[tgrass]

Just to fill out the first four pages a little more:

[Edit] In the US [/Edit] your home and office are most likely already set outside the floodwaters of the 100-year storm. New roads are typically designed to convey floodwaters at no more than 1 foot deep for the same event.

Protecting a building that has a lifespan of less than 100 years against an event with a probability of occurring between .005 to .002 (the 200-year to 500-year event) is a hard sell.

[HarryHirsch]

> Protecting a building that has a lifespan of less than 100 years against an event with a probability of occurring between .005 to .002 (the 200-year to 500-year event) is a hard sell.

Only in America. The Delta Works in the Netherlands are designed for the 2000-year flood. This is the minimum - there are areas that are protected against the 10000-year flood.

This makes sense. It is not normal that densely settled areas are flooded at least once during the human lifespan.

[arethuza]

In the context of a 10000-year flood, it's interesting to consider what the southern North Sea looked like until ~6200 BCE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland

[tgrass]

Noted, thanks.

[youngerdryas]

>Only in America.

You don't seriously claim all of Europe is prepared for a 2000 year flood. I doubt a lot of nations can afford it.

[HarryHirsch]

South Holland is, and it has 4 million people living in it.

[youngerdryas]

I was thinking more of Italy and its notorious construction fiascos.

[Someone]

"Protecting a building that has a lifespan of less than 100 years against an event with a probability of occurring between .005 to .002 (the 200-year to 500-year event) is a hard sell."

It is not only protecting the building; it also protects those living in them.

Also, you should use 'expected damage done', not 'life expectancy of hardware' as your metric. Rebuilding your house may cost you a year of productivity. Rebuilding a hospital or factory will easily take more.