> > exposure of the rocks and other bottom features that make the white
> > water. This also wasn't supposed to be an expert outing is was an
> > intermediate one. Still had some pretty good and fast drops to negotiate
> > and I got through most without dumping.
>
> And you don't think that they would have been more treacherous with a
> lot more water. Greater volume of water, more sediment in the water,
> various flotsam and jetsam all make for increased risk.
> >

Deeper water means less impact to the surface from the bottom profile.

On 9/16/2013 12:26 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>
> Seems to me that they had to go and rescue people /recover bodies in New
> Orleans in the wake of Katrina because they had refused to evacuate. I
> would think it would be more cost effective to tend to those at the
> evacuation centre and leave those who refused to evacuate to fend for
> themselves. I make no apologies for a total lack of sympathy for those
> who refuse to evacuate and then expect others to risk life and limb to
> save them.

That was just a leetle different from this. Many of those who needed to
be rescued during Katrina had been told time and again to evacuate and
nothing ever happened. Then there were those who couldn't catch a bus
out. Or those who refused to leave their pets. Nothing like trying to
"have a little fun in rough water" as in this case.

--
CAPSLOCK–Preventing Login Since 1980.

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> None of that stuff should be banned, but you should also have to pay for
> your rescue when you screw up, not my tax dollars. Not the normal
> things, just the extreme off the regular path type of stuff like
> climbing the side of a rock face.

My Connecticut friend does some extreme hiking vacations at least once
per year. Many of the areas require that you buy "rescue insurance"
in case you need that. If not, you'll still get rescued and be left
with a bill for many thousands of dollars.

G.

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> If I ran the world things would be different. There would be stupid
> insurance with hefty premiums for people who needlessly risk their
> lives. The insurance would cover the cost of rescuing the stupid people
> who do things like that. Emergency response outfits would bill the
> victim or their estates for the cost of rescue or body recovery.

See my last post. Many countries/wilderness areas actually do require
the rescue insurance. Guided trips usually make you get it before
they'll take you out.

G.

On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 14:27:59 -0500, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
> Dave Smith wrote:
> >
> > On 2013-09-16 1:52 PM, Pete C. wrote:
> >
> > >>> I went kayaking in CO a month or so ago (Arkansas river, Lower Brown's
> > >>> Canyon) and had a blast.
> > >>
> > >> Except this is the end of summer and the water is tame.
> > >
> > > Not really. Lower water levels make more rapids due to increased
> > > exposure of the rocks and other bottom features that make the white
> > > water. This also wasn't supposed to be an expert outing is was an
> > > intermediate one. Still had some pretty good and fast drops to negotiate
> > > and I got through most without dumping.
> >
> > And you don't think that they would have been more treacherous with a
> > lot more water. Greater volume of water, more sediment in the water,
> > various flotsam and jetsam all make for increased risk.
> > >
>
> Deeper water means less impact to the surface from the bottom profile.

Whatever floats your boat, Pete!

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2013 14:27:59 -0500, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>> >
>> > On 2013-09-16 1:52 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>> >
>> > >>> I went kayaking in CO a month or so ago (Arkansas river, Lower
>> > >>> Brown's
>> > >>> Canyon) and had a blast.
>> > >>
>> > >> Except this is the end of summer and the water is tame.
>> > >
>> > > Not really. Lower water levels make more rapids due to increased
>> > > exposure of the rocks and other bottom features that make the white
>> > > water. This also wasn't supposed to be an expert outing is was an
>> > > intermediate one. Still had some pretty good and fast drops to
>> > > negotiate
>> > > and I got through most without dumping.
>> >
>> > And you don't think that they would have been more treacherous with a
>> > lot more water. Greater volume of water, more sediment in the water,
>> > various flotsam and jetsam all make for increased risk.
>> > >
>>
>> Deeper water means less impact to the surface from the bottom profile.
>
> Whatever floats your boat, Pete!

lol

--
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

On 2013-09-16 3:27 PM, Pete C. wrote:

>>> Not really. Lower water levels make more rapids due to increased
>>> exposure of the rocks and other bottom features that make the white
>>> water. This also wasn't supposed to be an expert outing is was an
>>> intermediate one. Still had some pretty good and fast drops to negotiate
>>> and I got through most without dumping.
>>
>> And you don't think that they would have been more treacherous with a
>> lot more water. Greater volume of water, more sediment in the water,
>> various flotsam and jetsam all make for increased risk.
>>>
>
> Deeper water means less impact to the surface from the bottom profile.
>
Shallow water means that rocks are likely closer to the surface and
you stand a chance of scraping on them possible tipping on impact. When
the water is a lot deeper it tends to move much faster and has a lot
more force.

I don't doubt that there are people who consider it a rush to challenge
the floodwaters. I just figure that if they get in over their heads it
isn't worth the lives or the efforts of emergency services, especially
when resources are already stretched thin with a natural disaster.

On 2013-09-16 4:22 PM, Cheryl wrote:

>> Seems to me that they had to go and rescue people /recover bodies in New
>> Orleans in the wake of Katrina because they had refused to evacuate. I
>> would think it would be more cost effective to tend to those at the
>> evacuation centre and leave those who refused to evacuate to fend for
>> themselves. I make no apologies for a total lack of sympathy for those
>> who refuse to evacuate and then expect others to risk life and limb to
>> save them.
>
> That was just a leetle different from this. Many of those who needed to
> be rescued during Katrina had been told time and again to evacuate and
> nothing ever happened. Then there were those who couldn't catch a bus
> out. Or those who refused to leave their pets. Nothing like trying to
> "have a little fun in rough water" as in this case.
>
Never the less, they had been told to evacuate. They didn't.

FWIW... my dog is a Hurricane Katrina rescue, but from Florida.

In article >,
says...
>
> On Sun, 15 Sep 2013 20:55:44 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
> ...
> >Flood water often carries raw sewage and other potential toxins it may
> >have picked up. No thanks, I'll stay on dry land and not put rescue
> >personnel at risk either. Guess I'm old fashioned that way.
>
> Flood water contains more maybe, butALL of Mother Nature's water MAY
> contain pathologen(s). How pure do you insist your water be, and what
> are you doing with it? You gonna drink it? You gonna irrigate a wound
> with it?
>
> John Kuthe...

Well - you can always filter it through activated charcoal and then I
believe the formula if 5 drops of ordinary household bleach to a gallon
of water to disinfect it.

"notbob" > wrote in message
...
> On 2013-09-15, Ophelia > wrote:
>> I hope no one here lives there and if they do they are safe
>>
>> Absolutely terrifying
>
>
> I posted this yesterday in another group:
>
> -------------
>
> Yet, the south-eastern corner of CO is still suffering "extreme" (D3)
> level drought conditions, as did most of the state one year ago. I'm
> in the headwaters of the Arkansas R valley, dead center in the CO
> Rockies, and the river has risen a little over seven inches in the
> last 24hrs. Far from crisis levels. Not even Spring runoff levels.
> Fifty percent chance (almost certain) of more rain today and tomorrow.
> We need it, badly.
>
> http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/monitor.htm
> http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/uv?site_no=07091200
>
> I live about 50 ft from river, but am about 50 above it, so no
> problem, here. Unfortunate for N CO, but flash floods after a drought
> are pretty common.
>
> --------------
>
> Today:
>
> I'm about 225 mi southwest of Longmont and Lyons, among the hardest
> hit areas in CO. Also, the predicted heavy rains for this weekend
> have yet to materialize, so worse flooding has been avoided and water
> levels are dropping, but damage to roads and houses are severe in some
> areas, like around Boulder.
>
> Most of that effected area are on the so called Front Range, where the
> Rockies literally drop down from 10K+ ft on the board flat CO Plains.
> It's like a gigantic water slide dumping tons of water onto a flat
> parking lot. Lotta water emptying out on a flat surface with no more
> incline and no place to go, so the water slows down and backs up.
>
> The people shown crossing that bridge in Longmont are jes plain
> stupid, including that idiot policeman in his patrol car. I'd say
> that bridge is about a gnat's ass away from being washed away and ppl
> should not be anywhere near it!
>
> nb

Yeah, that bridge could have gone at any second.


W. Pooh (AKA Winnie P.)

On 9/16/2013 6:19 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>
> FWIW... my dog is a Hurricane Katrina rescue, but from Florida.

That's so cool! Thanks for taking it in!

--
CAPSLOCK–Preventing Login Since 1980.