The Storm by Van Heerden - Book Report/Review Example

Review of Storm by Ivor van Heerden Ivor van Heerden is a smooth writer who speaks his mind through literature. He was born in Johannesburg, South Africa. He came to Louisiana in 1977, to do a research on coastal marine. He played a major role in the formation of the LSU Hurricane center. Furthermore, he is the director of the Study of Public Health Impacts of Hurricanes center. He was an associate professor of Civil engineering at LSU. The author holds a PhD in marine science attained at LSU; his research focuses on the Atchafalaya River Delta (Heerden, 12). Most individuals in the country and the university appreciate the work of the author specifically. He is currently working on a research that involves disaster preparation. In addition to, the author is working on the coastal geomorphology and managing the environment. Dr. van Heerden tried to improve the scientific understanding of individuals on how the wetlands of Louisiana shield New Orleans from Hurricanes. He sensitized citizens on the importance of having systems that could reduce the damage done by hurricanes. The co-author Mike Bryan has been involved in other works of literature. This includes books like Cal Ripken's bestselling autobiography and The Afterword. Overview of the Storm The Storm, explains the incidences that happened when Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. The author narrates what went wrong the day the Hurricane Katrina hit the coast of America. Van Heerden clarifies what went wrong in his book, The Storm. Hurricane Katrina was the most dangerous disaster to hit America (Heerden, 12). The author gives an account that determined the source of the problem. In the book, he talks about how corrupt politicians had ignored to act on the calls for a disaster. Technical terms used in the book may hinder readers from getting the point drive by the author. On the contrary, he manages to relate the story for better understanding by the ordinary citizen. An informative book sheds light on the most destructive disaster to hit the U.S. The book begins with the author explaining that there was a disturbance in the Caribbean. The author had an exclusive reasoning on the Katrina, magnified by the media. The government played an important role in the Hurricane Katrina. They sensitized the citizen on the looming danger that caused by the storm. The government stressed out that, there were no preparations on the Hurricane. They also argued that there was a high level of incompetence among individuals. The individuals have no skill and experience of handling the storm. The book in general talks about the devastating effects of the Hurricane Katrina. The hurricane destroyed property worth millions in New Orleans. Some scientists feared for the lives of individuals in the area. They had predicted that the Katrina would cause great damage in New Orleans. The hurricane had developed in the coastal region of the United States of America. It strengthened at the Gulf of Mexico at headed to the coast of Louisiana, which is a very vulnerable coast (Heerden, 17). The author was among the specialists in disaster management and research. In the last ten years before the disaster, he had warned individuals of the Hurricane Katrina. He used every megaphone available to him to warn individuals of the disaster. August 29th, 2005, the disaster stroke and it dawned upon the author that his worries had come to reality. Van Heerden believes that it was a preventable disaster. He pressurized the government, FEMA and other stakeholder to address the issue. He used the media as a platform to sensitize the issue. It was because he wanted a better society. Television stations interviewed him frequently to get his view on the matter. Newspaper and other forms of print media interviewed him too. It opened an opportunity and made Van Heerden become the leader of Team Louisiana. The main aim of the team was to find out what happened on the day and try learning from the mistakes of New Orleans. The experience made Van Heerden determine the levees did not protect New Orleans. He was the former coastal restoration chief and he led his team through the city. The search through the homes was to find battery- powered clocks (Heerden, 22). The team had experienced and they knew that identified the small issues that caused major harm. The clocks show why a disaster like Hurricane Katrina occurred. The clocks stopped and it meant that water had filled the homes. Van Heerden states that the data was crucial to the forensic study. The abused wetlands surrounding the city had could not be protected by the levees. The author knew why many individuals were uncooperative when told to evacuate. He also approximated that the number of homes that were likely to be destroyed with the Hurricane Katrina. He challenged the government to build an engineering plan that would help Louisiana against the storms. The plan meant to protect individuals and their property against the disaster of Hurricane Katrina. He explains that the plans will play their roles if the politicians played their roles. In my argument, I feel that politicians and other top officials are incompetent. It is because they allowed the disaster to take place despite the warnings from the author. The Corps of Engineers did not play their role correctly and it resulted in a disaster. Van Heerden helped the department of Civil and Environmental engineering design, computer models used to surge the storm. The model worked effectively during the Hurricane Katrina to help surge the storm (Heerden, 35). He gathered evidence that showed the U.S. Army Corps were wrong to claim the system failed. Experienced engineers placed the system and the author proved it did not fail. U.S. Army claimed that the system in New Orleans had failed because it was; it handled a bigger load than intended. The engineers designed the flood system in New Orleans scantily. In my opinion, the engineering failure of the some individuals led to the devastating disaster. He used the office he held to carry out the investigations that revealed the failure of the levees. He led his team to detect the faults in the design of the hurricane protection system, which contributed, to destruction of property. In his book, he tries to convince the government to accept the liability of the destruction of the hurricane. Further investigations revealed that the floodgates collapsed before the levels of water rose (Heerden, 42). The levees breached their roles because they were supposed to withstand the floods. The approach by Van Heerden is based on science and he narrates human failure was the reason the Hurricane was disastrous. He claims that success determines the civic will of individuals and effective political leadership. Van Heerden is a courageous individual who spoke his mind without fear of criticism. The administrators of LSU were worried that Van Heerden would make enemies, with the various stakeholders involved in protecting the city against hurricanes. In relation to that, they prevented the author to speak in the name of the institution. The prevention of the author did not stop him from stressing the problems of the system. The governor insisted that Van Heerden should continue to lead the team of experts in researching what went wrong. LSU attempted to discredit his scholarship arguing that marine experts cannot address hurricane issues. The institution threatened to fire him that if he testified on the failure of the levee system. The soft-spoken expert testified on various lawsuits and he got himself fired. In his defense, Van Heerden narrates that he has never claimed to be an engineer. He has worked closely with the experts in the field of engineering. His team had concluded that the system had failed because of human error. In the book he narrates that all the evidence have been proved to be true. He wrote that, he had helped to develop the center for hurricanes at the university. It was the largest center for experts that deals with hurricanes. The criticisms surprised him yet the center he helped form was multinational. The center does research on storms and the most effective ways of dealing with them (Heerden, 52). Individuals at the center noticed that the storm had a huge impact on the society. The affected individuals did not have a voice to accuse anyone. The author would have done more to save the city if he knew of the dangers that were coming Katrina had given the concerned stakeholders a chance to make up for their mistakes. Nature has given individuals a second chance to build up a system that will protect the city in the future. Hurricane Katrina showed a lot weakness in the levees and floodwalls in the city (Heerden, 62). The next a hurricane hits New Orleans; there should be effective systems in place. Most individuals will come back to the city. Individuals will come back to the city once working structures are set. Conclusion In conclusion, on a personal view, the author and his team knew the destruction the Hurricane would bring. He and his expert colleagues developed computer models that would show the risks involved with a storm. He narrates about how a preventable disaster ended up becoming a reality. According to me, bureaucrats and politician are incompetent because they allowed the disaster to happen. The author fuses the technical details of his scientific explanation and develops a thrilling encounter with the Hurricane Katrina. He integrates the events that happened with the stakeholders involved in assumptions of effective systems. Personally, The Storm, sheds lights on the human errors that lead to the destruction of one of the greatest city in America. Work cited Heerden, Ivor Van, and Mike Bryan. The Storm: What Went Wrong and Why during Hurricane Katrina. New York: Viking, 2006. Print. Read More