chrisbell-nottheweatherman

Good point!

I don't think anyone has anything other than praise for the emergency services - the questions more revolve around EA resources.

Increased demand for bottled water when they're offering it in Gloucester for free is so easily anticipated that to say that they were caught-out by the demand is ridiculous, IMO.

Update from the BBC website on the water situation: Gloucestershire Chief Constable says that best posible scenario is 7-day wait for mains water, but could be as much as 14 days. Bowsers and tanks are being provided, as is bottled water (although according to my father, who listened to Radio 5 Live coming-home from work, Tesco slipped-up badly by offering free bottled water in Gloucester as part of the relief effort, then running-out and having to send for another artic truck-full, because they were caught-out by the level of demand! )

Raining steadily here now (approx. 3-4 miles SW of Norwich).

There have been scare stories about no water provision of any sort (presumably not even bowsers) for 14 days, though (read back through dogs32's posts for evidence of this). You and I are lucky, we are not immediately affected, and can therefore look at this calmly and rationally. If we were in the thick of it, however, I'd suggest that we might be more easily thrown by reporting of that sort.

Thanks for that. I suspect that the general sensationalism of the news media has led to a situation where, as you say, the difference between how long it will be before mains supply is back to normal, and how long people will have to go without any sort of emergency supply, has become muddled. Certainly, if the water companies were so incompetent that they were unable to provide any emergency supplies for two weeks, then there could be major disease outbreaks. Most of these, admittedly would only seriously affect vulnerable groups, but there are some water-borne diseases (cholera and typhoid spring to mind) where just being generally healthy is no protection. Epidemics in manyparts of the UK, especially the capital during the mid-19th C show that.

To me you don't sound bloody-minded at all - accuracy is surely important here?

If (and let us hope it is still an "if" and not a "when") London floods to whatever extent, then things will happen in terms of flood defence and making sure that the EA have the necessary planning budget. The Government cannot ignore water lapping around the entrance to Parliament. As for the Jet Stream, an article I was linked to regarding the atmosphere and Hadley/Walker Cells Explanation of El Nino explains that the beakdown of Pacific Ocean Walker Cells due to El Nino events causes more westerly winds at high tropospheric altitudes, thus causing extra wind shear and more low-pressure areas. No mention of the Jet Stream at all.

I know I said I'd leave this thread, but just to hopefully console "dogs32" - the Mail website is saying three days without water, not 7-14. If that were the case then heads would surely have to roll, as people would be dying of dehydration and water-borne diseases.

Hmmm, good point regarding declaring a state of emergency; my thought assumed that this would be much more than a purely symbolic act. How many times do we see Governments scrapping agencies or bodies that later are proven to be missed badly when the chips are down? Sorry, will withdraw from this thread forthwith.

Sorry, I didn't mean to contradict what you said, other than the fact that I'm not certain that rainwater is sterile - how can it be when it can contain debris as large as frogs (has been recorded)? My mention of water butts was in response to someone who mentioned that they had plenty of rainwater in their water butt: I know I'm badly overreacting, but I was worried that someone geting worried by the lack of drinking water might put two and two together and make five. Just to re-iterate, I know you didn't say anything about using water collected in a butt. As for the survival situation argument, I agree that one can purify, filter and provide clean drinking water; however, when we watch a Ray Mears-type doing it, we must remember that he and his fellow survival experts are just that: they are experts and they also have survival kit with them. One poster here mentioned that they were unable to boil water as their kettle was their only means of doing so, and, with the impending loss of electricity, that will become as useful as the proverbial chocolate fireguard. As for chemical sterilisation; how are an average family supposed to acheive this whilst not contaminating their drinking water from a chemical point of view? I see the article you linked-to suggests many things, (how many first-aiders have Tincture of Iodine?) the only one of which I can imagine the average household would have would be bleach, and that is so potentially dangerous if a mistake is made with the amount added that, unless people are extremely careful to measure both bleach and water accurately, it could well do more harm than good. Like it or not, most of us do not have such equipment or chemicals as we (not unreasonably IMO) assume that we will have a safe drinking-water supply - even if the mains becomes contaminated, the water company involved normally provide bowsers or large containers of clean water. The fact that they have so far been unable to do so (although it appears that my local water company, Anglian Water will soon, along with others, be providing an emergency supply) is yet another sign of how exceptional and unprecedented this situation is. All I'm saying is that it's better to go thirsty for 12-18 hours (which is possible, though most unpleasant) until emergency supplies arrive, rather than to panic and start drinking water that may be bacteriologically contaminated, or pouring bleach into water haphazardly and risk poisoning oneself.

Well, as I'm a Brit like you, I don't know who FEMA are! I agree that it's all been decentralised, but surely common sense must show that this is exceptional and that national Government must do more than to ask Benn to say a few words and the PM to say that the Local Authorities are getting the money they need. There needs to be more coordinated action. As you say, when it comes to the political stuff, nothing's new, but IMO to turn this into a PR opportunity by demanding a public enquiry whilst people are still being rescued and whilst many thousands face dangers from enteric diseases such as typhoid and possibly even cholera if the water situation isn't sorted quickly with regards to a clean supply is tasteless, tactless and a poor reflection on Cameron. I hoped that he might have been a halfway decent man, but this, unfortunately, would suggest otherwise. Let us just hope that the potential effects of this are not as great as they could potentially be. Best of British luck to those in difficulty, and let's hope that we are more prepared next time.

I am very worried about some of the advice on here regarding water. I'm not a water expert, but I would dispute the idea that rainwater is sterile, and I would strongly urge people not to drink from water butts (not saying that anyone on here would, but it's worth mentioning) as stagnant water can be bacteriologically nasty. With the amount of sewage in the water, allied to the warm temperatures, care must be taken not to allow any floodwater to enter the body via nose or mouth, as many bacteria that cause very severe gastric illnesses like nothing better than sewage-ridden water in which to multiply. The sheer scale of this seems rather overwhelming to see in the papers and on TV news - why the Government haven't declared a national emergency I don't know. This seems to be exacerbated by the lack of troops at home to render assistance. Regrettably, Mr Cameron seems to be using this dreadful situation as a means of scoring political points - why he thinks that he should hamper rescue efforts by visiting affected areas to be photographed striding through flood water in his wellies when even the PM realised that the situation required him to be in Westminster and that sending Hilary Benn was probably better is also beyond my comprehension. What good is the guy doing asking for an enquiry this early? That should be left for much, much later, after the floods have receded and people are safe and rehoused.

Actually, reverting to dogs' original question, I thought that only cumulonimbus clouds could produce lightning, yet, in the Guide to...Clouds, it states that lightning can be produced by cumulostratus as well. How come?

I'm sure profanity isn't allowed here, so all I will say is: that's scary!

Not the ever-mimickable Francis Wilson?

Skies have cleared here in the last three-quarters of an hour - almost no cloud here apart from what I think is cirrostratus to the NW. Terribly sad about the lady with the cats; my heart goes out to her.

I was thinking about the stuff that had affected Gloucestershire etc., but now looking at the radar again, you're right, it's a south-east to north-west movement, so it does look like you're in the clear.

I'm afraid to say that you've yet to get the second batch - the curl of cloud and associated rain is passing over you, and you're currently in the "eye".

What caused the intensity of the rain to increase as it headed North? Almost as if it meant to unload more misery on those previously badly affected

Thanks chaps!

Yes, by the looks of it you'd better batton (batten?) down the hatches. :o

The heaviest of the rain has now passed here, and it did seem quite heavy, but, on comparing the radar echoes of what seemed like heavy rain here (green colours at worst with a hint of yellow) to the reds, pinks and whites that many of you have had, and on seeing the news and photos posted here, I feel very lucky. :o Hope everyone here is OK and relatively flood-free.

Same here south-west of Norwich.