Where to Live to Avoid a Natural Disaster

[Quixotic1]

Little surprised to see Dallas number one since there's little quake threat. Seems as if OKC and STL might be worse. Not sure if this is science weather side worthy or not.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/05/01/weekinreview/01safe.html

[boulderrr]

Little surprised to see Dallas number one since there's little quake threat. Seems as if OKC and STL might be worse. Not sure if this is science weather side worthy or not.

http://www.nytimes.c...iew/01safe.html

LOL at the Hurricane Risk image. Apparently Savannah, GA is riskier than New Orleans, Galveston, and Miami as far as hurricanes go. Also, Valdosta, GA is riskier than Brownsville, TX. LOL, again.

[WxUSAF]

This seems like a whole lotta crap to me. They're treating all 3 risks as equals? So if OKC has a high risk for tornadoes and SFC a high risk for an earthquake, the chances of disaster are the same in each city? A damaging earthquake can destroy a FAR larger area than even a tornado like Joplin. It's laughable that Dallas has a higher risk than San Francisco or LA. Lest we forget Seattle, the only major city in the US that has a legitimate chance of being wiped off the map if Rainier erupts.

[boulderrr]

This seems like a whole lotta crap to me. They're treating all 3 risks as equals? So if OKC has a high risk for tornadoes and SFC a high risk for an earthquake, the chances of disaster are the same in each city? A damaging earthquake can destroy a FAR larger area than even a tornado like Joplin. It's laughable that Dallas has a higher risk than San Francisco or LA. Lest we forget Seattle, the only major city in the US that has a legitimate chance of being wiped off the map if Rainier erupts.

Agreed. I'm a catastrophe risk analyst by profession and this analysis is trash. The only city on the top 10 safest list that belongs there is Grand Junction.

[Ed Lizard]

Houston is riskier than Los Angeles? Puh-leaze.

[Riptide]

Looks like they haven't watched 2012 yet or read about Edgar Cayce's earth changes.

[Quixotic1]

Tried hard to find a decent report on it. Sperlings didn't have muach better than the NYT article. According to the snippet on the local news last night, it looked at everything: quakes, tornado, hail, wind, tropical cyclones, floods and drought. It was just a 2 minute clip so it didn't say how things are weighted. Too bad there's not much backing it up.

[billgwx]

That hurricane risk map is laughable at best.

[Mallow]

This seems like a whole lotta crap to me. They're treating all 3 risks as equals? So if OKC has a high risk for tornadoes and SFC a high risk for an earthquake, the chances of disaster are the same in each city? A damaging earthquake can destroy a FAR larger area than even a tornado like Joplin. It's laughable that Dallas has a higher risk than San Francisco or LA. Lest we forget Seattle, the only major city in the US that has a legitimate chance of being wiped off the map if Rainier erupts.

What?

It's very obvious that they weighted the risks. Otherwise, Cali cities would be ranked the same as the plains (if earthquake = tornado, for example).

It may be hard to believe for someone who hasn't lived there, but large damaging earthquakes are very rare in any given location, even in Cali. I'd guess the risk of getting killed in a tornado in OKC is HIGHER than the risk of getting killed in an earthquake in San Francisco.

Also, there is a 0% chance that Seattle will ever be "wiped off the map" due to a Rainier eruption. Absolute worst-case scenario for a HUGE eruption is the destruction of some of the low-lying industrial areas on the south side of town due to lahars. I'm talking less than 1% of the total area of Seattle.

This map (other than the dumb hurricane risk stuff that people have pointed out) seems pretty darn accurate overall, to me.

[Mallow]

Houston is riskier than Los Angeles? Puh-leaze.

Uhh... yes. By a long shot.

Quakes, tornadoes, hail, wind, hurricanes, floods, and drought... Houston gets 5 of the 7 frequently (compared to the national avg), and LA gets 2 of the 7 frequently (compared to the national avg).

LA is not the national disaster capital of the US like some movies would like you to believe. Worst case scenario is you get a large earthquake directly under the city (probably a once in two hundred year event, if not longer), and even then probably 95% of people will end up just getting a big scare. Obviously that's the case with tornadoes and hurricanes in Houston, too, except that hurricanes and tornadoes occur there more than once every two hundred years.

[Mallow]

Agreed. I'm a catastrophe risk analyst by profession and this analysis is trash. The only city on the top 10 safest list that belongs there is Grand Junction.

No

People seem to overestimate the risk of earthquakes and volcanoes.

Destructive earthquakes directly impacting a major city are not common on the west coast. Moreover, the only relatively large city in the continental US at any real risk from a volcanic eruption is Tacoma, WA... and that would only be a relatively small (<5%), mostly industrial part of the city in a major eruption of Rainier.

[icebreaker5221]

That hurricane risk map is laughable at best.

Just for the sake of beating a dead horse... major hurricane landfall climatology:

[Ed Lizard]

Uhh... yes. By a long shot.

Quakes, tornadoes, hail, wind, hurricanes, floods, and drought... Houston gets 5 of the 7 frequently (compared to the national avg), and LA gets 2 of the 7 frequently (compared to the national avg).

LA is not the national disaster capital of the US like some movies would like you to believe. Worst case scenario is you get a large earthquake directly under the city (probably a once in two hundred year event, if not longer), and even then probably 95% of people will end up just getting a big scare. Obviously that's the case with tornadoes and hurricanes in Houston, too, except that hurricanes and tornadoes occur there more than once every two hundred years.

Besides the earthquakes, LA has floods and drought. Flood threat higher here, obviously, but hilly terrain makes life threatening flash floods and mudlsides rather infrequent here. We get a major hurricane in the HGX CWA about every twentyfive years (counting Ike, it was almost a major).

I don't think the chances of a Mercalli 8 along the Cascadia subduction zone in Seattle is about as high or higher than New Madrid. Houston seems about as seismically quiet as it gets. And we don't get anywhere near the tornadoes Dallas does. I don't recall any EF-2 or higher tornadoes since 1992 in Harris County, although I was not in Houston for all that time. IIRC, almost all deaths are EF-3 or higher, although our MLB pro-met recalls an EF-0 killing somebody in that CWA once.

[WxUSAF]

I'd guess the risk of getting killed in a tornado in OKC is HIGHER than the risk of getting killed in an earthquake in San Francisco.

You make some good points, but I still disagree about this. How often does an F3 or higher hit an individual location in OK? Essentially never...whereas even magnitude 5ish earthquakes can cause fatalities and injuries and I think those are quite a bit more common for an individual location in CA.

[Mallow]

Besides the earthquakes, LA has floods and drought. Flood threat higher here, obviously, but hilly terrain makes life threatening flash floods and mudlsides rather infrequent here. We get a major hurricane in the HGX CWA about every twentyfive years (counting Ike, it was almost a major).

I don't think the chances of a Mercalli 8 along the Cascadia subduction zone in Seattle is about as high or higher than New Madrid. Houston seems about as seismically quiet as it gets. And we don't get anywhere near the tornadoes Dallas does. I don't recall any EF-2 or higher tornadoes since 1992 in Harris County, although I was not in Houston for all that time. IIRC, almost all deaths are EF-3 or higher, although our MLB pro-met recalls an EF-0 killing somebody in that CWA once.

LA's floods/mudslides are also overhyped... the main reason you see so much about them is because they affect rich people's homes on cliffs. If you were in LA during a flood/mudslide event, unless you were extremely unlucky, you probably wouldn't notice much more than fast-moving water in the "rivers" and the wet/rainy weather. You don't get large swaths of farmland/homes underwater there.

A Cascadia subduction zone quake (even a 9.0) would, surprisingly, not cause much more than moderate shaking in Seattle or Portland. The big cities are too far away from the fault itself. A tsunami could devastate the coast, but wouldn't affect inland cities and likely would have no real impact even in the Puget Sound. And it's a once ever 300 to 600 year event. What's actually more concerning for Seattle and Portland are smaller faults under the cities themselves, which could cause 6.0 to 8.0 quakes. These are very rare, too, but could lead to quite a bit of destruction if centered right under the city. Again, though, the rarity of this makes it almost not worth worrying about, besides building to code.

I'm not saying Houston is the disaster capital of the world... but if you lived in both cities for 50 years, you'd be much more likely to see natural disasters (see the list of disasters in the previous post) in Houston than in L.A.

[Mallow]

You make some good points, but I still disagree about this. How often does an F3 or higher hit an individual location in OK? Essentially never...whereas even magnitude 5ish earthquakes can cause fatalities and injuries and I think those are quite a bit more common for an individual location in CA.

But you're comparing "getting hit by" an F3 tornado to "getting hit by" a 5ish earthquake. First of all, a 5.0 earthquake in California will most likely not cause fatalities, and probably not even any significant injuries. A 6.0 may cause a few fatalities here or there, and more injuries, and so is probably more representative of an F3 tornado. If you're unlucky enough to get hit directly by the F3, or be very near the epicenter of the 6.0, you could be in trouble. Again, though, the chances that you'll be near the epicenter of a 6.0+ 'quake at any given location in Cali is very low, just like the chances that you'll get hit by an F3 tornado at any given location in OK. The biggest difference is that the 6.0 is FELT over a larger area than the F3 is FELT, but in either case you might get a scare (tornado warning vs feeling the shaking but it not amounting to anything).

Anyway, I don't think either of us knows for certain. But I would guess that if you looked at statistics from the last 50 years or so, the percent of people who are killed by earthquakes in Cali is probably of similar order of magnitude to those killed by tornadoes in OK. And then you throw on other severe wx in OK that you rarely see in Cali...

[Mallow]

Let's put it this way... in 25 years of living in the Pac NW, the BIGGEST disasters were:

1. Great Coastal Gale of 2007: US$1.1 billion in damage, 18 deaths

2. Hanukkah Eve Windstorm: US$267 million in damage, 18 deaths (mostly carbon monoxide poisoning)

3. 1996 floods: US$500 million in damage, 8 deaths

4. 1995 windstorm: ??? in damage, 4 deaths

5. 2001 Nisqually Earthquake: ??? in damage, 1 death (heart attack)

[Quixotic1]

Let's put it this way... in 25 years of living in the Pac NW, the BIGGEST disasters were:

1. Great Coastal Gale of 2007: US$1.1 billion in damage, 18 deaths

2. Hanukkah Eve Windstorm: US$267 million in damage, 18 deaths (mostly carbon monoxide poisoning)

3. 1996 floods: US$500 million in damage, 8 deaths

4. 1995 windstorm: ??? in damage, 4 deaths

5. 2001 Nisqually Earthquake: ??? in damage, 1 death (heart attack)

Good point. The DFW 1995 Mayfest hailstorm/flash flood cost a billion dollars by itself.

[nwohweather]

That map is simply natural disasters. It doesn't say the whole town needs to be devastated. Joplin didn't destroy the entire city but it was still quite a natural disaster

[Geos]

Uhh... yes. By a long shot.

Quakes, tornadoes, hail, wind, hurricanes, floods, and drought... Houston gets 5 of the 7 frequently (compared to the national avg), and LA gets 2 of the 7 frequently (compared to the national avg).

LA is not the national disaster capital of the US like some movies would like you to believe. Worst case scenario is you get a large earthquake directly under the city (probably a once in two hundred year event, if not longer), and even then probably 95% of people will end up just getting a big scare. Obviously that's the case with tornadoes and hurricanes in Houston, too, except that hurricanes and tornadoes occur there more than once every two hundred years.

I know shaking from earthquakes in the Los Angeles basin are typically localize due to the higher fractured area. The plates on either side of the fault line where the epicenter of the earthquake was experiences the highest shaking. Nearby by plates don't shake nearly as much since the energy is diminished as it passed from one broken area of bedrock to another.

The Midwest earthquakes are felt much further then anything on the West Coast. Earthquakes around 5.0 in southern IL can be felt clear up to Wisconsin. Some 400 miles.

[beneficii]

I know shaking from earthquakes in the Los Angeles basin are typically localize due to the higher fractured area. The plates on either side of the fault line where the epicenter of the earthquake was experiences the highest shaking. Nearby by plates don't shake nearly as much since the energy is diminished as it passed from one broken area of bedrock to another.

The Midwest earthquakes are felt much further then anything on the West Coast. Earthquakes around 5.0 in southern IL can be felt clear up to Wisconsin. Some 400 miles.

It's rare for New Madrid to go off, but if it does, Memphis could get hit really hard, with widespread damage and a high death toll. I think there was an episode of It Could Happen Tomorrow on it, as well.

[Derecho!]

What?

It's very obvious that they weighted the risks. Otherwise, Cali cities would be ranked the same as the plains (if earthquake = tornado, for example).

It may be hard to believe for someone who hasn't lived there, but large damaging earthquakes are very rare in any given location, even in Cali. I'd guess the risk of getting killed in a tornado in OKC is HIGHER than the risk of getting killed in an earthquake in San Francisco.

We've just been lucky earthquake-wise in the US. 100 years from now people will find it ridiculous that other types of natural disaster are even comparable to seismic risk.

The Hayward fault is going to go in the next 40 years, and depending on timing you're going to see a death toll in the in the thousands.

I'm pretty confident the EQ death risk for pretty much any California location is higher than the tornado death risk for any Oklahoma location, in the long term. Of course "In the long term we are all dead."

[Mallow]

We've just been lucky earthquake-wise in the US. 100 years from now people will find it ridiculous that other types of natural disaster are even comparable to seismic risk.

The Hayward fault is going to go in the next 40 years, and depending on timing you're going to see a death toll in the in the thousands.

I'm pretty confident the EQ death risk for pretty much any California location is higher than the tornado death risk for any Oklahoma location, in the long term. Of course "In the long term we are all dead."

I disagree.

[Derecho!]

It's rare for New Madrid to go off, but if it does, Memphis could get hit really hard, with widespread damage and a high death toll. I think there was an episode of It Could Happen Tomorrow on it, as well.

Honestly New Madrid is a bit overhyped. Odds are the 1811-1812 events weren't as large, based on the scientific evidence, as a lot of documentaries now.

I think something terrible happening quake-wise is much more likely in, say, Salt Lake City, Albuquerque, or Reno, but those get no media hype whatsoever.

There's also some quake risk in Oklahoma, too.

[LocoAko]

You make some good points, but I still disagree about this. How often does an F3 or higher hit an individual location in OK? Essentially never...whereas even magnitude 5ish earthquakes can cause fatalities and injuries and I think those are quite a bit more common for an individual location in CA.

Not that this really answers your question but I stumbled upon this map and thought it was remarkable. These are the tornadoes to hit the OKC city boundaries (not even the metro area) in the past 130 years. The odds seem higher than one would think even once removing "weak" (green) tornadoes...

[bluewave]

The NCDC has a map of weather and climate related billion dollar disasters.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/

[Carvers Gap]

Little surprised to see Dallas number one since there's little quake threat. Seems as if OKC and STL might be worse. Not sure if this is science weather side worthy or not.

http://www.nytimes.c...iew/01safe.html

Does living close to a volcano count as weather if the thing erupts? I would think living near the "ring of fire" would constitute immediate placement on the disaster list.

[OSUmetstud]

I'm surprised the risk over the inland northeast isn't as low as the Pacific northwest. There's some earthquakes, but they're basically minor with little fatality risk. Also, while there are some tornadoes, the risk of strong tornadoes is quite low.

[bluewave]

I'm surprised the risk over the inland northeast isn't as low as the Pacific northwest. There's some earthquakes, but they're basically minor with little fatality risk. Also, while there are some tornadoes, the risk of strong tornadoes is quite low.

I think it works out that way due to the flooding that we get from tropical cyclones and remnants.

http://www.ncdc.noaa...2011/8#tropical

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/tropical-cyclones/2011/9

[Mallow]

Does living close to a volcano count as weather if the thing erupts? I would think living near the "ring of fire" would constitute immediate placement on the disaster list.

Name a single major city in the lower 48 that's near enough a large, active volcano to be at risk of being largely damaged/destroyed by an eruption.

Hint: there are none. Very few people in the continental US live in an area that's at significant risk from an active volcano. Examples are the towns of Puyallup and Orting, east of Tacoma, where mudflows from Rainier could pose serious risk. The major cities, however, would see little more than ashfall, and then only if there was a rare large-scale easterly flow over the region.