Its actually a poor logical argument. Only a small percentage of new ideas actually succeed, so the odds are greatly in favor of the critics. Employing critical thought and challenge is a key to success.

Lots of theories about the demise of these civilizations. I don't recall mercury poisoning being discussed as a contributor, but it seems plausible.

I agree warnings have limitations, but they didn't have anything in Indonesia at the time and they have since been deployed. They may be a 'given' but that doesn't matter in a discussion of what is likely to be most beneficial in an event.

Walls pretty much ruin a beach, so if you have a beach, tourist area a wall is not really desirable. I get the concept of personal or small group type protective devices, but they must be low cost and deployed in an easily accessible manner, and this particular solution doesn't fit that. Then, when you do deploy a solution, you must make sure everyone on the beach knows what to do and how to use them in an organized manner. Not an easy thing to pull off, and made more complicated if you want to a parent with children, etc.

To protect a sea side village, sea walls make more sense. Probably a lower cost than moving a large community.

Only if it is more accessible by many people than the escape paths. Imagine 5 people panicking and fight to get into one of these things. It really makes no sense. Is it even remotely realistic that a country would line its beaches with thousands of these things? Then everyone that does manage to get into one of these gets swept out to sea. Seems like a very poor solution path to me.

What the Indonesians needed was a warning, not an escape pod. With no warning, the pods are useless. With warning, just get out of the path.

Who is saying what can't be done, specifically, or is this just some general point unrelated to the topic or discussion?

Well, we don't have the information. Its a really expensive thing. My first question is how long will they last before they degrade significantly?

I suppose its just semantics, but if it is really eating poorly that causes risk to increase, then not eating poorly is not really preventing cancer, just not causing it. So, its really not eating bad food that lowers cancer risk.... and of course that implies eating well. Kind of like saying not riding in a car prevents you from getting a serious injury from an accident...technically true but kind of useless when looking for prevention techniques.

Not eating anything will prevent cancer.

And while they are at it, find a way to get EV owners to pay their share of taxes for road maintenance, now covered largely by the gas tax.

Obviously, those choices are all better than your broken car in for repairs, at the moment.

What HP does it get compared to the 6 cylinder?

The numbers reported are based on trading in their EV for and SUV, a switch, not those that keep one and buy a second vehicle. You could be right, but you have no data to show that they own a second EV at the time of trade in.

Probably not Tesla, but Leaf owners tend to be younger, and many single. Many get married, have kids, and decide to move to an SUV. Sounds very plausible. I doubt it is fuel cost alone, but rather functionality and changing needs or desires as well.