No, that last phrase is misleading. Math isn’t English. When you say “every person”, you’re emphasizing that you’re making a claim about 100% of the people. If almost everyone actually got nothing, then saying “Every person, on average, got $1” is an attempt to deceive the reader. There are ways to say the $100 was somehow split among the group that aren’t designed to mislead, but “Every person, on average, got $1” isn’t one of them.
Moreover, in the original example of molecules, some molecules are never replaced at all. Imagine half of your molecules are never replaced, and the rest are all replaced every 6 years. What’s the average of 6 years and never? There’s no such number, so the poster’s error can’t be magicked away by “on average”.
I feel like that’s a very Gallic attitude. Maybe it will fall; maybe it won’t. With a shrug. It doesn’t mean a 50:50 chance; it means either thing could happen, and takes a wait and see outlook on which it will be.
The NOVA or Frontline special that aired recently ( I think its the one APB notes) was very good. It seems that they have the “shoring up” part under control but this was just the first step in a very long process. There was no speculation as to how long the whole thing will take. Somewhat related - Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follet is a fictionalized account of the building of a cathedral. Its an excellent book and gives much insight into what it took to construct one of these marvels.
Why would they need to dismantle anything? The foundation is solid, there is no need to relocate. The 50% wrote has already been commented on. The remaining structure is not at risk of collapsing. The risk was caused by the metal scaffolding that was in place as part of an ongoing renovation/restoration. Once that was removed, the building is sound.
Asking about the feasibility, well, yes, it could be done. London Bridge was related to Arizona, afterall. I would random guess it would take a couple decades.
No, this is incorrect. According to “The Secrets of the Dead” (on PBS), Notre Dame was at the forefront of archetecture and masonry. The flying buttresses were an inherent part of the design. It was also a living construction project, with the master builders improving techniques as they went. The Wikipedia page includes this:
You bring up some good questions regarding how far to go in restoration, and what amount of design change is acceptable.
Notre Dame is not purely an 800 year old structure. It has been modified and improved over the centuries. The leaf roof was not original, but a later replacement. The flying buttresses have been removed and rebuilt at least twice. The window portals on the sides have been changed - first they were enlarged to provide more light, then Viollet-le-Duc decided to restore the windows to the previous design.
The huge spire was Viollet-le-Duc’s addition. Originally, there was no spire. The first spire was much smaller, built in 1220 to 1230. It fell into disrepair and had partial collapse, so was removed in 1780’s. Viollet-le-Duc installed a much larger spire that was mocked in the media at the time.
I agree with the others who say whatever choices are made in restoration and renovation will just become a part of the history of the building. Still, it is important to make considered choices, combining the desire to retain historical appearance with concerns over cost and appropriateness of using old tech like lead roofs.
" A new special from NOVA, the science series on PBS, takes viewers through the challenges. It’s a journey that travels from within the cathedral itself, to the catacombs below Paris, to the forests of Normandy that might provide the wood to reconstruct the building’s massive roof.
“We are thrilled to be able to tell the inside story of the dramatic rescue of Notre Dame,” NOVA co-executive producer Chris Schmidt said in a statement…
The special, Saving Notre Dame, premieres Wednesday, November 25, 2020 at 9 p.m. E.T./8 p.m. C.T. on PBS and will be available for streaming online and on the PBS video app."
Not to say either of you is wrong or right, but one of you is talking about molecules, the other about cells. Molecules can be exchanged within living cells, without replacing the cells themselves (in fact you would die pretty quickly if this wasn’t ongoing)
The damaged scaffolding has now been removed, and they can get on with securing, clearing and cleaning inside, ready for the vaulting repairs and deciding what to do about the roof and spire.