From the historic standpoint, as well as from a scientific standpoint, the hill's ability to protect against tornados is once again promoted as a myth. Originated from the Native Americans, the myth argued that there were specific areas protected against tornados by land features, such as hills, rivers, mountains or ridges. The legends were passed on from one generation to the other and created a false sense of protection. Until the tornados hit almost all region in the Rocky Mountains, to kill tens of people (Scavuzzo, 2004).
And aside from history and science, the third means of convincing the population would be through the use of the common sense. Considering a situation in which the hills did indeed reduce the risks of tornados in the region, it is impossible for them to entirely eliminate the threat. This virtually means that when the tornado hits, it will create loses. If the hill protects the town,...
But they will be far more devastating and costlier than the efforts it would have required to protect the town against the tornados in the first place. Additionally, the hills only protect the western side of the town. And what if the tornado hits from one of the other three cardinal points? Basically, even if the hill was to protect the town -- which is not, however, the case -- the efforts to protect the town against tornados would only minimize the casualties. And when presented with the opportunity to minimize a risk, why would anybody not take the safe way, but prefer to live in fear, constant wondering and eventual loss and tardy regret?
