09-21-2014, 05:20 AM
All the areas you cite are under far less threat than living on the flanks of an active volcano, on a square-mile by square-mile basis, AND, they serve vital purposes and needs to our society - to wit, agricultural and commercial etc. Puna, OTOH, is irrelevant to the greater USA, a curiosity, perhaps, but nothing more.
An apples to apples comparison would be people insisting on building in a known avalanche pathway, or arroyo. What you guys are contemplating, is like trying to figure out how to ski in an avalanche-prone, snow-filled bowl, and how to get rescued, on other folks' dime, when the inevitable happens.
It's a VOLCANO - live on the side of some other mountain, or.....!!!
Ono - So Fast - So Tasty!
An apples to apples comparison would be people insisting on building in a known avalanche pathway, or arroyo. What you guys are contemplating, is like trying to figure out how to ski in an avalanche-prone, snow-filled bowl, and how to get rescued, on other folks' dime, when the inevitable happens.
It's a VOLCANO - live on the side of some other mountain, or.....!!!
quote:
Originally posted by snorkle
OnoOno asks;
"Why don't people just give up on, or at least moderate, the idea of living on the flanks of one of the world's most-active volcano"
snork answers with confidence;
That's easy; for the same reason people don't give up on living on the San Andreas Fault, Ocean's edge, Tornado alley, or Detroit. OK, well, maybe Detroit. The reason is they like it.
As far as "moderate", I think that's what CSgray suggested;
"It is now very clear that the solution to meeting needs in lower Puna is to allow small nimble, low infrastructure businesses to meet the needs of the people."
Ono - So Fast - So Tasty!
Ono - So Fast - So Tasty!