
Rewriting The Narrative Of Hurricane Katrina
On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans. The storm itself was devastating—but what followed was far worse. The real disaster, many experts argue, wasn't the wind or water, but the collapse of infrastructure, communication and trust in government.
Now, two decades later, National Geographic's Hurricane Katrina: Race Against Time revisits the catastrophe with the benefit of hindsight and the tools of modern technology. Directed by Traci A. Curry and produced by Proximity Media and Lightbox, the 5-part series is a digitally reconstructed case study in systemic failure—an attempt to rebuild not just the timeline, but the public memory of what actually happened.
Technology as a Truth-Telling Tool
I had an opportunity to connect with Ivor van Heerden, the former deputy director of Louisiana State University's Hurricane Center. Ivor is the 'Cassandra' of the Katrina tragedy—he predicted Hurricane Katrina and the catastrophic impact in 2004, only to be ignored.
'This is definitely not a story about a storm,' said van Heerden. 'The trigger, if you will, was a storm—but it was man's folly that led to the catastrophe.'
LSU Hurricane Center Co-founder Ivor Van Heerden discusses events surrounding Hurricane Katrina and ... More other hurricanes during an interview for National Geographic's Hurricane Katrina: Race Against Time. Van Heerden is known for his criticism of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), attributing the 2005 levee failures in New Orleans to their faulty design and execution. With emotional accounts of survivors and immersive archival footage, the series reveals Hurricane Katrina as a disaster that was anything but natural. (National Geographic)
At the time of Katrina, social media was in its infancy. Most people didn't have smartphones. Surveillance footage was grainy or missing altogether. And the digital infrastructure needed to coordinate a large-scale emergency response simply didn't exist.
Fast-forward to 2025, and the tools for documentation and storytelling have changed dramatically. The production team behind Race Against Time used AI-enhanced video restoration, satellite overlays, GIS modeling and high-resolution archival footage to create a real-time, moment-by-moment reconstruction of the disaster's timeline.
'They were banging on my door fairly often,' van Heerden recalled, 'for computer model simulations, data, photographs, my own video imagery.' Those simulations—many developed two decades ago—have taken on new life in the series, contextualizing the levee breaches and helping viewers visualize the scale of the flood.
This technical precision is what transforms the docuseries from reflection to re-examination. Overlaying personal stories with geospatial data and timestamped visuals, the series makes a compelling case: the devastation wasn't random—it was predictable, and preventable.
The Failure Wasn't Just Physical. It Was Digital.
The documentary also highlights how poor coordination and digital blind spots worsened the crisis. Government systems failed to track where people were sheltered. Communications systems collapsed. Rescue missions turned around because of misinformation—such as unconfirmed reports of violence or looting.
'People were told to go to the Superdome and wait for help,' van Heerden said. 'Then the damn roof blew off. And the cavalry didn't come. And the cavalry didn't come. And the cavalry didn't come.'
In one scene, the series deconstructs how the sound of gunfire—interpreted as aggression—was actually a signal for help. 'The SOS signal for a hunter is three shots fired. Boom, boom, boom,' van Heerden explained. 'You want to make a noise so you can be heard. But instead, those shots were misunderstood, and buses turned around.'
It's a stark reminder that signal, context and interpretation are everything—especially in crisis response. It's not enough to have data; you need to understand it, respond to it and trust the systems delivering it.
A Warning for the Future
As we face a new era of climate-driven 'storms on steroids,' van Heerden cautions that Katrina should not be viewed as an isolated failure, but as a warning.
'We need to better understand how hurricanes are going to change given these warm oceans and the warm air,' he said. 'And then the last thing is, it's pretty hard to predict sometimes these storms... we need a lot more research into that.'
That research depends on technology. From atmospheric sensors to predictive modeling, modern science is built on data. And yet, as van Heerden pointed out, the very agencies responsible for this work—like NOAA—are facing cuts. 'You ignore the science at your folly,' he warned. 'Science is a quest for the truth. If you ignore the science, then you won't know the truth—and the folly is yours.'
Beyond Commemoration
Race Against Time is a digital act of reckoning. By combining technology, testimony and survivor narratives, the series offers a framework for how we can revisit past crises—and build more resilient systems for the future.
What Katrina exposed was not just vulnerability to weather, but vulnerability to misinformation, miscommunication and outdated infrastructure. If there's a tech lesson in this story, it's that no amount of forecasting matters if you can't translate data into action—and no tool can replace accountability.
Hurricane Katrina: Race Against Time premiers on National Geographic on July 27. All episodes will be available to stream July 28 on Disney+ and Hulu.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Cellectis to Report Second Quarter 2025 Financial Results on August 4, 2025
NEW YORK, July 28, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Cellectis (the 'Company') (Euronext Growth: ALCLS- NASDAQ: CLLS), a clinical-stage biotechnology company using its pioneering gene-editing platform to develop life-saving cell and gene therapies, today announced that it will report financial results for the second quarter 2025 ending June 30, 2025 on Monday August 4, 2025 after the close of the US market. The publication will be followed by an investor conference call and webcast on Tuesday August 5, 2025 at 8:00 AM ET / 2:00 PM CET. The call will include the Company's second quarter results and an update on business activities. Details for the call are as follows: Dial in information: Domestic: +1-800-343-5172 International: +1-203-518-9856 Conference ID: CLLSQ2 Webcast Link: About Cellectis Cellectis is a clinical-stage biotechnology company using its pioneering gene-editing platform to develop life-saving cell and gene therapies. The company utilizes an allogeneic approach for CAR T immunotherapies in oncology, pioneering the concept of off-the-shelf and ready-to-use gene-edited CAR T-cells to treat cancer patients, and a platform to develop gene therapies in other therapeutic indications. With its in-house manufacturing capabilities, Cellectis is one of the few end-to-end gene editing companies that controls the cell and gene therapy value chain from start to finish. Cellectis' headquarters are in Paris, France, with locations in New York and Raleigh, NC. Cellectis is listed on the Nasdaq Global Market (ticker: CLLS) and on Euronext Growth (ticker: ALCLS). To find out more, visit and follow Cellectis on LinkedIn and X. TALEN® is a registered trademark owned by Cellectis. For further information on Cellectis, please contact: Media contacts: Pascalyne Wilson, Director, Communications, + 33 (0)7 76 99 14 33, media@ Patricia Sosa Navarro, Chief of Staff to the CEO, +33 (0)7 76 77 46 93 Investor Relations contact: Arthur Stril, Chief Financial Officer & Chief Business Officer, investors@ Attachment 20250728_Q2 2025 earnings call announcement_ENGLISHError while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data


Gizmodo
15 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
Nuclear Winter Would Be Even Worse Than We Thought
Despite happening (thankfully) just once in real life, nuclear warfare has long been a staple element of science fiction. Popular depictions of nuclear conflict—from biographic thrillers like Oppenheimer to imagined disasters like The Day After—reflect the understanding that its consequences would be irreversible and catastrophic to modern society. Unsurprisingly, nuclear warfare and its potential repercussions concern scientists as much as fiction writers. In a recent paper published in Environmental Research Letters, researchers at Pennsylvania State University examined how nuclear war might disrupt food security worldwide, focusing specifically on the global production of corn, the most produced grain crop in the world. In the worst-case scenario, nuclear weapons would wreak havoc on our atmospheric systems, gradually cutting our annual corn production by up to 87%, the study warns. For their simulations, the authors considered 38,572 locations for corn production across six different nuclear war scenarios of increasing severity. The simulations took place under nuclear winter conditions, a hypothetical climate scenario following a large-scale nuclear war. During nuclear winters, black carbon from fires triggered by nuclear detonations would fill up the sky, obstructing sunlight. The resulting drop in global temperatures could last for over a decade—long enough to decimate agricultural systems worldwide, according to the scientists. In addition to black carbon, the authors examined the potential UV-B radiation exposure to plants. The Earth's ozone usually blocks this type of radiation, but this protective layer would be weakened in the wake of nuclear war. As UV-B radiation causes DNA damage and obstructs plant photosynthesis, the researchers modeled how overexposure to this energy source could affect the soil-plant-atmosphere system that drives crop growth. The results were disturbing. First, the 'best-case scenario,' a regional nuclear war, would release enough soot into the atmosphere to reduce annual corn production by 7%—which, to be clear, would severely impact the global food system, study lead author and meteorologist Yuning Shi explained in a press release. A global-scale war, on the other hand, would inject a massive 165 million tons of soot into the atmosphere, curbing global corn production by a whopping 80%. That wasn't all; radiation damage 'would peak in years 8 and 9' following the initial detonation of the bomb, causing an additional 7% decrease in corn yields, according to the paper. 'The blast and fireball of atomic explosions produce nitrogen oxides in the stratosphere,' Shi explained. This, in combination with heat-absorbing soot, injects a fiery cycle into the atmosphere that 'rapidly [destroys] ozone, increasing UV-B radiation levels at the Earth's surface.' Thankfully, these are just simulations. They nevertheless 'force us to realize the fragility of the biosphere—the totality of all living things and how they interact with one another and the environment,' Shi said. What's more, the study acts as an early precursor to a more refined, effective response plan for potential disasters, he added. Hopefully, that disaster won't be nuclear—though it could be something like a volcanic eruption, which obstructs sunlight in a similar way and is something we can better prepare for. For example, the paper recommended preparing 'agricultural resilience kits' containing seeds for crops that can grow under cooler conditions. 'These kits would help sustain food production during the unstable years following a nuclear war, while supply chains and infrastructure recover,' said Armen Kemanian, an environmental systems expert and paper senior author, in the same release. But these kits could easily assist food security in areas affected by severe volcanic activity, he added. Natural disasters are beyond our control, save for the preparatory part. A self-inflicted environmental catastrophe and global-scale famine—that's clearly another story. When it comes to nuclear winter, the 'best approach to preventing its devastating effects is to avoid it,' the scientists wrote.


Medscape
15 minutes ago
- Medscape
Medscape 2050: Adam Rodman
Medscape 2050: The Future of Medicine There will come a day, predicts Adam Rodman, MD, a general internist and medical educator at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, when AI systems change disease. That's the day when they can not only diagnose diseases more accurately than humans, but define diseases in ways that only machines can understand. Take heart attacks, for example. Rodman hopes cardiologists will forgive him for pointing out that AI can already detect blocked coronary arteries from an EKG in ways that humans can't. In the not-too-distant future, Rodman believes, medicine will begin redefining more diseases and treatments that are simply not understandable by the human brain. That day isn't here yet, Rodman explains, because today's AI systems are still pretty similar to us. 'They're trained on a human understanding of disease,' he says, 'so even the best models are following the guidelines that we give them.' They mimic human reasoning, albeit a lot faster and using a lot more data. But as new AI models develop, we could reach what Rodman calls 'a nonhuman nosology': our clinical reasoning vs a machines-only thought process. And what happens when those disagree? What does it mean — for both doctors and patients — to trust a computer that we can't understand? Is this the day when doctors are out of a job? Rodman doesn't think so. Because medicine is about more than computation. There are relationships and procedures that can't be replaced. But certain areas of clinical practice will certainly change. 'If you have a job where you can sit down at a computer and interpret most of the data that has already been collected for you to make a decision,' he says, you should start looking over your shoulder. Medicine is going through an 'epistemic shift,' Rodman says, where the parameters of how we think are changing, so it's hard to predict what will come next. But we should all get ready.