I have to say this point is more a support than a dispute. perhaps you should give him a thumbs up as well now

I think you'll find that the argument is an open argument, and also I was referring to valuable minerals, which would need the older rocks. also, the new rock is found at constructive boundaries, which, surprise surprise, are mainly found under the sea. The rocks can be found at convergent boundaries, but many of these are also just off the shore line. It would be incredibly costly and inefficient to mine under the sea for something that can be found on land, away from plate margins. Germany also had some of the largest Iron mines which let them develop more weaponry than us. Germany is not near any plate boundaries. my source, the history lessons.

about the rocks. I was talking about minerals in rocks, as I'm sure you were talking about finding iron ore in rocks as well.

You refer to Iron found at these boundaries as well. the iron is incredibly impure, which is what the phrase "contact metasomatic Fe- deposits" (pulled from your source).

Everyone enjoys different things. and I agree with you about Brian Cox. I prefer it when he does his space stories

Mines are found everywhere. If anything, you don't want to be near a plate boundary for a mine as it is newer rock there. It's the old rock that is the most valuable mineral.

Also I dislike your first line about "getting away from you". it is entirely irrelevant to the argument in hand, and is sort of childish.

Fair enough, but I am tired and the way he had put it was a confusing example which needed more time to think it over, or have to be explained. Thumbs down to his original post, or I would if it didn't make me loose points

I would move to a place with natural hazards to see them in action. Yeah they cause damage, but some of the hazards are just jaw droppingly gorgeous. I just love watching volcanoes erupt, and seeing a tornado would be a pretty good thing to watch as well. For me, TV isn't enough. I'd be a storm chaser

So what your saying is, if a country is poor, it will recover quicker because it has the help from several countries, so therefore has a better response to disaster? way to back up your argument that richer countries have a better response

getting away from it is said in too narrow a way. saying to prepare for it includes getting away, but it also includes hiding under a table for example during an earthquake I did support his argument if you didn't notice, not dispute it

the volcano is called Eyjafjallajokull, which is pronounced on the page where it says "listen" on the first line. just in case anyone wanted to know.

You misunderstand what a private doctor is. The person who is treated pays for the treatment. Also, people volunteer to care for the sick and to clean up because they know the government doesn't want to pay so they can make further improvements.

Of course, the NHS doesn't do their job properly as it is, so I guess it would be catastrophic if we had a major natural hazard here. I will give you one thumbs up because I do partially agree with you

Not everyone uses the NHS (or equivalent for other countries). There are many people and businesses that use private doctors, so the money does not always have to come from the government.

And also, could you put a price on someone's life?

Extremely good points and I have to admit that I too think earthquakes are more destructive as they are a more sudden natural hazard, where as many volcano eruptions happen at a slower pace and do not affect such a wide area all the time

Earthquake can be predicted now in certain areas. They can figure out where there is lots of pressure between plates, and predict whether there will be an earthquake, though the predictions are not perfect, as aren't the volcano predicitions

The healthcare system is already present, as is the equipment that would be used to treat these extra wounds. It is not the money that is the issue here, more having enough tie to treat everyone before they die.

The warning systems are more to prepare for the event than to get away from it as the majority of hazards can happen really quickly.

And also not as many people will be injured in MEDC's as the buildings are of higher quality and will not crush people like in an LEDC country

That may be so, however some countries are better prepared due to their wealth. Japan was hit by a magnitude 9 earthquake last year, with 15,000 deaths, yet a magnitude 7 earthquake hit Haiti where over 230,000 people died. There is also the difference in economic loss. It cost Japan $235 billion, where as it only cost Haiti $14 billion, a significantly lower figure. Japan is an MEDC, where as Haiti is an LEDC, and the difference that this has made is clearly shown.

I agree because if a country has little wealth (LEDC) then they do not have the money to develop buildings that can hold against a natural disaster, an earthquake for example. A magnitude earthquake in an LEDC will cause masses of lives to be lost, however, a little amount of damage in terms of money will occur. This happens due to cheap housing being built. People are trapped and crushed by the falling debris, but the housing is so cheap that the economy is not effected much. The is also poor health care in LEDC's, which could be disastrous if a natural disaster strikes as people won't be able to get treatment for anything easily, and could die from just a scratch, further adding to the death toll.

A wealthy country (MEDC) does have the money to develop buildings that are hazard proof, such as having gyroscopic stabilisers underneath buildings to prevent them from collapsing during an earthquake. This saves lives, and consequently, very few people die in MEDC's. However, the buildings cost lots of money to create, whether they are hazard proof or not. People's lives are saved at the expense of a great deal of money. Lives can't be measured in money though, so it is my belief that LEDC's take natural disasters harder than we do as lives are actually lost.

hehe, longest argument on the board :D