Where to Live to Avoid a Natural Disaster

[Mallow]

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.

That's a good question, but I think bluewave is right. The potential for extremely heavy tropical downpours is greater there... though Pineapple Express events can do a lot in the Pac NW, too (see the 1996 floods I posted about earlier).

And I hate to sound like a broken record... but the earthquake risk in the Pac NW is a lot lower than some people think. It's higher than most places out east, sure, but not by a lot. I felt four earthquakes in my 25 years of living in the Pac NW, and two had weaker shaking than the one I felt in Pennsylvania last year (ya know, the one that struck Virginia!). The other two did almost no damage in Portland (total damage probably in the hundreds to thousands of dollars).

[icebreaker5221]

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 couldn't tell from the text whether they included winter storms / ice storms, but if they did then that could account for some of it. Also floods like bluewave mentioned. Although the Pac NW does get occasional damaging winter storms and floods as well, but generally not as damaging.

[Carvers Gap]

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.

Ranier is the one I speak of...Plus, being on the ring of fire immediately poses a risk of destruction to several cities due to earthquakes and tsunamis as I'm sure you know. I can name several cities damaged by tsunamis and earthquakes, though none have impacted the West coast recently though I would assume(unfortunately) that is inevitable - especially the further south one goes down the coast in terms of earthquakes. Here are a few sites listing impacts for potential Northwest communities.

1999 Response Plan - Tacoma was included on slide nine.

PBS mentions danger to Tacoma.

America's Ten Most Dangerous Volcanoes

Now, I'm not a geologist but I would suggest that earthquake activity associated w/ the volcano could impact many areas, even Seattle if the eruption were significant. The ash itself would impact air travel into regional aiports. For the record, I hope to never be proven correct. The article is misleading. KTRI had a freak tornado outbreak last year, a once per century event. Other than some flooding events, people here just don't die of natural disasters. (Edited at 9:34 PM / 5/12.)

[Mallow]

Ranier is the one I speak of...Plus, being on the ring of fire immediately poses a risk of destruction to several cities due to earthquakes and tsunamis as I'm sure you know. I can name several cities damaged by tsunamis and earthquakes, though none have impacted the West coast recently though I would assume(unfortunately) that is inevitable - especially the further south one goes down the coast. Here are a few sites listing impacts for potential Northwest communities.

1999 Response Plan - Tacoma was included on slide nine.

PBS mentions danger to Tacoma.

America's Ten Most Dangerous Volcanoes

Now, I'm not a geologist but I would suggest that earthquake activity associated w/ the volcano could impact many areas, even Seattle if the eruption were significant. The ash itself would impact air travel into regional aiports. For the record, I hope to never be proven correct.

I did mention Tacoma earlier in this thread as well, since there is a small, mostly industrial section that could be in the path of a mudslide.

As for volcanic earthquakes, they're usually relatively small and localized in the area of the volcano itself. The 5.1 Mt. St. Helens earthquake was actually very large, as far earthquakes on active volcanoes go. And, of course, that earthquake didn't cause any damage due to the shaking, except the collapse of the north flank of Mt. St. Helens, itself.

Of course, if Rainier did have a large eruption, there would be consequences in the Seattle area. But it likely wouldn't KILL anybody in Seattle proper, and probably not even in Tacoma. Maybe there would be deaths in some of the smaller towns like Orting and Puyallup. And of course, Rainier is not likely to erupt any time soon. It's a once-in-hundreds-to-thousands-of-years type thing. So maybe notch the danger up in towns like Puyallup, but really, it's not a huge deal for Seattle itself.

[Carvers Gap]

I did mention Tacoma earlier in this thread as well, since there is a small, mostly industrial section that could be in the path of a mudslide.

As for volcanic earthquakes, they're usually relatively small and localized in the area of the volcano itself. The 5.1 Mt. St. Helens earthquake was actually very large, as far earthquakes on active volcanoes go. And, of course, that earthquake didn't cause any damage due to the shaking, except the collapse of the north flank of Mt. St. Helens, itself.

Of course, if Rainier did have a large eruption, there would be consequences in the Seattle area. But it likely wouldn't KILL anybody in Seattle proper, and probably not even in Tacoma. Maybe there would be deaths in some of the smaller towns like Orting and Puyallup. It would be more of an economic disaster than anything else.

Yes, that would certainly be the biggest impact.

[Carvers Gap]

Risk zones are way too high in E TN. This is not earthquake country. We get a few as the mountains settle, but not much more than that. And northeast Ohio just doesn't strike me as a natural disaster hot spot. And I do remember reading something about earthquake problems, infreqently of course, in South Carolina. Just is odd to see them listed at such a high risk.

[LithiaWx]

Risk zones are way too high in E TN. This is not earthquake country. We get a few as the mountains settle, but not much more than that. And northeast Ohio just doesn't strike me as a natural disaster hot spot. And I do remember reading something about earthquake problems, infreqently of course, in South Carolina. Just is odd to see them listed at such a high risk.

Charleston is ground zero for a major hurricane and a major earthquake at some point.

[Carvers Gap]

Charleston is ground zero for a major hurricane and a major earthquake at some point.

The earthquake map is what I was referring too. They narrowly dodged a bullet w/ Hurricane Hugo. So yes, it is highly likely they see a major hurricane in one's lifetime, if not more than one.

[AtticaFanatica]

Even in the heart of Tornado Alley, I think a particular point is struck by a tornado every 8-10 thousand years, on average.

[Hoosier]

Even in the heart of Tornado Alley, I think a particular point is struck by a tornado every 8-10 thousand years, on average.

That seems high...I thought it was once every 2-3 thousand years. Trying to remember where I saw it.

[Windspeed]

Risk zones are way too high in E TN. This is not earthquake country. We get a few as the mountains settle, but not much more than that. And northeast Ohio just doesn't strike me as a natural disaster hot spot. And I do remember reading something about earthquake problems, infreqently of course, in South Carolina. Just is odd to see them listed at such a high risk.

While I agree that the region that covers the southern Appalachians, Ridge and Valley and Peidmont aren't generally considered earthquake country, there is a moderate risk there. The roots of the Appalachians, specifically the core of the Blue Ridge, are still rising due to isostatic rebound and thrust faults go through reactivation over the geologic record. The USGS states the East Tennessee Seismic Zone (southern Appalachians) is capable of a 7.5 magnitude event from Wheeler and Frankel's assesment in 2000. And over the historical record, there have been enough documented quakes between 4 and 6 in the region to warrant the hazard. Now, in the context of time that spans a human life, this threat is pretty insignificant compared to what I consider a greater threat for the region. And that threat isn't even listed on this map. That would be flood hazard. Specifically, flood hazard related to the remnants of hurricanes. A very slow moving or stalled tropical low over the Appalachian Mountains has great potential to cause catastrophic destruction. This is not talked about very much, but you need to look no further than Hurricane Camille that killed hundereds across the Shanandoah Valley.

[Carvers Gap]

While I agree that the region that covers the southern Appalachians, Ridge and Valley and Peidmont aren't generally considered earthquake country, there is a moderate risk there. The roots of the Appalachians, specifically the core of the Blue Ridge, are still rising due to isostatic rebound and thrust faults go through reactivation over the geologic record. The USGS states the East Tennessee Seismic Zone (southern Appalachians) is capable of a 7.5 magnitude event from Wheeler and Frankel's assesment in 2000. And over the historical record, there have been enough documented quakes between 4 and 6 in the region to warrant the hazard. Now, in the context of time that spans a human life, this threat is pretty insignificant compared to what I consider a greater threat for the region. And that threat isn't even listed on this map. That would be flood hazard. Specifically, flood hazard related to the remnants of hurricanes. A very slow moving or stalled tropical low over the Appalachian Mountains has great potential to cause catastrophic destruction. This is not talked about very much, but you need to look no further than Hurricane Camille that killed hundereds across the Shanandoah Valley.

While I won't say the potential isn't there just because I, myself, haven't felt a quake...but I highly doubt a 7.5 would occur here. I do agree w/ the flooding hazard. After all, TVA was created in part to stop flooding in the TN Valley. That said, TVA now controls most navigable rivers in TN and has greatly reduced a flooding threat as might be experienced by the Shenandoah region as it is not flood controlled. But E TN, other than the odd weather event, is just not a place where many die on a large scale from weather events - nor do we spend a ton of money on those events. It's a safe place to live. I still contend that the graphic is terribly misleading.