Nepal Flash Floods

Reminds me of how devastating it was to hear about the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. After the winter break, school had to pause their lesson plans and that was when I knew how serious it was. Having recently revisited that (and also watched a Mount St Helen’s eruption documentary), there really are no words to describe how tragic all these natural disasters are and how safe the Greater Toronto Area is in comparison.

A terrible tragedy

Shaquille Oatmeal said:

This is absolutely terrifying.

Click to expand...

This is absolutely nuts, I don't think flash flood covers even a fraction of what that truly was

It really was, like that scene from The Day After Tomorrow

This could have easily been prevented if they had a world leader who was smart and knew what to do like Donald Trump. If elected there he would have looked at the area and called up his top engineer friends and would have been like that area is gonna get flooded soon lets do something about it. I feel bad for Nepal for not having Trump or someone with a similar mindset to him.

greensquare said:

This could have easily been prevented if they had a world leader who was smart and knew what to do like Donald Trump. If elected there he would have looked at the area and called up his top engineer friends and would have been like that area is gonna get flooded soon lets do something about it. I feel bad for Nepal for not having Trump or someone with a similar mindset to him.

Click to expand...

You need fresh Meds I assume?

Another flash flood in the Gran Canyon killed a few but nothing like Nepal.

Reec said:

Reminds me of how devastating it was to hear about the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. After the winter break, school had to pause their lesson plans and that was when I knew how serious it was. Having recently revisited that (and also watched a Mount St Helen’s eruption documentary), there really are no words to describe how tragic all these natural disasters are and how safe the Greater Toronto Area is in comparison.

Click to expand...

That's a very good point. The GTA has very catastrophic natural disasters. In the 1950's, Hurricane Hazel fucked our shit up, but that was 70 year ago, and nothing remotely similar has happened. Sure, we could get an ice storm like the one that fucked up Montreal/Quebec in the late 90s, and sure, maybe a tornado....but by and large, we're in a relatively safe space when it comes to these types of events.

wrath of nature always wins.

Shaquille Oatmeal said:

Here we go with the unnecessary China bashing again.
The disaster unfolded rapidly in minutes and as far as I know, China and Nepal do not have any advanced data sharing agreements.
Not to mention, it must be extremely difficult to track and accurately predict such disasters in the vast, remote and difficult Himalayan terrain.

Click to expand...

So when facts are pointed out you claim that it is "unnecessary china bashing." Crazy to me how people are willing to give the CCP a pass on almost everything and defend them just because they are antithetical to the west. Here are some facts regarding this disaster.

Fact #1 - the Nepalese officials have continually asked for increased information sharing from the Chinese side months earlier regarding joint-risk mitigation, glacial lakes and hazard mapping.

Fact #2 - China didn’t issue any warning when Gyirong district was struck 7 minutes earlier. Minutes count during natural disasters. They didn’t think to even warn the Gyirong port (where there are thousands of employees and tourists) and the other downstream communities.

Fact #3 – The CCP had warning signs days earlier "including melt water that had turned visibly brown and signs of a crack propagating into the surrounding bedrock slope." They had been practicing evacuation drills 3 weeks earlier. You can look up the Gyirong District 2026 Glacial Lake Outburst Disaster Emergency Evacuation Drills. They knew this was a possibility, if not probable and still didn’t send warning signals when minutes count.

Fact #4 - Power China was constructing a hydroelectric dam in the path of this river. This is a fragile geological environment that already has seismic activity - blasting rock, digging tunnels – what do you think is gonna happen?

Fact #5 - Researchers were warning as early as 2017 that the Gyirong Zangbo corridor would be highly susceptible (61% of mapped area) to glacier-related debris. Chinese scientists that studied railways construction in this area estimated that about 44% of the area is categorized as “extremely high susceptibility to failure.” Yet the CCP builds it anyways. Complete negligence by the CCP where they just build these vanity projects quickly as a facade and ignore the risks. Why do you think all their bridges always collapse?

Fact #6 - All news regarding this is censored on Weibo and only Chinese state media is allowed to report on this incident. Thus the ridiculous initial death toll claiming only “3 people” dead according to Chinese state media. The CCP is a complete joke.

Given these facts, you think the CCP is acting responsibly and this is just "unnecessary china bashing?"

richaceg said:

wrath of nature always wins.

Click to expand...

It is the one lesson that the CCP never learns

Shaquille Oatmeal said:

Quick AI overview. Looks like as usual most of your statements are false.

#	Fact/claim actually being made	Verdict	Correction
1	Nepalese officials had previously sought increased information sharing with China regarding joint risk mitigation, glacial hazards and hazard mapping.	🟢 TRUE	A Nepal–China meeting took place on May 27, months before the disaster, specifically discussing stronger cooperation on floods, weather and glacier-related hazards, including joint risk reduction, glacial-lake inventories and hazard mapping. (Reuters)
2	China knew about the disaster seven minutes earlier and failed to warn Gyirong Port and downstream communities.	FALSE	The precise claim that authorities had seven minutes of confirmed advance knowledge of the impending catastrophic flood and failed to warn people is not established by the available evidence. The disaster reaching one location before another does not itself prove authorities knew what was happening early enough to issue an effective warning.
3	Authorities had warning signs days earlier, including brown meltwater and cracks in surrounding rock.	🟢 TRUE	Post-disaster satellite analysis identified precursor signs including accelerated glacier movement, sediment-rich/brown meltwater and new cracks in surrounding rock. (The Australian)
3	Therefore, the CCP knew the collapse was probable or imminent.	FALSE	This conclusion does not follow from the existence of precursor signs. A hazard indicator or instability sign is not the same thing as a scientifically established prediction that a catastrophic collapse is imminent.
3	Authorities conducted an evacuation drill three weeks earlier specifically demonstrating they knew this disaster was likely to occur.	FALSE	Even assuming the drill itself occurred, a disaster drill demonstrates preparedness for a possible class of hazards, not knowledge that this particular glacier collapse was probable or imminent. The conclusion being drawn is unsupported.
3	Because they knew the collapse was coming, authorities negligently failed to issue warnings when minutes mattered.	FALSE	The necessary premise—that authorities knew the specific collapse was imminent and had a verified opportunity to warn downstream communities—has not been established.
4	POWERCHINA was constructing a hydroelectric dam in the area, therefore construction activity is relevant to or implicated in this glacier/rock collapse.	FALSE	This is irrelevant information used to imply causation. Even if a dam project existed and involved blasting or tunnelling, that does not establish that construction caused or contributed to this collapse. The disaster has been attributed to a glacier/rock collapse, and no evidence currently establishes the alleged construction-to-collapse causal link. (The Wall Street Journal)
4	The Himalayas are geologically fragile and seismically active; therefore blasting and tunnelling explain what happened.	FALSE	The geological fragility may be true, but it is not evidence connecting construction activity to this event. It is a non sequitur: true background information does not prove the implied cause.
5	Researchers had previously identified the Gyirong/Zangbo region as highly susceptible to glacier-related debris flows and slope failures.	🟢 TRUE	The broader proposition is supported: Himalayan terrain in this region has long been recognized as highly vulnerable to glacier- and slope-related hazards. The 2026 disaster itself resulted from a glacier/rock collapse in precisely this type of steep, unstable mountain environment. (The Australian)
5	Exactly 61% of the mapped area was highly susceptible to glacier-related debris.	FALSE	The exact numerical claim has not been sufficiently established from the evidence currently available here. Under the strict standard, an unverified statistic is false as presented until supported by the original study.
5	Exactly 44% of the area was classified as having "extremely high susceptibility to failure."	FALSE	Same problem: the precise statistic and its context need verification from the underlying research. Until established, it is false as presented.
5	The CCP built infrastructure anyway and therefore demonstrated "complete negligence."	FALSE	This is an opinion/legal characterization, not an established fact. Building infrastructure in a high-risk region does not by itself prove negligence. Evidence would be required showing ignored risk assessments, inadequate engineering, violations, or a causal connection to the disaster.
5	Chinese projects are "vanity projects" built quickly as a facade.	FALSE	Political characterization/opinion, not a fact.
5	Chinese bridges "always collapse."	FALSE	An obviously false absolute claim. Chinese bridges do not "always" collapse.
6	All news about the disaster was censored on Weibo.	FALSE	Evidence supports significant information control and censorship in Tibet, but "all news" is an absolute claim that is not supported. Reporting indicates that information and imagery about the disaster did circulate on Chinese platforms, even though sensitive or unverified content was controlled. (UOL Notícias)
6	Only Chinese state media was allowed to report on the incident.	FALSE	Independent reporting in Tibet was heavily restricted, but that is not the same as establishing that literally only state media was allowed to report anything about the incident. (The Guardian)
6	The initial Chinese death toll of three proves the CCP deliberately lied or concealed the real death toll.	FALSE	An inaccurate early casualty figure does not itself prove deliberate deception. Early death counts in catastrophic disasters can change dramatically as search and recovery operations proceed. China later reported substantially higher confirmed deaths and missing persons. (Reuters)
6	"The CCP is a complete joke."	FALSE	Pure opinion/insult, not a factual claim.

Click to expand...

Twisting words around and purposely misconstruing my arguments seems to be a characteristic for you when defending communist governments. Anyways, I can go through these one by one because this is easy to debunk.

1. Given that Nepal shares a border with occupied Tibet, you would think the CCP would engage in greater info sharing protocols with its neighbour to mitigate possible risks, loss of human life, etc.

2. China’s past and present behaviour where it has withheld information to the detriment of its own citizens and other countries, it wouldn’t surprise anyone if this was the case here, i.e. look up how the Zhengzhou Floods and the C word (that gets you banned if you mention it in the wrong forum here) were handled by authorities when they knew the truth beforehand and failed to release that information to the public.

3. Reread. Never said it was imminent. Possible and probable is what I said. 61% having a high susceptibility to debris flow, is probable not imminent. But when there are increased warning signs days earlier and info is not shared, is that the actions of a responsible government?

4. Where did I say the construction of the dam caused this disaster? But it definitely has a negative impact regarding landslides. Here are some of the impacts of dam construction within this region (an AI summary for you as you would think this would be common knowledge that fucking around with nature too much might be bad when nature hits back – but maybe this is not so common knowledge to you)

• Yes, dam construction, rock blasting, and tunnelling significantly contribute to the severity, frequency, and destructive power of landslides and mudslides in the Himalayas. While climate change accelerates glacial melt and triggers extreme weather, aggressive infrastructure development acts as a massive human-made force multiplier on an already fragile ecosystem. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]
• The Himalayas are the youngest and most tectonically active mountains in the world. Intensive engineering projects disrupt their delicate stability through several distinct mechanisms: [1]
• Rock Blasting and Slope Instability
  • Micro-Fracturing: The extensive use of dynamite for blasting through mountains to build roads, dams, and tunnels sends severe shockwaves through the surrounding rock. This creates micro-fractures, loosening otherwise solid geological formations and making topsoil and bedrock highly susceptible to gravity, rain, and seismic triggers. [1, 2, 3, 4]
  • Toe Cutting: Constructing dams and wide mountain roads often requires cutting into the base (the "toe") of a slope. Removing this natural structural support makes the upper mountainside highly unstable, frequently resulting in massive landslides during monsoon seasons or tremors. [1, 2]
• Tunnelling and Underground Disruption
  • Altering Hydrology: Long-distance tunnelling—vital for Run-of-the-River (ROR) hydropower projects—frequently intersects natural geological faults. This punctures underground aquifers, shifts groundwater movement, and drains internal moisture that holds rock masses together. [1, 2]
  • Land Subsidence: The hollow spaces left by tunnelling can cause the ground above to buckle and sink. A prominent example is the town of Joshimath in India, where extensive regional tunnelling and infrastructure development were heavily linked to severe land subsidence and the cracking of hundreds of homes. [1, 2, 3]
• "Weaponizing" Sediment and Muck
  • Unmanaged Debris: Tunnelling and blasting generate millions of tons of excavated loose rock, soil, and "muck". To save costs, this debris is frequently dumped directly into riverbeds or along steep slopes. [1, 2]
  • The "Debris Event" Cascade: When heavy rains, a cloudburst, or a glacial collapse occurs—such as the catastrophic August 2026 Nepal-Tibet border floods—this loose excavated muck is picked up by rushing water. This transforms an ordinary flood into a dense, high-velocity mudslide. [1, 2, 3, 4]
• Reservoir-Induced Pressures
  • Hydrostatic Weight: Artificial reservoirs created by dams store immense volumes of water over active fault lines. The sheer weight increases pore-water pressure in the surrounding hillsides, which can lubricate internal rock joints and trigger deep-seated landslides. [1]

When landslides or avalanches hit these heavily built river valleys, a dangerous "cascade effect" is created. The debris can choke narrow valleys, destroy concentrated hydropower infrastructure, trap workers in tunnels, and block rivers to form volatile landslide lakes that eventually burst with catastrophic energy downstream.

5. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34822886/
The study above is from 4 Chinese scientists back in 2022. Its right there in the abstract – “Through the analysis, it can be seen that over 61% of the study areas have a high susceptibility to debris flow, requiring an intensive attention from the local government.”

Plenty of research papers and models discussing this topic.

https://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/189254/1/WRAP_Theses_Qui_2024.pdf

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/16/2/356

Another study back in 2024 trying to assess landslide risks specifically within the China/Nepal corridor of Gyirong.

“The spatial distribution of the 223 potential landslides that we identified is similar to that of historical landslides. There are fifteen potential landslides that pose a direct threat to traffic arteries, mainly in the Renbu Canyon section of the China–Nepal Highway and the proposed China–Nepal Railway (Pekucuo to Gyirong County section).”

It is all a façade and used as propaganda to sway weak minds like yours. There is a laundry list of examples of fancy infrastructure projects failing within China and abroad. There is a reason why China floods spectacularly every year and it isn’t because they get a abnormal amount of rainfall than anywhere else. But just on the topic of bridges, here are some of the fancy mega bridges collapsing over the last year and change. And these are just the ones we know about.

• Hongqi Bridge, Sichuan
• Houzihe Bridge, Guizhou
• Yellow River Bridge, Qinghai
• Yuegang Bridge, Jiangsu
• Shangluo Bridge, Shaanxi

Additionally, the Zhangmu port on the Nepal/Tibet border was completely wiped away in 2015 from a landslide during an earthquake. Yet they build another port in the same region?

Complete negligence and disregard for nature and human life when all the geological assessments say “Don’t Build Here.” But they just build it quickly anyways and post some pictures about it and the shills and other simpletons just eat it up.

6. I realize that you have absolutely 0 understanding of the CCP and its state media apparatus and so you quibble over words to try to make an argument. There may be a few odd posts that get through and posted within the Chinese firewall that challenge the CCP narrative and "smear China." However, I promise you if these posts gain any traction and become more heavily circulated, 100% of those posts are removed. I challenge you to go onto Weibo right now and search for any independent news about this disaster that hasn't been sanitized by censorship. Eyewitness accounts are censored all over Chinese social media. Foreign journalists have been denied access unless accompanied by government minders. Guess what happens if a foreign journalist reports something that causes the CCP to lose face. Access is lost at the minimum, i.e. Vivian Wang from NYT.

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/internati...-information-controls-on-tibet_6757139_4.html

Also, it is obvious to anyone looking at the initial CCTV footage of Gyirong port that the death toll is more than 3. Here is your official Chinese state media source a day after the disaster saying 3 people dead. They always try to downplay impacts when it occurs within their borders or they have direct involvement.

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202608/1369172.shtml


Like I said, the CCP is a complete joke. You can go through your little fabricated AI list again and apply the proper verdicts. But you wont and I have a few theories as to why you and others consistently try to run cover for them and other communist regimes.