🚀 go-pugleaf

Discussions about toxic waste and comments of Chris Allen 
and Carl Porter open a fundamental issue that exceeds bounds 
of chemical risks.
 I think that in front of hazards, whatever the hazard I talk, there is
not an only answer. And, for me an only answer is often more
dangerous than � no answer �.
I have a true exemple out of chemical risks, out of my work but
among my know-how.
October 3th, 1998 town of Nimes (France) was flooded when a 
big rain fell. But it didn�t reveal that, above the town, three dams in
soil did break and make worse the flood.
To day, the same consulting firm who designed two of these three
dams, propose more than twenty dams always dry, above the town.
All other answers have been dismissed, such as small tunnels
(galleries), making easy free flow, agricultural planning above
the town, miscellaneous developments in town,....
Why? This point can be raised and answer could be published 
by Canard Enchaine, a satirical french newspaper.
One answer is dangerous.
So, I agree phrase of Carl porter when he says:

> The solution is a combination of many steps.

And I add that prevention, forecast, prediction (out of astrology!),
multidisciplinary system, are better than condolences after accident.

Lucien COSTE
attache (cum a little research) risks and environment
teacher in natural hazards and risks