Unfortunately, Carolʻs reply, as related by HOTPE, was not even correct, as Uruguay actually DOES HAVE EARTHQUAKES, the most recent was a 5.1.... ( https://earthquakes.zone/uruguay ) (always best to check out info, the report Carol was using was actually a scam piece from "internationalliving.com"!)
It would be wonderful to find a place that had no natural dangers, yet that place most likely does not exist, so the question is, what are we willing to cover?
It is interesting that the OP of this thread ONLY listed the eruption hazards for Puna, totally missing the much greater HAZARDS of Ka`u & South Kona eruptions & the fact that even Maui had an eruption in the 1790ʻs.... So my question would be should we cover some, yet not all eruption hazards?
If we do slice the hazards, which hazards are worse, those like Kilauea that have been relatively slow & low volume, or those of Mauna Loa that have been very fast (1950ʻs Hoʻokena flow traveled rift to ocean in ~3.5 hours) and high volume.... should we cover all of the folks in Ka`u & South Kona & North Kona that areas within the lava inundation areas...
How about much of Hilo, covered in the Panaewa flow about 1500 years ago... should that be covered?
Or Kona airport area... covered in the early 1800ʻs.... would the OP state that area should also be left fallow if any damage happened?
Then there is the damage from the 2006 Kiholo Bay earthquake... should our society just abandon those areas as well???
This has been an issue throughout the US, when floods keep inundating Mississippi River towns, Hurricanes revisit Gulf of Mexico areas & such... & up to this point FEMA has covered those (that IS where the rebuild money for lower Puna is coming from... ) FEMA has taken a very conservative (of human constructs) view that rebuilding is an option... esp when buy-out options are more expensive & less practical...
It would be wonderful to find a place that had no natural dangers, yet that place most likely does not exist, so the question is, what are we willing to cover?
It is interesting that the OP of this thread ONLY listed the eruption hazards for Puna, totally missing the much greater HAZARDS of Ka`u & South Kona eruptions & the fact that even Maui had an eruption in the 1790ʻs.... So my question would be should we cover some, yet not all eruption hazards?
If we do slice the hazards, which hazards are worse, those like Kilauea that have been relatively slow & low volume, or those of Mauna Loa that have been very fast (1950ʻs Hoʻokena flow traveled rift to ocean in ~3.5 hours) and high volume.... should we cover all of the folks in Ka`u & South Kona & North Kona that areas within the lava inundation areas...
How about much of Hilo, covered in the Panaewa flow about 1500 years ago... should that be covered?
Or Kona airport area... covered in the early 1800ʻs.... would the OP state that area should also be left fallow if any damage happened?
Then there is the damage from the 2006 Kiholo Bay earthquake... should our society just abandon those areas as well???
This has been an issue throughout the US, when floods keep inundating Mississippi River towns, Hurricanes revisit Gulf of Mexico areas & such... & up to this point FEMA has covered those (that IS where the rebuild money for lower Puna is coming from... ) FEMA has taken a very conservative (of human constructs) view that rebuilding is an option... esp when buy-out options are more expensive & less practical...