Olin Lathrop wrote:

> Probably many cities are vulnerable if you look well past human
> lifespans. How many major world cities would not expect to see a
> significant natural disaster in a 1000 years?  Certainly not San
> Francisco, Los Angeles, Naples, or Tokyo.

I'd never have expected to read "major world cities" and "Naples" in one=20
sentence :)

I think if you go down to the "world" level of Naples, Italy, there are=20
many cities that don't expect a significant natural disaster. Naples has=20
only 1M habitants and besides that not much world significance, so you'd=20
have to include all cities with 1M+ habitants. Quite a few of them out=20
there...

In Germany there are Berlin, Hamburg and M=FCnchen. I don't think any of=20
these expects a significant natural disaster -- unless the sea level=20
rises significantly, in which case Hamburg probably is affected.

In Brazil, there are Bras=EDlia, Rio de Janeiro, S=E3o Paulo, and a number=
=20
of less known cities (around ten or so, I think). I'm not aware of any=20
significant natural disaster waiting for any of them (of course, again=20
with the exception of possible significant sea level rise which would=20
affect the cities near the ocean -- of the three listed above, that's=20
only Rio de Janeiro).

Gerhard

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.