Even those who were not directly affected by last year’s floods remember the images of the Warwick Mall besieged by a raging torrent, as well as the flood waters enveloping local streets and homes
The legacy of last year’s major deluge is still being keenly felt by many Rhode Islanders.
Kathy Zachirchuk of Cranston remembers it all too well. Her story is harrowing, but the damage done is more than to just material things.
On that Tuesday in late March, even though the temperature was in the mid-forties, the rain fell as though it were in the tropics. Both Zachirchuk and her elderly mother had been home sick that day when she noticed water seeping into her basement. She started her sump pump and nervously watched the rain fall. But the water in her basement rose swiftly, eventually taking the electricity and heat out, as well as the sump pump.
“I was getting really nervous, especially when I saw the water coming up my lawn,” Zachirchuk recounts. “It was rising around the cars in the driveway.”
She was able to move her car further up the lawn away from the approaching water, but by the time she was able to get to her mother’s car, it was already partially submerged and would not start.
“I called AAA,” Zachirchuk said, “but my street was already too badly flooded and they couldn’t even get close to me.” The car was totaled.
When she went back to check on the basement, she was horrified to find the water coming up the steps. Even if the sump pump had been working, it would not have been able to contend with the over six feet of water in her basement. The water eventually stopped rising at the third step from the first floor.
Zachirchuk and her mother were stuck inside the house for several days while the water receded. While the electricity was restored shortly after it was lost, the heat did not return for days.
The material loss was vast: hundreds of books, stored kitchenware and pottery, a washer and dryer, an oil burner and oil tank, the electrical wiring in the basement, and thousands of dollars worth of clothes that were stored in a recently finished cedar closet.
A FEMA inspector came to survey the loss. “The inspector was amazed by the damage, and said that we qualified for the highest possible claim,” Zachirchuk said.
FEMA later rejected her claim, stating that, because she had flood insurance, she could not "double-dip." They instructed her to finish consulting with her insurance company, and afterwards she could re-file her claim with them to be considered for either a grant or a loan.
Because the type of flood insurance she had was dwelling \insurance, and not content insurance, she was not eligible to receive compensation for much of her belongings.
Her insurance company partially reimbursed her for her central air conditioning unit, oil tank and oil burner, and electrical wiring in the basement. Nothing else was covered, and so she turned back to FEMA.
“FEMA was vague about whether I would get a grant or a loan. It was hours and hours of paperwork. It was very redundant and at the end of it I was so tired and disheartened,” Zachirchuk said.
Not too long after the paperwork was submitted, Zachirchuk’s mother took ill and was forced to go to the hospital. It was at that time that FEMA called Zachirchuk to request a re-inspection of the damage to her house.
“It was bad timing, considering how ill my mother was,” Zachirchuk said. She requested that they reschedule the inspection for another time. FEMA called her back shortly thereafter to reschedule again. Her mother was still slowly convalescing and Zachirchuk was still at the hospital with her. She asked once again to reschedule, and received a message on her cell phone from FEMA saying that they were dropping her claim.
“They left a message saying that they were canceling me because I didn’t meet with them,’” Zachirchuk said. “Even though I had explained to them twice that I would gladly meet with them once things had calmed down with my mother.”
FEMA stated that, if she wished to appeal, she would have to re-do all of the paperwork she had originally submitted. Exhausted emotionally and physically, she did not file the appeal.
“I couldn’t do it,” she said. “I didn’t have it in me to go through it all again. It was just too painful.”
Over a year later, she is still fixing the house. She is using a home equity loan that she had from before the flood to help fix her house, paying for it as she uses it. FEMA did reimburse her for a dehumidifier, but only partially because it was the wrong type of dehumidifier, according to their policy. They also stated that she could be reimbursed for an air purifier to eliminate the mold and mildew growth, but after she bought it, they said that they do not reimburse for air purifiers.
“Reimbursement is not as easy as it sounds,” said Zachirchuk. “There are games and if you’re not careful, you’ll wind up paying for a lot of it yourself.”
“This was a once-in-a-200 year flood,” said Zachirchuk’s friend, George Trudell, who is helping her rebuild. His residence, Riverview Terrace on Fordson Avenue in Cranston, was also flooded out during that time. “There was really nothing we could have done. (Zachirchuk’s) sump pump would have failed even if the power hadn’t gone out. There would have still been the same amount of damage. It was a perfect storm.”
2011年7月18日星期一
'Jam' at Pedder Rd flyover meet
MUMBAI: Around 100 persons, mainly belonging to the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), went on a rampage and disrupted a crucial public hearing on the proposed Pedder Road flyover on Monday afternoon.
In 2008, a similar public meeting on the project was disrupted by political activists. The NCP controls the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC), which will execute the Rs 300-crore project.
Over 500 residents, citizen activists and NGO representatives had assembled at the Institute of Engineers auditorium at Haji Ali for public consultations organized by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board.
The political workers, who were in the audience, suddenly started shouting slogans supporting the flyover, abused residents and manhandled senior citizens in front of the police. The fracas started when Pedder Road residents objected to a presentation by an MSRDC official.
MSRDC managing director Bipin Srimali said no further hearing will be held and a report on the meeting will be forwarded to the environment ministry. City collector Chandrashekhar Oak, who chaired the public hearing, adjourned it when the mob moved towards the stage. "The ministry and MSRDC will have to decide on another meeting," he said.
"The presentation was idiotic and full of lies. He was giving out wrong traffic figures. Anyone who disputed it was shouted down by the mob," said Pritish Nandy, a film producer and a local resident.
"The moment I rose to speak, they stopped me. Is this the way the government wants to push through the project just because some people want to benefit?" said Veena Singhal, 70-year-old chairperson of the Pedder Road Residents Association (PRRA), who has been spearheading opposition to the flyover for over a decade. "There is too much goondagiri in public life. Two busloads of party workers arrived at the venue and threatened some of us with physical injury," she added.
"A bunch of goons was unleashed on the audience. They were menacing and threatening eminent citizens. The public hearing was a farce," she said.
Veteran structural consultant and Carmichael Road resident Shirish Patel said, "They were people representing political parties. Some women were brought in vehicles to shout slogans and disrupt the meeting."
"When the public hearing was organized for the residents, why were people who do not live along the road allowed to enter," asked Darcy Dinshaw, PRRA joint honorary secretary.
Activist Sumaira Abdulali objected to MSRDC's claim that noise pollution will reduce after the flyover is constructed.
"We did not have any voice during the hearing. In a democratic process, a fair chance should be given to all," said Kitu Gidwani, actor and resident
Vijay Trilokekar, a consultant and Kemps Corner resident, said, "I want this flyover. The residents did not have patience to hear the MSRDC side. Then came another mob that supported the bridge. My only request is that the old Kemps Corner flyover should not be demolished and the new flyover should have a cable-stay above it to facilitate better traffic movement."
"The residents should think in terms of the city's development and not only of their neighbourhood. The flyover will definitely help traffic move faster," said Mukul Gandhi, a businessman and resident.
Divan Tolani, a resident, said, "We are all opposed to the flyover. Why not let people decide these issues in a democratic manner instead of trying to thrust this project on us?"
I am sure it will create more problems in the long run."
An MSRDC official said, "We will install solar-powered air purifiers besides noise barriers and view-cutters. The flyover will reduce pollution as the speed of vehicles will go up from 18 to 40 kmph. Enough care has been taken that people are not disturbed at night due to construction activities and traffic is handled smoothly by diverting it."
The public hearing was held following a directive from the Union environment ministry. "The ministry wanted to take into consideration the suggestions and objections of residents," the official.
In 2008, a similar public meeting on the project was disrupted by political activists. The NCP controls the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC), which will execute the Rs 300-crore project.
Over 500 residents, citizen activists and NGO representatives had assembled at the Institute of Engineers auditorium at Haji Ali for public consultations organized by the Maharashtra Pollution Control Board.
The political workers, who were in the audience, suddenly started shouting slogans supporting the flyover, abused residents and manhandled senior citizens in front of the police. The fracas started when Pedder Road residents objected to a presentation by an MSRDC official.
MSRDC managing director Bipin Srimali said no further hearing will be held and a report on the meeting will be forwarded to the environment ministry. City collector Chandrashekhar Oak, who chaired the public hearing, adjourned it when the mob moved towards the stage. "The ministry and MSRDC will have to decide on another meeting," he said.
"The presentation was idiotic and full of lies. He was giving out wrong traffic figures. Anyone who disputed it was shouted down by the mob," said Pritish Nandy, a film producer and a local resident.
"The moment I rose to speak, they stopped me. Is this the way the government wants to push through the project just because some people want to benefit?" said Veena Singhal, 70-year-old chairperson of the Pedder Road Residents Association (PRRA), who has been spearheading opposition to the flyover for over a decade. "There is too much goondagiri in public life. Two busloads of party workers arrived at the venue and threatened some of us with physical injury," she added.
"A bunch of goons was unleashed on the audience. They were menacing and threatening eminent citizens. The public hearing was a farce," she said.
Veteran structural consultant and Carmichael Road resident Shirish Patel said, "They were people representing political parties. Some women were brought in vehicles to shout slogans and disrupt the meeting."
"When the public hearing was organized for the residents, why were people who do not live along the road allowed to enter," asked Darcy Dinshaw, PRRA joint honorary secretary.
Activist Sumaira Abdulali objected to MSRDC's claim that noise pollution will reduce after the flyover is constructed.
"We did not have any voice during the hearing. In a democratic process, a fair chance should be given to all," said Kitu Gidwani, actor and resident
Vijay Trilokekar, a consultant and Kemps Corner resident, said, "I want this flyover. The residents did not have patience to hear the MSRDC side. Then came another mob that supported the bridge. My only request is that the old Kemps Corner flyover should not be demolished and the new flyover should have a cable-stay above it to facilitate better traffic movement."
"The residents should think in terms of the city's development and not only of their neighbourhood. The flyover will definitely help traffic move faster," said Mukul Gandhi, a businessman and resident.
Divan Tolani, a resident, said, "We are all opposed to the flyover. Why not let people decide these issues in a democratic manner instead of trying to thrust this project on us?"
I am sure it will create more problems in the long run."
An MSRDC official said, "We will install solar-powered air purifiers besides noise barriers and view-cutters. The flyover will reduce pollution as the speed of vehicles will go up from 18 to 40 kmph. Enough care has been taken that people are not disturbed at night due to construction activities and traffic is handled smoothly by diverting it."
The public hearing was held following a directive from the Union environment ministry. "The ministry wanted to take into consideration the suggestions and objections of residents," the official.
2011年3月15日星期二
A Superhero Scrubs the Air: The Mighty Houseplant
The humble houseplant is on the attack. Building on NASA experiments for air purification in
space, scientists are pinpointing plant species—from the peace lily to the asparagus fern—
that are particularly skillful at cleaning indoor air of pollutants that can cause a range of
health problems.
A growing body of global research is showing plants can reduce dust particles and
contaminants, such as formaldehyde and benzene, that come from cigarette smoke, paint,
furniture, building materials and other sources. Big growers such as Costa Farms, based in
Goulds, Fla., and retailers Lowe's and Home Depot now sell plants with tags promoting their
air-cleaning abilities.
"The advantage of plants is you can sometimes solve your problem with $100 of plants or
propagate your own," says Stanley J. Kays, a horticulture professor at the University of
Georgia, which is spearheading plant research with scientists in South Korea. In addition to
studying existing plants, researchers there are trying to see if certain species could be
bred to create super-efficient air cleaners.
Interest in plants as air purifiers—what's called "phytoremediation"—comes amid mounting
concerns about the quality of indoor air. People spend more than 90% of their time inside,
where levels of a dozen common organic pollutants can be two to five times higher than
outside, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Associated health problems range
from headaches and asthma to respiratory diseases and cancer. The agency says it is
particularly concerned about air quality in homes that have taken steps to be more energy-
efficient by adding insulation and other weatherization techniques.
That said, plants aren't yet recognized as a mainstream air-filtration tool. The EPA says
"there is currently no evidence … that a reasonable number of houseplants can remove
significant quantities of pollutants in homes and offices." The U.S. Green Building Council,
which certifies buildings based on environmental standards, says while "using plants to help
clean air is a great strategy…we've had difficulty quantifying the results."
That could be changing. Studies conducted over the past five years by the University of
Technology, Sydney found that small groups of the Janet Craig and Sweet Chico plants placed
in offices with high airborne concentrations of volatile organic compounds consistently
reduced total VOC levels by up to 75%. Reductions to negligible levels were maintained over
the course of five- to 12-week periods studied. "Potted plants can provide an efficient,
self-regulating, low-cost, sustainable bioremediation system for indoor air pollution,"
researchers concluded.
In another study at Washington State University, dust was reduced as much as 20% when a
number of plants were placed around the perimeter of computer lab and small office for one
week.
Margaret Burchett, a professor who led the Sydney studies, estimates that six or more plants
in a 1,200- to 1,500-square-foot house could achieve noteworthy contaminant reductions. At
work, "if you have a couple of nice plants sitting on your desk, it will help purify the air
you breathe," says Bill Wolverton, author of the new book "Plants: Why You Can't Live Without
Them," and one of the NASA scientists who studied plants.
Indoor-air pollutants come in two primary forms: particle pollution, such as dust, pollen,
animal dander and smoke, and gaseous pollutants such as VOCs that are emitted from sources
such as building materials, dry-cleaned clothing and aerosol sprays.
Plants clean the air, researchers say, primarily by absorbing pollution through small leaf
pores called stomata, and via microorganisms living in the potting soil or medium that
metabolize contaminants. Scientists believe plants can begin removing pollution the moment
they're placed in a room and can be particularly useful in spaces where there's little
outside ventilation.
Pinpointing specific air quality problems can be tricky. Do-it-yourself kits and
environmental companies can conduct air-quality tests at consumers' homes. But interpretation
of the results can be confusing because there's no universal national standard for acceptable
levels of many VOCs, according to the EPA.
As for remedies, ventilation often works best, but not every climate is suitable for open
windows and doors. Mechanical ventilation units that remove stale air from a home and provide
fresh outdoor air can cost $600 to upwards of $2,500, not including installation. Indoor air
-cleaning devices using HEPA and activated carbon or ultraviolet-light technology have some
limitations and may require filter changes.
That's why researchers see opportunity for indoor plants, which are inexpensive and
relatively easy to find and maintain. In 2009, UGA scientists identified five "super
ornamentals"—plants that showed high rates of contaminant removal when exposed in gas-tight
glass jars to common household VOCs, such as benzene (present in cigarette smoke) and toluene
(emitted from paints and varnishes). They are: the purple waffle plant, English ivy,
asparagus fern, purple heart plant, variegated wax plant.
space, scientists are pinpointing plant species—from the peace lily to the asparagus fern—
that are particularly skillful at cleaning indoor air of pollutants that can cause a range of
health problems.
A growing body of global research is showing plants can reduce dust particles and
contaminants, such as formaldehyde and benzene, that come from cigarette smoke, paint,
furniture, building materials and other sources. Big growers such as Costa Farms, based in
Goulds, Fla., and retailers Lowe's and Home Depot now sell plants with tags promoting their
air-cleaning abilities.
"The advantage of plants is you can sometimes solve your problem with $100 of plants or
propagate your own," says Stanley J. Kays, a horticulture professor at the University of
Georgia, which is spearheading plant research with scientists in South Korea. In addition to
studying existing plants, researchers there are trying to see if certain species could be
bred to create super-efficient air cleaners.
Interest in plants as air purifiers—what's called "phytoremediation"—comes amid mounting
concerns about the quality of indoor air. People spend more than 90% of their time inside,
where levels of a dozen common organic pollutants can be two to five times higher than
outside, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Associated health problems range
from headaches and asthma to respiratory diseases and cancer. The agency says it is
particularly concerned about air quality in homes that have taken steps to be more energy-
efficient by adding insulation and other weatherization techniques.
That said, plants aren't yet recognized as a mainstream air-filtration tool. The EPA says
"there is currently no evidence … that a reasonable number of houseplants can remove
significant quantities of pollutants in homes and offices." The U.S. Green Building Council,
which certifies buildings based on environmental standards, says while "using plants to help
clean air is a great strategy…we've had difficulty quantifying the results."
That could be changing. Studies conducted over the past five years by the University of
Technology, Sydney found that small groups of the Janet Craig and Sweet Chico plants placed
in offices with high airborne concentrations of volatile organic compounds consistently
reduced total VOC levels by up to 75%. Reductions to negligible levels were maintained over
the course of five- to 12-week periods studied. "Potted plants can provide an efficient,
self-regulating, low-cost, sustainable bioremediation system for indoor air pollution,"
researchers concluded.
In another study at Washington State University, dust was reduced as much as 20% when a
number of plants were placed around the perimeter of computer lab and small office for one
week.
Margaret Burchett, a professor who led the Sydney studies, estimates that six or more plants
in a 1,200- to 1,500-square-foot house could achieve noteworthy contaminant reductions. At
work, "if you have a couple of nice plants sitting on your desk, it will help purify the air
you breathe," says Bill Wolverton, author of the new book "Plants: Why You Can't Live Without
Them," and one of the NASA scientists who studied plants.
Indoor-air pollutants come in two primary forms: particle pollution, such as dust, pollen,
animal dander and smoke, and gaseous pollutants such as VOCs that are emitted from sources
such as building materials, dry-cleaned clothing and aerosol sprays.
Plants clean the air, researchers say, primarily by absorbing pollution through small leaf
pores called stomata, and via microorganisms living in the potting soil or medium that
metabolize contaminants. Scientists believe plants can begin removing pollution the moment
they're placed in a room and can be particularly useful in spaces where there's little
outside ventilation.
Pinpointing specific air quality problems can be tricky. Do-it-yourself kits and
environmental companies can conduct air-quality tests at consumers' homes. But interpretation
of the results can be confusing because there's no universal national standard for acceptable
levels of many VOCs, according to the EPA.
As for remedies, ventilation often works best, but not every climate is suitable for open
windows and doors. Mechanical ventilation units that remove stale air from a home and provide
fresh outdoor air can cost $600 to upwards of $2,500, not including installation. Indoor air
-cleaning devices using HEPA and activated carbon or ultraviolet-light technology have some
limitations and may require filter changes.
That's why researchers see opportunity for indoor plants, which are inexpensive and
relatively easy to find and maintain. In 2009, UGA scientists identified five "super
ornamentals"—plants that showed high rates of contaminant removal when exposed in gas-tight
glass jars to common household VOCs, such as benzene (present in cigarette smoke) and toluene
(emitted from paints and varnishes). They are: the purple waffle plant, English ivy,
asparagus fern, purple heart plant, variegated wax plant.
订阅：
博文 (Atom)