Volcanoes and Flood Zones – the same?

Volcanoes and Flood Zones – what’s the difference?

There was a report that hundreds of tourists were “trapped” on an erupting “baby volcano” in Indonesia. “Authorities” were trying to help people get to safety (at someone’s expense). Got me thinking, is there any difference between active volcanoes and flood zones like in Hoboken or any coastal area?

Most people would say something like, “Hey, you knew it was a volcano – and it has the potential to become unsafe – that was the risk you took!”

However, many of those same people cannot see the similarity when they choose to move to places like Hoboken (or any location in close proximity to a body of water that can become dangerous in the right weather situations). “We need help to stop this flooding! Big brother, please give us money and build walls to keep us safe!” is what they clamor.

Perhaps erupting volcanos on a steep landscape might differ in the elements of danger – but flooding swells of water amidst a potpourri of modern urban additives like sewer holes and active power lines is no walk in the park either. But “the city was already there!” some might say. Does that mean that it was a good idea to install dense collections of humans to live there?

Why is it so hard to see they are two peas in a pod? And adopt the “at your own risk” mentality? Probably the same reason big cities are liberal versus their conservative rural counterparts.

volcanoes and flood zones

Leave a Reply

Be the First to Comment!