Preparedness for when

jk0

jk0 wrote: »

Something I mentioned when GQ was getting her flat rewired was putting your sockets further up the wall. I did this because I won't always be able to bend down to them.

However, of course this would also be helpful if your house is flooded, as you might still be able to keep them operating. Of course, you'd also need to put your consumer unit and main fuse at a similar height which might be impractical for some.

Environment Agency are obviously reading 'Preparedness for when the SHTF' for ideas:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3376903/Put-plug-sockets-halfway-walls-Victims-anger-bizarre-advice-cope-future-flooding-luvvie-Michael-Sheen-causes-fury-attack-calls-divert-foreign-aid.html

HornetSaver

To a certain extent you can't prepare for unknown extremes - at least not where nature is involved. But just as how you can save for the worst situation you've experienced, you can prepare for known weather extremes. What's the old saying? Don't fall for the same trick twice?

I don't blame anyone for this flooding. But now that we know how bad this winter was, the powers that be should be able to prepare for the same level of rainfall in the same place in future. They might choose not to take enough action, arguing that the cost of preventing most of the damage is very low, and beyond that clean-up and compensation is cheaper than prevention.

But if the government or environment agency are saying they don't know how to build flood defences for a given level of rainfall (or in coastal areas, tide levels), then they're incompetent.

moneyistooshorttomention

jk0 wrote: »

Environment Agency are obviously reading 'Preparedness for when the SHTF' for ideas:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3376903/Put-plug-sockets-halfway-walls-Victims-anger-bizarre-advice-cope-future-flooding-luvvie-Michael-Sheen-causes-fury-attack-calls-divert-foreign-aid.html

I looked at that and thought "Define 'halfway up the walls' " - ie do they mean the height powerpoints are supposed to be up the walls anyway (ie just measured my re-done sockets and they are about 18" up the walls - as per modern regulations) or does he mean "halfway up" (ie more like the 3' or so no-one's sockets are likely to be)?

If they were whatever-this-height up the walls is - would it keep the electrics safe and usable? Do electrics become usable again anyway the second the flood waters recede?

There must be a lot of people with very basic questions in their heads about whether having floodwater in the lower level of your house means the upper level is unusable too or no. I tend to assume that the bathroom would still be usable (flushing the loo and getting clean water out of the taps and all) if its upstairs okay - but I may be wrong and it all gets contaminated. I tend to assume that powerpoints up out of water level remain usable - even countertop level ones in the kitchen - but I may be wrong.

It must be down to a lot of little questions like this for people living in flooded areas - as, at a very basic level, if they don't know the answer to those questions then they don't know whether its actually physically possible to move themselves upstairs for the duration and stay put (ie rather than getting evacuated to some community hall).

I'm sure this sounds very naïve questions to ask - but there must be a lot of other people who don't actually know whether the upper level of their houses would keep functioning as normal if flooding happens in their road (ie they could just stay put for the duration - provided they were well stocked-up with food, etc and had carried it upstairs).

What are the answers to these "Is it possible to just carry on living upstairs for the duration if need be?" questions.?

GreyQueen

Morning all.

There are some excellent articles in The Guardian's environment pages atm (go to more stories button) which point out that a partial cause of the flooding is what is happening on the hills; draining of boggy ground which would otherwise act like a sponge, plus running sheep on what our ecology dictates should be forested hills and mountains.

And that we're paying as tax-payers for this environmental vandalism. And thus contributing (forcibly) to the destruction of innocent people's homes and business premises, as well as to our shared infrastructure like roads and bridges.:(

Flood defenses are a lot more than walls along rivers, dams, etc. Many of them are best executed over tens or even hundreds of miles of open country, to slow down water as it makes its way downhill through the streams and rivers. It isn't easy to do, and ceratin vested interests (inc sitting local MPs in flooded areas) have screamed blue bluddy murder to to stop it happening in recent years.

I can appreciate the fury of householders who have just had several feet of water in their homes at being told that they should think about modifying them to make them more resilient. But there is nothing new about this advice and, at a point where flooded householders are going to be spending money, perhaps even on a rewire for ruined groundfloor electrics, why not think about having the sockets 4-5 ft up the wall?

Why not think that perhaps concrete, stone or ceramic tiled floors downstairs rather than carpet or laminate, and about running the floor tiles at least one course up the walls (common on Crete, makes domestic cleaning so easy and eliminates pesky skirting boards to clean and decorate)?

A lot of the things we have as fixtures and fittings are there as historical anomalies left over from previous centuries. A modern home will have a little strip of skirting a couple or so inches deep. A mid-Victorian one will have skirtings nearer a foot deep. Both are atavisitc remnants of wall-panelling and their only practical purpose is to hide the join of wall and floor - running the flooring just up the wall would solve that.

For those who are gutting out their homes of ruined floor-coverings right now, it might be the opportunity to think about what they lay back in their place. I do know my ground floor riverside flat has concrete tiled floors which would stand up to a wetting and the removal of the three rugs would take 10 seconds.

ETA; MTSTM Homes will have several electical circuits, some serving sockets and some lights. Even a tiny flat like mine has one socket circuit and one lighting curcuit. Most houses will have 2 or more socket circuits, at the least one upstairs and one down, sometimes two downstairs and one upstairs = this is just a standard 3 bed home. The wiring serving these will be horizonal in the walls at whavever height the sockets are set at- 18 incehs or 3-4 ft is a matter of choice.

From booking repairs and talking to electrical engineers, I know that water ingress into the electics will take down the trip and the water-damaged fittings will need to be isolated from the circuits (this is a professional job) so that the rest can be used safely. Wet fittings need several days to dry out before they can be re-instated. I would expect a house with standing flood water in it to have ruined ground floor sockets and saturated plaster, which may well have to be taken back to the brick, and all the wiring for the sockets replaced. There may also be some wiring running under floorboards, which will be ruined.

All these homes will need to be carefully checked for electical safety or you could have appliances being shorted out, and fire risk. Also, there are the consequences for the meters, which are the property of the utility company. Many houses have their meters in small boxes just above ground level near the front door, and these will have been underwater.

moneyistooshorttomention

HornetSaver wrote: »

To a certain extent you can't prepare for unknown extremes - at least not where nature is involved.

But if the government or environment agency are saying they don't know how to build flood defences for a given level of rainfall (or in coastal areas, tide levels), then they're incompetent.

I can't think they are saying they literally don't know "how" to deal with flood defences. The Dutch know - as a large part of their country is land reclaimed from the ocean. Presumably - the "how" could be dealt with very readily - ie by throwing enough money into the equation to pay the best Dutch experts to come and tell us the "how".

There is no excuse for the government acting ignorant - given that fact.

My mind boggles at the cost of dealing with all this/prevention of future flooding - and it is an obvious one to use that foreign aid money to help our own country deal with this now imo.

nuatha

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I can't think they are saying they literally don't know "how" to deal with flood defences. The Dutch know - as a large part of their country is land reclaimed from the ocean. Presumably - the "how" could be dealt with very readily - ie by throwing enough money into the equation to pay the best Dutch experts to come and tell us the "how".

There is no excuse for the government acting ignorant - given that fact.

My mind boggles at the cost of dealing with all this/prevention of future flooding - and it is an obvious one to use that foreign aid money to help our own country deal with this now imo.

Having had serious discussions about this with a Dutch friend who works in environmental engineering (ie water management) they don't understand the issues. The Dutch were very good at draining the fens and reclaiming land in East Anglia precisely because the geography resembled what they knew. And the Netherlands has had a fight to prevent politicians cutting sewer and drain maintenance - because the effects aren't immediately visible and therefore make it easier for politicians to "save money."
The Guardian articles make it clear we have the expertise in the UK, we sell that expertise around the world, but the people who don't accept the advice are British politicians.

Frugalsod

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

There must be a lot of people with very basic questions in their heads about whether having floodwater in the lower level of your house means the upper level is unusable too or no. I tend to assume that the bathroom would still be usable (flushing the loo and getting clean water out of the taps and all) if its upstairs okay - but I may be wrong and it all gets contaminated. I tend to assume that powerpoints up out of water level remain usable - even countertop level ones in the kitchen - but I may be wrong.

It must be down to a lot of little questions like this for people living in flooded areas - as, at a very basic level, if they don't know the answer to those questions then they don't know whether its actually physically possible to move themselves upstairs for the duration and stay put (ie rather than getting evacuated to some community hall).

I'm sure this sounds very naïve questions to ask - but there must be a lot of other people who don't actually know whether the upper level of their houses would keep functioning as normal if flooding happens in their road (ie they could just stay put for the duration - provided they were well stocked-up with food, etc and had carried it upstairs).

What are the answers to these "Is it possible to just carry on living upstairs for the duration if need be?" questions.?

If things were like this then you could easily move upstairs but forget about using any modern conveniences. You would need your own portable gas stove to cook on, the toilets would be unusable so think more about buckets for the duration, and not being able to use any electrics. Think camping upstairs at minimum. If you had a flat roof you could move up there and then be rescued if necessary. In fact that might be the best place to be as long as you can get all your supplies up there and under canvas.

greenbee

I was talking to a relative recently who is a civil engineer specialising in flooding (river and tidal to be specific) and it appears that it isn't just he politicians but the civil servants (who tend to be the ones who are around longer) who won't listen, or simply drag their feet making decisions.

As my house is built on old watercress beds, with streams on both sides, flooding is something I need to consider. But it is also built on the highest part of the plot, on a floating concrete raft, with a 12" step up into the house. I'm still considering swapping the jet master for a stove (so I can block the vent under the fireplace) and getting flood proof doors. Unfortunately the boiler is in the garage which is rather lower, but can be protected with sandbags, and the electrics there are all 3' or higher.

nuatha

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I looked at that and thought "Define 'halfway up the walls' " - ie do they mean the height powerpoints are supposed to be up the walls anyway (ie just measured my re-done sockets and they are about 18" up the walls - as per modern regulations) or does he mean "halfway up" (ie more like the 3' or so no-one's sockets are likely to be)?

If they were whatever-this-height up the walls is - would it keep the electrics safe and usable? Do electrics become usable again anyway the second the flood waters recede?

With current methods of construction, the simple answer is no.
It wouldn't be that difficult to change the regulations that govern house construction to make things more flood survivable, however that would not have a major impact on the existing housing stock.
If all electrics ran down walls rather than up or along walls then there would be no electrics below x height, x being the presumed maximum flood depth. With wooden floor boards there tends to be junction boxes below the floor boards so simply moving sockets up a few inches or even three feet would not alter the situation at all. (Modern regulations require sockets to be higher (and light switches lower) as a supposed disability friendly measure).
GreyQueen mentions other adaptions that would make sense. The installation of sealed system underfloor heating would make concrete or stone floors more bearable. Its even possible to make houses float - a recent Grand Designs had a build that was designed to rise with the flood water.
The biggest problem is inertia both of government and of people - if I was stripping out a flooded house I'd be looking at ways to minimise future damage, a lot of people will look to reinstate what they had (and possibly add anti flood measures to the doors) not helped by insurance companies who tend to insist on returning things to the status quo ante. Nor is this helped by politicians who state this is a once in 200 year event (the 2007 Carlisle floods) which helped property prices recover and meant people buying property were lulled into a false sense of security.

pineapple

There was a guy from a team of disaster response veterans on TV yesterday explaining how it was the force of the flood water and floating trees that had seen off that Tadcaster bridge. No really? I thought it was the tooth fairy!
He was back on this morning talking about getting 'walk in reports'. It was clear he was in his element. Definitely the sort of person you might want by your side in a disaster. But not in the pub maybe...;)
Yesterday a local told me that some people around her had water come up though the floor but it was hit and miss and it seemed to be properties with cellars that were affected. Gosh I never thought of that when I assured the insurers that my house couldn't possibly flood! Hopefully I am at sufficient height to avoid that. Plus I don't have a cellar.
Our old bridge is showing signs of damage too. The majority of the village is on the far side and if it closes will have a hefty trip to make the normally short journey to Kirkby Stephen. As for the farmers some have land on both sides of the river.
Tremendous wind all night with some local damage already. Rain just starting.