North Sea Floods 1953 - Case Study

North Sea flood of 1953

(By Tom.H - U6th)

Physical causes:

·         A combination of a high spring tide and a severe European windstorm over the North Sea caused a storm tide; the combination of wind, high tide, and low pressure led to a water level of more than 5.6 metres (18.4 ft.) above mean sea level in some locations.

·          The flood and waves overwhelmed sea defences and caused extensive flooding. 

·         The Netherlands, a country with 20% of its territory below mean sea level and 50% less than 1 metre (3.3 ft.) above sea level and which relies heavily on sea defences

Human Causes:

·         At the time of the flood, none of the local radio stations broadcast at night, and many of the smaller weather stations operated only during the day. As a result, the warnings of the KNMI (Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute) did not penetrate the flood-threatened area in time

·         People were unable to prepare for the impending flood. As the disaster struck on a Saturday night, many offices in the disaster area were unstaffed.

Effects;

Economic:

·         The ferry MV Princess Victoria was lost at sea in the North Channel east of Belfast with 133 fatalities, and many fishing trawlers sank.

·        47,300 buildings were damaged, of which 10,000 were destroyed. Total damage is estimated at 1 billion Dutch guilders.

Social:

·          1,836 deaths in the Netherlands and the emergency evacuation of 70,000 more, Most of the casualties occurred in the southern province of Zeeland

·        In England, 307 people were killed in the counties of Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex. 19 were killed in Scotland.

·        28 were killed in West Flanders, Belgium.

·       The ferry MV Princess Victoria was lost at sea in the North Channel east of Belfast with 133 fatalities, and many fishing trawlers sank.

·       One of the most devastating natural disasters ever recorded in the United Kingdom. Over 1,600 km of coastline was damaged, and sea walls were breached, inundating 1,000 km². Flooding forced 30,000 people to be evacuated from their homes, and 24,000 properties were seriously damaged

Environmental:

·          Floods covered 9% of Dutch farmland, and sea water flooded 1,365 km² of land.

·        An estimated 30,000 animals drowned

Responses:

Long term;

·         Realising that such infrequent events could recur, the Netherlands particularly, and the United Kingdom carried out major studies on strengthening of coastal defences.

·         The Netherlands developed the Delta Works, an extensive system of dams and storm surge barriers.

·         The UK constructed storm surge barriers on the River Thames below London and on the river Hull where it meets the Humber estuary.

·         In the UK the Permanent Secretary to the Home Office Sir Frank Newsam coordinated the immediate efforts to defend homes, save lives and recover after the floods. After the flooding, major investments were made in new sea defences. The Thames Barrier programme was started to secure central London against a future storm surge; the Barrier was officially opened on 8 May 1984.

·        In 2013 a service was held at Chelmsford Cathedral to mark the 60th anniversary of the Great Flood, attended by Anne, Princess Royal. Acts of remembrance were also held in Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex

Short term;

·         As telephone and telegraph networks were disrupted by flood damage, within hours amateur radio operators went into the affected areas with their equipment to form a voluntary emergency radio network. These well-organized radio amateurs worked tirelessly, providing radio communications for ten days and nights, and were the only people maintaining contact with the outside world.

·        The U.S. Army sent helicopters from Germany to rescue people from the rooftops. Queen Juliana and Princess Beatrix visited the flooded area only a few days after

·         A large aid program came on apace, supported by the radio. A national donation program was started and there was a large amount of international aid. The Red Cross was overwhelmed and decided to send some of the funds to Third World countries.

Is Global Warming all 'Doom and Gloom'?

After reading a web article about the future for global agriculture on ScienceDaily, my mind opened to the potential benefits to climate change. This article says about the possible changes to future crop land around the world.
Before reading this article, I thought that global warming would severely reduce the supply of crop land, especially just north and south of the equator, due to the increased temperatures causing more frequent and major droughts. However, the idea that the increased temperature in far northern parts of the globe, like Russia and Canada, may increase the area of suitable land for crops, such as wheat and maize, was brought to me. This got me thinking to further probable benefits for global warming outside of agriculture.
I then began to search on the internet for more advantages of global warming. I found several ideas. In particular, there was the concept that the increase in global temperature may reduce our need for energy, in the form of heat, especially in areas such as Scandanavia and Iceland, meaning that we may get closer to solving the 'energy issue', where our society faces the risk of having regular controlled power cuts to save electricity. Also, again benefiting colder countries, there may be fewer cold weather-related health problems, such as hypothermia, where in recent times, even British citizens, especially the vulnerable elderly population, have been affected by the cold weather and rising heating costs. Another, more specific advantage, is for the melting of the ice around northern Canada. This may seem bad news, but this may be very beneficial for trade between Canada and other countries, as the melting of the ice may open up sea transportation along the Northwest Passage.
Overall, from this, I can say that global warming may not necessarily be a negative thing for us as the earth, but could be a positive thing. However, my view is that the advantages and disadvantages will almost balance each other out, therefore our worry for the future generations is still understandable, yet potentially overdramatised by the media in current society.


Philip Barnes


________________________________

This message has been sent through the Bedford School email Server, and is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender, or administrator@bedfordschool.org.uk, and delete the email. The views expressed are the views of the sender, and not necessarily the views of the School. The information in this message may be confidential and should not be read, copied, or otherwise distributed unless permission is given. Bedford School is part of The Harpur Trust: a company limited by guarantee. Registered in England: Company No. 3475202. Registered Office: Pilgrim Centre, Brickhill Drive, Bedford, MK41 7PZ. Registered Charity No. 1066861

Urban Change in Moscow

Stephanie Denning writes about the rapid gentrification of Russian cities and towns, specifically Ostozhenka, Central Moscow. She gives a clear explanation to the dramatic switch Russia faced from communism to capitalism, due to it's independence in 1991 after the collapse of the USSR.
Gentrification is defined as "a shift in an urban community toward wealthier residents or businesses and increasing property values".Ostozhenka is a brilliant example of gentrification, where the former underdeveloped area, to one of the most expensive areas to live in the world, at the cheapest one-bedroom apartment being around US$6 million in value. This gentrification all started from Russian independence, and the political and economical idea to establish the 'new' Moscow as a 'global city', like London and New York, meaning that many areas were majorly regenerated, where many of these apartments and homes obtained double-glazing windows and many other modern luxuries.
This new capitalist Russia also gave the chance for some residents of these apartments in Ostozhenka to keep their homes after the fall of communism there. This benefited many residents, as those who could stay, gained an improved standard of living. However, this was not completely 'happy families', as many of the original residents were forced to move to a different area of Moscow, usually to an area of "lower social status" , with very little or no compensation, with many of these resettled residents finding themselves in an unstable building with poor quality foundations.
From this example alone, the process of gentrification seems to bring many improvements for land use; but, on the other hand, does have a few potential side-effects.

Philip Barnes


________________________________

This message has been sent through the Bedford School email Server, and is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you have received this message in error, please contact the sender, or administrator@bedfordschool.org.uk, and delete the email. The views expressed are the views of the sender, and not necessarily the views of the School. The information in this message may be confidential and should not be read, copied, or otherwise distributed unless permission is given. Bedford School is part of The Harpur Trust: a company limited by guarantee. Registered in England: Company No. 3475202. Registered Office: Pilgrim Centre, Brickhill Drive, Bedford, MK41 7PZ. Registered Charity No. 1066861