world

Sandy's death toll 43; millions without power

25 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

25 Comments
Login to comment

What the hell is wrong with reporting these days? "43 dead"--- I think they are only counting US deaths... are these the only ones that count?

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Worry about cost later, worry about rescue NOW. I hope all everyone is keeping as safe as they can.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

we love you NY, NJ. Hang in there. Many help are on the way. Isaiah 43:2

1 ( +2 / -1 )

There were 69 killed in the Caribbean before it hit the Est Coast of the USA FYI.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

A little perspective - if Sandy had hit not even 60 years ago before the existence of weather satellites that provide advance warning of bad weather, people would have woken up to find a 1,000-mile diameter hurricane coming up the beach.

The death toll then would have been h.u.g.e.

43 deaths + others outside the States - while every one is a loss - should be kept in perspective, I think.

Things could have been exponentially worse if it wasn't for modern technology.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

SushiSake3: Agreed.

This was only a Category 1 hurricane; there would have been more deaths if it was stronger. Unfortunately, when people build closer and closer to the shoreline and in low-lying areas they are at the mercy of nature -- other than issuing mandatory evacuation orders, big government or local government disaster aid is difficult and slow in coming in flood situations...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

A wise man builds his house on a rock, it has been said. But, of course, people tend to build houses in low-lying areas for various reasons including lower cost and aesthetics. There's risk. Sometimes the result can be deadly.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I've been hit twice by this storm - once in Jamaica, where I thought it would peter out before I returned to NYC, and now in the New York area. Wickedest storm everyone I've spoken to has ever seen in either place. Devastated Jamaica and now this area too. Have been without power in my hotel for 36 hours and counting. The death toll doesn't come near the total from big earthquake in Tohoku last year, thank God, but the devastation may easily surpass it.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Herve, trust me, sometimes it doesn't matter where you build a house. A lot of the damage was caused by falling trees and lightpoles. In Jamaica, mountain sides came tumbling down onto roads and houses. My father's house sits high up on a mountain and that made it susceptible to extremely high winds which ripped off parts of the roof. There is no perfect place to build a house.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Mocheake, I agree there's no perfect place. Every place has its own risks. But some places are particularly riskier than others.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

As the storm has yet to run its course, its effects will continue to be felt in different areas. Not a very happy Halloween for a great many. Unprecedented extent of damage.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Forget Holloween, when you do not have electricity nor a roof over your head?? Not happy at all. Plus the deaths and/or injured will not be happy.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Two good things:

1) All five reactors in the greater NYC area were perfectly fine, aside from shutdown of about half of them due to loss of external power (i.e. the reactors kept on churning even though all the fossil fuel and renewable plants went offline). It'll be a while before they are brought back online though, since they don't want to have crappy power lines take them offline again.

2) With a good chunk of the new jersey shore gone, we will never have to deal with jersey shore tv shows again.

Bad news:

1) Major power outages, some of which won't be fixed anytime soon, like the one due to national grid's connection at a con-ed transformer blowing out and being seen for miles.

2) Large chunks of the area are without internet, so no emergency information there.

3) Large areas are without TV signal, since Alpine is without power (Alpine TV tower took over general broadcast to the area after 9/11)

4) 25% of cell towers are gone, another 50-75% are on backup power but running out of fuel. That means no calling 911 since telephone lines in many areas are gone too.

5) It'll probably wipe out $50billion or more, especially if the markets don't open at full capacity

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

I am sorry to hear of the deaths and the damage.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Go FEMA.

Go "Big Government."

Americans need both today more than ever.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

As someone who lives in New Jersey, thank you for posting this. This brought back memories of watching the Tōhoku earthquake on the news, and that just stings me as I recall the devastation that swept Japan.

We are truly blessed that most of our damage seems to be proper damage rather than having a large death toll. Thankfully, I live about 10 miles offshore, so my area only suffered from falling trees. My friends? Not so lucky. Homes were floating, houses torn apart, trees uprooted and smashing into houses. The damage to the shore is absolutely devastating, and the photos the news has been showing makes my stomach churn.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

This was only a Category 1 hurricane

But it was the largest storm on record, which accounts for the overall extent of its impact.

Had it been a stronger category storm the east coast of the US would look like a bombed out war zone.

FEMA is not the solution, only the rescue and clean-up crew.

If the government doesn't make serious efforts to contain and roll back global warming, you may very well see the stronger category storms of the same size as Sandy in the not-too-distant future.

And I don't want to hear any whiner republicans complaining about the political dimension to my comment.

Censure yourselves.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"Go Big Government"

Only Big Government? How about "Go local government/private volunteers"? No good?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

What the hell is wrong with reporting these days? "43 dead"--- I think they are only counting US deaths... are these the only ones that count?

That is the "news" (as in: It's "new" information). The article mentions the other deaths that happened (and were already reported last week) as well:

Sandy also killed 69 people in the Caribbean before making its way up the Eastern Seaboard.

On another note:

If the government doesn't make serious efforts to contain and roll back global warming, you may very well see the stronger category storms of the same size as Sandy in the not-too-distant future.

First of all, one government can't do squat against global warming. Even if you somehow managed to get ALL governments to agree to address the issue, Mother Nature doesn't give a rat's a** what a bunch of politicians and diplomats "resolve to do". The environment has been around for billions of years and no upstart humans are going to be able to make it bend to their will anytime soon.

Assuming you're referring to the theory that man-made greenhouse gasses are responsible for the current warming trend, even if we completely stopped pumping CO2 into the atmosphere (an impossibility because us and the other animals STILL need to exhale), what's already there will continue to affect the environment for decades to come. The natural reducers of CO2 (the forests) are getting cut down to make way for farms, so every year the ability for Earth to "scrub" CO2 from the atmosphere becomes that much more crippled.

Even if everyone suddenly agreed to make greenhouse gas emissions our number one priority RIGHT NOW, things will get a LOT worse before they get any better.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Even if everyone suddenly agreed to make greenhouse gas emissions our number one priority RIGHT NOW, things will get a LOT worse before they get any better.

It sounds like you're saying that there is nothing that can be done so we shouldn't bother, just let nature take her course.

Given the case of Sandy, one would hope that such a position is not the position that a public servant would adopt at this juncture, at any rate.

The problem is not humans and other mammals inhaling and exhaling, but of the burning of fossil fuels, with coal being the biggest problem.

This storm is a sign of a snowball rolling down the hill type of effect that is starting to occur between interrelated climate phenomena, such as rising sea levels and surface temperatures.

You are probably right that things are going to get worse before they get better, but at present we are still in a position to rectify the situation. Should any of the so-called tipping point scenarios occur, such as the release of large amounts of methane from the ocean floor into the atmosphere, there may be nothing than can be done to prevent the cataclysmic results that would bring about.

Meanwhile everyone wants to export coal to China and India and build coal fired power plants there to boot.

And Romney wants to save the jobs of America's coal miners, etc.

Obviously this wasn't a political issue from end to end.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It sounds like you're saying that there is nothing that can be done so we shouldn't bother, just let nature take her course.

Actually, I was saying that nature will take its course regardless of who is sitting in the White House. The United States does not control the weather. Hurricane Sandy didn't hit the United States because of the country's greenhouse gas emission policy, either current or past. The United States could completely eliminate greenhouse gas emissions, and the problem would STILL get worse because there are 205 other sovereign states that have nothing to do with the United States' government on the face of the planet. Even if we somehow managed to get all 206 countries to go to zero greenhouse gas emissions, it would take decades for the imbalance to correct itself and in the meantime the currently existing conditions that are causing global warming will continue to warm the planet, releasing more of the CO2 trapped in the melting ice flows at the poles. Once the hole in the ozone layer at the south pole closes-up (sometime in the next decade by most accounts), Antarctica is expected to catch up to the Arctic when it comes to yearly loss of ice.

Personally, I think we are already AT the "tipping point" where the planet is entering thermal runaway. Equatoral South America will become a parched desert in the lowlands - similar to the Sahara. The reduction in vegetation there will further reduce the planet's ability to process CO2. CO2 levels will correspondingly increase. In centuries and millenia past, the planet would compensate for an increase in CO2 by a natural increase in vegetation that uses CO2 as part of its photosynthesis. In today's world, man thwarts this practice by slash and burn practices, as well as your typical urban expansion which replaces forest and grasslands with paved roads, buildings, and closely-cropped lawns.

So yeah, I agree with you that Hurricane Sandy is just at the start of things - things that will get worse before they get better (if they ever DO get better).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The United States does not control the weather.

The lifestyles and choices of human beings all over the world, including (and especially) the United States will have a significant impact on the conditions that influence the climate of the planet.

Hurricane Sandy didn't hit the United States because of the country's greenhouse gas emission policy, either current or past.

To the extent that ocean levels have risen as a result of increased warming, the impact of storms like Sandy are much more severe.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The lifestyles and choices of human beings all over the world, including (and especially) the United States will have a significant impact on the conditions that influence the climate of the planet.

??? "especially" the United States? I'll admit the United States carbon emission numbers are high ( we're in second place on the list of CO2 emitters: 5,492,170,000 metric tons/year), but China's output (8,240,958,000 metric tons/year) was estimated at 1.5 times the U.S. output in 2010 (the lastest numbers I could find) despite having slightly smaller land mass than the U.S. Any phrase using the word "especially" needs to be used in regards to China, the world leader (by far) in CO2 emissions.

Incidentally, Japan came in fifth on that list - 1,138,432,000 metric tons/year in 2010 - and that was BEFORE 3/11 and the resulting change in the power generation of the country.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

11/1/12 -As a lifelong N.Y.er,seeing such wreckage all around Staten Island,some police freinds have said the death toll will be in the hundreds as seach teams begin their sad duties. at the minimum the $ losses are at least $20 billion. We've been in the dark since the first night but thankfully we prepared And Obeyed the announcements ,that saved our bacon just as it saved my wifes relatives in the Fukushima disaster.all this bantering about carbon emmisions means nothing to someone burying a loved one. I'll leave Science to Scientists,Thank You.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites