[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

I never denied that your proposed solution was innovative, or that it would work -- I just said that it would be very expensive to use for a whole coast. There are all sorts of contingencies that we could prepare for, if we had unlimited resources. As resources are limited, we have to weigh benefits against costs. Tsunamis cost a lot -- but they might not occur for thousands of years, so the benefit of mitigating the effects of one might never accrue. The potential benefits would be greater near population centres; so it might be economically feasible to place buoyant flood roads along the coast near cities.

My solution? Live on high ground.

[timer]

High ground? Yes, but roughly 3/4 of all populations live within 30 miles of an ocean shore; as lung fish we emerged from the ocean long ago, still have an ocean current inside : our pulsating blood system. Thus the vast majority will remain close to our original marine "home". The tsunami of 12/26/5 was a clear warning : be prepared(boy scout)or DIE. Katrina taught 2 lessons : 300 years of geological siltation and the self-reliant lived, those who waited for government "help" suffered and died. How would you feel as governor of a coastal state if your whole coastline was wiped CLEAN and yet you COULD have built a protective barrier like I suggest? For every dollar spent on it you'd save a $1000 worth of real estate and millions of lives. Oh well, I guess it's evolution's way....