It's a lot like spacecraft design. If you put in every safety system and backup conceivable, you'll never get it off the ground. At some point you have to sit back and make some decisions and trade-offs against reasonable risks.
Hence, the title of my post.
You have a valid point about "it may not always be money"... but eventually, someone's going to do feasibility and cost analyses on any engineering plan. It will come down to the proverbial bottom line.
With cross-reference to the "rebuilding" thread in OT -- The people can be protected by moving them away from the danger... or, in this case, not allowing them to go back. (I've been hearing stories all week of individual familes deciding to stay where they've been evacuated to, and I expect more -- so a lot of non-return may turn out to be voluntary). That leaves The Big Question phrased this way:
How much can we afford to spend to protect historic buildings?
Current Events » in reply to re: Contingencies and expediency
re: Contingencies and expediency
The whole thread (32 posts)
- My thoughts: Part I
- re: Levees and Floodwalls
- Contingencies and expediency
- Now that I have had more time to read what you wrotew- I see the key issue.
- Notice my post has not laid any blame at any feet, but what are you doing? Springing like a loyal soldier to the defense of your liege.
- SELA
- The storm surge had nothing to do with Ponchatrain(sp) breaching the flood wall
- re: The storm surge had nothing to do with Ponchatrain(sp) breaching the flood wall
- The storm surge had nothing to do with Ponchatrain(sp) breaching the flood wall
- Well considered, well stated...
- re: My thoughts: Part I
- re: Levees and Floodwalls
