Quote:
Originally Posted by undeaf
The reason new orleans was wiped off the map was that it didn't belong on it in the first place. You don't normally see black dots in the light blue regions.
|
People have always lived near water (transportation, resources e.g.). If you look at what was the least affected part of New Orleans, it was the French Quarter which is the original New Orleans. It was built on the highest point for a good reason. But cities expand and do so into more vulnerable areas.
The Sacramento delta region is at a very high risk of the same thing. Many old levees in danger of breaking and the all of the new building in the area near levees means a lot of people at risk should a levee break happen.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11427817/
Levee breaks have happened already:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGP3EFPAJ1.DTL
In response to rlpw's statement that scientists need to completely prove their work - yes they do but it's a constant process. As you hypothesize, set up experiments to prove or disprove said hypothesis, more questions typically get raised and new information is always learned. If you wait for that definitive paper and definitive proof, nothing will ever happen. You have to act with the information you have. There's the chance that things may change. But I think it's important to look at the information that is out there now and work with that.
