WO'N, I thought it was interesting too but I was sick on Friday and didn't get a chance to read the information thoroughly. And belM, I think the problem is that everywhere you go, there is a risk of natural disaster.

For example, you know you shouldn't live in Montreal - didn't you have a big ice storm a few years ago? You should move to Winnipeg. Oh no, wait, then you'll be flooded out every spring. Fine then, Regina it is. No, wait, hailstorms in the summer, and tornadoes. OK, Vancouver. Whoops, earthquakes. OK, St. John's. No, we have pretty crazy wind/rainstorms too, they can be pretty destructive. Plus there are always drinking water problems in Newfoundland. Dammit, you just can't live anywhere!

(I know you are thinking, that's different from building your house right next to a known danger - well, yes. But it is unrealistic to be prepared for every possibility. BTW, in Winnipeg, after the flood of '97, the government required you to build your house two feet above the highest water level from that flood, if you lived outside the floodway. So I have just supported both sides of the argument, which is what I often do, confusing myself!)