(September 22, 2017 at 9:54 am)Clueless Morgan Wrote:(September 22, 2017 at 9:36 am)pocaracas Wrote: From the height of the water in the pictures (which seems different on the outside and the inside), I'd say it went over.
If that's the case her protection might have been somewhat effective if there hadn't been 9 feet of water. She still might have gotten water infiltration through the gaps in the bottom but it wouldn't have been as much because the water would have taken longer to seep in between the gaps.
Quote:The best option is for city planners to not allow building in flood prone areas. While you're at it, also disallow building in tornado prone areas.
Politicians? [i]I'm laughing at that suggestion. You just suggested relocation the population of the entire Midwest and huge portions of the Eastern and southern seaboards. While your at it, why not throw in earthquake zones which encompasses the entire western seaboard, areas prone to bad snow storms which take out the rockies states and all of the most northern states, all states that get hit by Hurricanes and you wipe out the rest of the Eastern seaboard... So where are you suggesting these hundreds of millions of people move? Portugal?
(And before you say yes, think of what 300 million people moving to Portugal would do it.)
[/i]
LOL! 300 million people in Portugal would make it sink!
Btw, Portugal is also prone to earthquakes... it just so happens that the last one that did any kind of destruction was some 250 years ago.
But... areas that get hit and need to rebuild every 5 years or so should be no-build zones.
And I didn't suggest relocating anyone.... just stop building new stuff there... let the old buildings decay and the people leave of their own accord.
I'm pretty sure not all the Midwest and southern seaboards get flooded every 5 years or so...