Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: goldworldnet who wrote (347232)	8/17/2007 11:34:25 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573898

"Something I don't think is a good idea is that the earth's population is becoming more and more concentrated on coastlines." It isn't new. Humans like to live next to the water. And, sadly, the government encourages it. And when it tries to discourage such actions, it causes a mess. But, if you want to get rid of cities in danger zones, what about San Francisco? Or LA? They are just waiting for the Big One. Not to mention anything in the New Madrid area. Have you considered all the cities close to rivers that are just a really heavy rain away from being washed away? And, you know, sooner or later a major hurricane will hit NYC. If you think NOLA is vulnerable, it is even worse for the Big Apple. And hurricanes have hit there, several have come close in the last century. The difference is that NOLA has at least some preparation, NYC has none. So, should LA be abandoned? The longer we put it off, the greater the damage to the national economy when the Big One pops. Or NYC? The fact of the matter is many of our largest cities are in danger zones. And some of the dangers are pretty extreme.