Where to Live to Avoid a Natural Disaster

[Xing]

Where to Live to Avoid a Natural Disaster
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/01/we...arsh.html?_r=1

More than 300 people were killed last week by monstrous storms that swept through the South. Flattened communities resembled scenes from war zones. “I have never seen devastation like this,” President Obama said Friday after visiting a neighborhood blown apart by a tornado in Tuscaloosa, Ala.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/...fe-custom1.gif

[mello]

Whats up with the high earthquake risk in Coastal South Carolina? Never heard of faults there or any seismic activity.

I'm surprised they don't discuss the volcano risk in the Pacific North West and the Caldera under Yellowstone which would wipe Boise and Salt Lake City off the map if it blew. Well I guess the whole world would be screwed by the ash cloud if that thing went so it would be better just to die immediately

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by mello

Whats up with the high earthquake risk in Coastal South Carolina? Never heard of faults there or any seismic activity.

For your reading pleasure.

[1Boston]

Definitely not moving to texas anytime soon. it looks like all the major cities there are red. But im surprised that coastal california is less dangerous than almost all of massachusetts. The worst we get here is snow, and leftover hurricanes, and its windy most of the time buts thats about it.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by 1Boston

Definitely not moving to texas anytime soon. it looks like all the major cities there are red. But im surprised that coastal california is less dangerous than almost all of massachusetts. The worst we get here is snow, and leftover hurricanes, and its windy most of the time buts thats about it.

It's ironic that the Dallas area was hit so hard by tornadoes today.

Austin is severely prone to flash flooding due to the steep terrain on the west side of the city, numerous rapidly flowing creeks, and homes/businesses built next to these creeks. In my neighborhood in north Austin, 13 people drowned on Memorial Day 1981 due to 10 inches of rain falling in 2 hours. It can rain so hard here in thunderstorms that it's like a wall of water coming down. We're also prone to drought (like the worst one in history - 2011). For many of us, we love living where weather can get exciting (except for drought situations...no one loves that).

[Xing]

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

It's ironic that the Dallas area was hit so hard by tornadoes today.

When I saw footage of one of those Tornadoes from Dallas today, I was in awe. You don't see footage like this every day.

• Video Link

[Dralcoffin]

Cue the xkcd:

(This is the comic displayed in Chrome browsers. For April Fool's, Randall Munroe uploaded different comics for different regions, different browsers, etc.)

[SnyderBock]

I find it odd, Seattle made the top 10. Scientist say it's over-due for a mega-quake, somewhere in the 9.0-10.0+ range and also has geologic proof of frequent tsunamis generated by Japanese quakes. Oh, not to mention, they are in close proximity to active and dangerous volcanoes (Mount Rainier, Mount Saint Hellenes, Mount Hood, etc...). Mega-quake, Tsunami and Volcanic eruption, would make it one of the more dangerous places in the country to live, in my mind.

[Rail Claimore]

If religion is a way of coping with natural disasters, this map explains a lot.

[10023]

Yeah, no risk up in the Puget Sound area... isn't that a seismic hotspot?

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by 10023

Yeah, no risk up in the Puget Sound area... isn't that a seismic hotspot?

Right? The entire West Coast has the highest risk of earthquake (per their own submap) but the "scale of the hazard" for most of it is among the lowest in the country? ...doesn't really make sense. There were two major earthquakes in the Bay Area during the last century alone.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Right? The entire West Coast has the highest risk of earthquake (per their own submap) but the "scale of the hazard" for most of it is among the lowest in the country? ...doesn't really make sense. There were two major earthquakes in the Bay Area during the last century alone.

Part of it is... what's a natural disaster?

Is a really bad winter storm a "natural disaster"? Not really. One San Francisco Earthquake should be worth about 1,000 bad Northeastern blizzards...

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by 10023

Part of it is... what's a natural disaster?

Is a really bad winter storm a "natural disaster"? Not really. One San Francisco Earthquake should be worth about 1,000 bad Northeastern blizzards...

Yeah, and one Andrew or Katrina should probably be worth about 1,000 tornado outbreaks.

I will say that I can't remember* any major destructive weather event affecting the Pacific northwest since Mt. St. Helens despite it being on an active fault.


*Well, technically I didn't "remember" that since it happened before I was born.

[wakamesalad]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Right? The entire West Coast has the highest risk of earthquake (per their own submap) but the "scale of the hazard" for most of it is among the lowest in the country? ...doesn't really make sense. There were two major earthquakes in the Bay Area during the last century alone.

How many people died in those earthquakes compared to tornadoes, floods, and hurricanes elsewhere in the country during the same 100 year time period? The odds of dying in an earthquake are fractional, especially in first world countries. I'll stick it out in earthquake country I do have an earthquake alarm in my apartment though which emits a high squeal up to 10 seconds before the s wave hits.

[Ch.G, Ch.G]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

How many people died in those earthquakes compared to tornadoes, floods, and hurricanes elsewhere in the country during the same 100 year time period? The odds of dying in an earthquake are fractional, especially in first world countries. I'll stick it out in earthquake country I do have an earthquake alarm in my apartment though which emits a high squeal up to 10 seconds before the s wave hits.

Well, at least three thousand people died in 1906 in the Bay Area, and the majority of those deaths occurred in San Francisco. Then there's the injured, the homeless, and the property damage. It was one of the worst natural disasters in the country's history. There are only a handful of others (mostly hurricanes) that resulted in similar loss of life in one metropolitan area in a single event.

According to Wikipedia, in 1989, 63 people died, 3,750 people were injured, and there was $6 billion in property damage. Clearly, technology and building practices have come a long way. Still, look how many fatalities there were last year in Japan, one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world.

[wakamesalad]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Well, at least three thousand people died in 1906 in the Bay Area, and the majority of those deaths occurred in San Francisco. Then there's the injured, the homeless, and the property damage. It was one of the worst natural disasters in the country's history. There are only a handful of others (mostly hurricanes) that resulted in similar loss of life in one metropolitan area in a single event.

According to Wikipedia, in 1989, 63 people died, 3,750 people were injured, and there was $6 billion in property damage. Clearly, technology and building practices have come a long way. Still, look how many fatalities there were last year in Japan, one of the most technologically advanced nations in the world.

3000 / 106 years = 28 deaths, isn't that the same amount that died in the tornados just a few weeks ago?

[bnk]

Originally Posted by Ch.G, Ch.G

Right? The entire West Coast has the highest risk of earthquake (per their own submap) but the "scale of the hazard" for most of it is among the lowest in the country? ...doesn't really make sense. There were two major earthquakes in the Bay Area during the last century alone.

I agree the whole left coast should be very high risk, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanos. Its not if but when.

[Dense_Electric]

The west coast of Florida is actually pretty low-risk, we very rarely get hit by hurricanes because of the way the storms come in off the Atlantic (and most of the ones we do get are small or weakened by the time the get here). I'm honestly more concerned about thunder storms than I am a hurricane.

[Gordo]

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

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by 10023

Yeah, no risk up in the Puget Sound area... isn't that a seismic hotspot?

I remember, when I went to Seattle last fall, getting into a conversation with a very nice older lady at the Seattle Art Museum. Turned out she was from Connecticut, as is my boyfriend, so the two of them had a chat.

The chat turned toward the topic of living in Seattle. We mentioned that we liked the city enough to consider moving there. She said she loved it there. I asked what she thought of the threat of earthquakes, and her response was that she really didn't think much about it, and the real threat was one of the nearby volcanoes, like Mt. Hood, blowing its top.

"But I'm old," she said, beaming, "so I don't have to care. That's something for the young people to worry about!"