View Single Post
  #88 (permalink)  
Old 05-14-2008, 07:40 AM
Herkdriver's Avatar
Herkdriver Herkdriver is offline
Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: St. Louis, Missouri
Posts: 3,504
usa
Herkdriver has a reputation beyond reputeHerkdriver has a reputation beyond reputeHerkdriver has a reputation beyond reputeHerkdriver has a reputation beyond reputeHerkdriver has a reputation beyond reputeHerkdriver has a reputation beyond reputeHerkdriver has a reputation beyond reputeHerkdriver has a reputation beyond reputeHerkdriver has a reputation beyond reputeHerkdriver has a reputation beyond reputeHerkdriver has a reputation beyond repute
Credits: 4,260
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stekim View Post
Good point. Given NO's location having a city there is a given. There is a boat load (pun intended) of commercial traffic on the Mississippi River, flowing into and out of the Gulf of Mexico. There are numerous cities all over the world below sea level. But the reasons for building in those places made the risk acceptable. Had Federal, state and local governments done their jobs, NO would not have flooded.
I disagree. The vast majority of areas below sea level on Earth are located in deserts and/or sparsely inhabited regions.

For example Death Valley in California. Another example is Lake Assal in Africa. This is one of the lowest areas in all of Africa. In this region this water evaporates rapidly because the climate there is one of the hottest and driest on Earth.

New Orleans is a liability waiting to happen. It is surrounded by water and in a Hurricane corridor.

I STRONGLY disagree that the government should invest one red cent there.

It's happened once.

Last edited by Herkdriver; 05-14-2008 at 07:44 AM.
Reply With Quote