0monnak0da:
So what has that got todo with what I wrote? Did you comprehend it?

I comprehended what you wrote but I believe the problem was that I did not expatiate on my answers. You wrote that the UK, Netherlands and Venice should be looked towards as solution to Lagos problem, while I responded Venice was sinking. What I was simply telling you was that Venice irrespective of drainage and canals/lagoon is sinking and that despite the admirable defiance of nature by the Venetians they have and will ultimately lose the war with nature. Did you know that parts of Venice are flooded as much as 60 times a year. Do you also know that approximately 6.7 billion euros is needed to save Venice not to talk of the millions expended yearly. I hope you do not sincerely believe that a state government would expend such yearly in Nigeria. In the UK dredging was recently a disaster(reference: search for Somerset levels) such that a professor of hydrology commented that dredging is a simplistic approach to a complex situation. the less said about Netherlands. Canals were historically established for trade as it cut down travel time for movement of goods.. The problem is that people have built on the natural channel of flood water. Places like Venice, new York and even Lagos that are so close to sea level will continue sinking. To those pointing at emirati artificial islands as pinnacle of engineering do note that they are slowly sinking because some of the materials used in their construction were dredged sediments and sand. Those are porous materials which are carried away during rainfall.

Dsov2016:


I comprehended what you wrote but I believe the problem was that I did not expatiate on my answers. You wrote[b] that the UK, Netherlands and Venice should be looked towards as solution to Lagos problem,[/b] while I responded Venice was sinking. What I was simply telling you was that Venice irrespective of drainage and canals/lagoon is sinking and that despite the admirable defiance of nature by the Venetians they have and will ultimately lose the war with nature. Did you know that parts of Venice are flooded as much as 60 times a year. Do you also know that approximately 6.7 billion euros is needed to save Venice not to talk of the millions expended yearly. I hope you do not sincerely believe that a state government would expend such yearly in Nigeria. In the UK dredging was recently a disaster(reference: search for Somerset levels) such that a professor of hydrology commented that dredging is a simplistic approach to a complex situation. the less said about Netherlands. Canals were historically established for trade as it cut down travel time for movement of goods.. The problem is that people have built on the natural channel of flood water. Places like Venice, new York and even Lagos that are so close to sea level will continue sinking. To those pointing at emirati artificial islands as pinnacle of engineering do note that they are slowly sinking because some of the materials used in their construction were dredged sediments and sand. Those are porous materials which are carried away during rainfall.

I wrote that where?

It is clear you did not comprehend.Stop pretending.
Anyway my point is we can learn from those places for better and for worse we do not have to copy them. The fact is Lagos is where it is and what it is . It cannot be moved. Are we to go and study Niger or Chad?
Whether we do something or we do nothing there is risk of flooding in Lagos. We need to understand our own risk specifically as distinct from other places
We seem to be having a pointless debate here because no one has said what is actually being done at Oworonshoki. Soe have assumed that it involves dredging. I am not commenting on that all I am sayng is there is no reason why we should not develop our waterways and coastal areas taking into account the experence of other places. don't see what that has got to do with whether Venice is sinking unless you can tell us why that is so and how that translates to Lagos

To those clamoring for dredging, here is an excerpt from a report to UK ministers after a heavy flood.

"The river channel is not large enough to contain extreme floods, even after dredging. Dredging of river channels does not prevent flooding during extreme river flows … The concept of dredging to prevent extreme flooding is equivalent to trying to squeeze the volume of water held by a floodplain within the volume of water held in the river channel. Since the floodplain volume is usually many times larger than the channel volume, the concept becomes a major engineering project and a major environmental change."
Is that not bleeding obvious? A river's capacity is tiny by comparison to the catchment from which it draws its water. You can increase the flow of a river by dredging, but that is likely to cause faster and more dangerous floods downstream when the water hits the nearest urban bridge (something the residents of towns like Taunton and Bridgwater should be worried about). If you cut it off from its floodplain by turning it into a deep trench, you might raise its capacity from, say, 2% of the water moving through the catchment to 4%. You will have solved nothing while creating a host of new problems.
Among these problems, the Environment Agency points out, are:
1. Massive expense. Once you have started dredging, "it must be repeated after every extreme flood, as the river silts up again".
2. More dangerous rivers: "Removing river bank vegetation such as trees and shrubs decreases bank stability and increases erosion and siltation."
3. The destabilisation of bridges, weirs, culverts and river walls, whose foundations are undermined by deepening the channel: "If the river channels are dredged and structures are not realigned, 'Pinch Points' at structures would occur. This would increase the risk of flooding at the structure." That means more expense and more danger.
4. Destruction of the natural world: "Removing gravel from river beds by dredging leads to the loss of spawning grounds for fish, and can cause loss of some species. Removing river bank soils disturbs the habitat of river bank fauna such as otters and water voles."
As the agency says, dredging is primarily a tool for improving navigation and, in some places, land drainage. It has been mistaken by people who ought to know better, including ministers, as a means of dealing with a different problem: flooding.
If you want to stop rivers from ruining people's lives, you should engage with the kind of issues that Paterson hinted at. That means, broadly speaking, the following:
More trees and bogs in the uplands – reconnecting rivers with their floodplains in places where it is safe to flood (and paying farmers to store water on their fields while the danger passes);
Making those floodplains rougher by planting trees and other deep vegetation to help hold back the water – lowering the banks and de-canalising the upper reaches, allowing rivers once more to create meanders and braids and oxbow lakes. These trap the load they carry and sap much of their destructive energy.
None of these produce instant results. But they are distinguished from dredging in one significant respect: they work .

Dredging can help in periods of low tides but in times of high tide, its as helpful to a security guard as opening the vault door

0monnak0da:


I wrote that where?

It is clear you did not comprehend.Stop pretending.
Anyway my point is we can learn from those places for better and for worse we do not have to copy them. The fact is Lagos is where it is and what it is . It cannot be moved. Are we to go and study Niger or Chad?
Whether we do something or we do nothing because of that there is risk of flooding.
We seem to be having a pointless debate here because no one has said what is actually being done at Oworonshoki. Soe have assumed that it involves dredging. I am not commenting on that all I am sayng is there is no reason why we should not develop our waterways and coastal areas taking into account the experence of other places. don't see what that has got to do with whether Venice is sinking unless you can tell us why that is so and how that translates to Lagos

I have already told you that up there and even given you a reference to search for its [b]

0monnak0da:


I wrote that where?

It is clear you did not comprehend.Stop pretending.
Anyway my point is we can learn from those places for better and for worse we do not have to copy them. The fact is Lagos is where it is and what it is . It cannot be moved. Are we to go and study Niger or Chad?
Whether we do something or we do nothing because of that there is risk of flooding.
We seem to be having a pointless debate here because no one has said what is actually being done at Oworonshoki. Soe have assumed that it involves dredging. I am not commenting on that all I am sayng is there is no reason why we should not develop our waterways and coastal areas taking into account the experence of other places. don't see what that has got to do with whether Venice is sinking unless you can tell us why that is so and how that translates to Lagos

I have already told you that up there and even given you a reference to search for its [/b]

0monnak0da:


I wrote that where?

It is clear you did not comprehend.Stop pretending.
Anyway my point is we can learn from those places for better and for worse we do not have to copy them. The fact is Lagos is where it is and what it is . It cannot be moved. Are we to go and study Niger or Chad?
Whether we do something or we do nothing because of that there is risk of flooding.
We seem to be having a pointless debate here because no one has said what is actually being done at Oworonshoki. Soe have assumed that it involves dredging. I am not commenting on that all I am sayng is there is no reason why we should not develop our waterways and coastal areas taking into account the experence of other places. don't see what that has got to do with whether Venice is sinking unless you can tell us why that is so and how that translates to Lagos

I have already told you that up there and even given you a reference to search for ITS NOT MY FAULT IF YOU SIMPLY CAN NOT COMPREHEND OR TO LAZY TO SEARCH FOR IT

predatorX:


Amsterdam is below sea level and they have a network of Dykes, barriers and DAMs yet Amsterdam still gets its fair share of flooding.

Recently the UK got seriously flooded even with its vast network of canals.

Check out Venice's predicament here. http://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-europe/construction-venice-floating-city-001750

Engineering is marvelous but it has its limitations and fails 99.9% of the time whenever it clashes with nature.
Iyana-Oworo is a ticking flood-bomb

Your finall statement does not follow from the preamble . There is no logical thread. You are just engaged in an emotional rant.



It is like saying Goats eat grass
grass is good for goats
Humans eat goat meat

Humans should eat grass too

I do not know what should be or not be done techncally. I certainly am not advocating dredging or not dredging

Alll I am saying is we can and should develop our waterways. There is no evidence to say doing nothing will make us any more immune to flooding.

Your claim that engineering fails 99.99 % o the time is quite foolish and childish. Can you baack this up with adult evidence?

0monnak0da:


Your finall statement does not follow from the preamble . There is no logical thread. You are just engaged in an emotional rant.



It is like saying Goats eat grass
grass is good for goats
Humans eat goat meat

Humans should eat grass too

I do not know what should be or not be done techncally. I certainly am not advocating dredging or not dredging

Alll I am saying is we can and should develop our waterways. There is no evidence to say doing nothing will make us any more immune to flooding.

Your claim that engineering fails 99.99 % o the time is quite foolish and childish. Can you baack this up with adult evidence?

My Gawd! I didn't know You were stiff-dead Stewpid. Please Confirm your utter stewpidity with any response whatsoever. However, This is my last.
You can only mitigate against nature, that is where engineering comes into play. So when you quote me, quote me in full. Nobody said you should not develop your water ways. We are saying that the land reclamation at Oworo is below sea-level and what you do at one end has an effect somewhere else. Sea levels are rising, Polar Caps are melting, Flooding incidents are on the increase globally.
You defeat your silly argument whilst sounding like a lame-ass defeatist....... I do not know what should be or not be done techncally, So please leave the critical analysis for the Eagles who see farther than the Blind ding-bats but i think i would rather stick with the Goat since you're familiar with that.

maasoap:

He's a clown to you because he embraces the only feasible solution to overcrowding in Lagos State? What would you have done if we were to have you as a leader or governor in Lagos State? You that are deficient of ideas and innovation.

read carefully and understand the post...thank you

predatorX:



My Gawd! I didn't know You were stiff-dead Stewpid. Please Confirm your utter stewpidity with any response whatsoever. However, This is my last.
You can only mitigate against nature, that is where engineering comes into play. So when you quote me, quote me in full. Nobody said you should not develop your water ways. We are saying that the land reclamation at Oworo is below sea-level and what you do at one end has an effect somewhere else. Sea levels are rising, Polar Caps are melting, Flooding incidents are on the increase globally.
You defeat your silly argument whilst sounding like a lame-ass defeatist....... I do not know what should be or not be done techncally, So please leave the critical analysis for the Eagles who see farther than the Blind ding-bats but i think i would rather stick with the Goat since you're familiar with that.

So what you have written is critica analysis??


Analysis of WHat exactly?

What is being proposed?

Exactly?

What have you analysed?

I am not in the business of discussing emptiness

You can vent all you like but there is nothing on the table to analyse

You are just reacting eotionally to nothing really.


You claim ignorantly that Oworo is below see level? Really? How many mm ,cm or metres ? Do you have the facts?
Who told you what is happening at Oworo is reclamation? How many square metres are being reclaimed? Do you have facts.?

People like you who are complete ignoramus are often the most raucous thinking they know everything when indeed they know absolutely nothing

predatorX:



My Gawd! I didn't know You were stiff-dead Stewpid. Please Confirm your utter stewpidity with any response whatsoever. However, This is my last.
You can only mitigate against nature, that is where engineering comes into play. So when you quote me, quote me in full. Nobody said you should not develop your water ways. We are saying that the land reclamation at Oworo is below sea-level and what you do at one end has an effect somewhere else. Sea levels are rising, Polar Caps are melting, Flooding incidents are on the increase globally.
You defeat your silly argument whilst sounding like a lame-ass defeatist....... I do not know what should be or not be done techncally, So please leave the critical analysis for the Eagles who see farther than the Blind ding-bats but i think i would rather stick with the Goat since you're familiar with that.

So what you have written is critica analysis??


Analysis of WHat exactly?

What is being proposed?

Exactly?

What have you analysed?

I am not in the business of discussing emptiness

You can vent all you like but there is nothing on the table to analyse

You are just reacting emotionally to nothing really.


You claim ignorantly that Oworo is below see level? Really? How many mm ,cm or metres ? Do you have the facts?
Who told you what is happening at Oworo is reclamation? How many square metres are being reclaimed? Do you have facts.?

People like you who are complete ignoramuses are often the most raucous thinking they know everything when indeed they know absolutely nothing

No not lame ass defeatist .

I never claim to know what I don't know but take great joy in exposing fools who do.It is called the Socratic method

In this case how can I claim to know what to be done when the terms are not even defined.
People like you foolishly assume it is reclamation or dredging

You have jumped in to sound off about a nebulous scheme.
By the way I can tell you most of Lagos is at least 15 feet above sea level and what you have at Oworo is not the Sea it is an estuary/lagoon. You can have flooding where there is no sea at all as we did in Benue in 2012 worse than anything ever experienced in Lagos .It is not just a sea level issue. It is not a reclamation issue or a dredging issue.

predatorX:
Amsterdam is below sea level and they have a network of Dykes, barriers and DAMs yet Amsterdam still gets its fair share of flooding.

Recently the UK got seriously flooded even with its vast network of canals.

Check out Venice's predicament here. http://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-europe/construction-venice-floating-city-001750

Engineering is marvelous but it has its limitations and fails 99.9% of the time whenever it clashes with nature.
Iyana-Oworo is a ticking flood-bomb

Correct!!