Originally Posted by bnk
I agree the whole left coast should be very high risk, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanos. Its not if but when.
Yes, the west coast is at "very high risk" of those happening compared to other areas, but those events are exceedingly rare even on the west coast.
Someone born in 1907 likely never saw a major earthquake in SF, unless they lived past 80. Anyone living since California became a state has not seen a tsunami hit a major city (a couple cities in northern California have had mild damage). There are no active volcanoes near major population areas on the west coast. Mount St Helens is probably the closest, but you can be sure that no one in the Puget Sound is buying volcano insurance.
So...when talking about overall risk, you need to take into account the likelihood of an event happening in a given time period, not just that earthquakes are most likely to happen on the west coast, therefore the west coast must be at high risk of natural disaster.
Earthquakes make great TV, but "minor" natural disasters like heat waves or good old thunderstorms kill far more people. The property damage title may belong to earthquakes though