Which U.S. City is more likely to have a DISASTER? (state, largest)

[TheDarkSide]

I'm curious to know Statistically,
and by Personal Opinion, which city is most likely to have
a Catastrophic Disaster.

Or which is most likely to have the MOST disasters;
common disasters would include, but not be limited to :

Gas Explosion(s), Earth Quake, Typhoon or Hurricane,
Tornado, RIOTS, Flood, Nuclear Reactor Meltdown,
Volcano Eruption, Nuclear Strike, Dam Breaking,
Insect Attack, Martian Invasion, Tidal Wave/Sunami,
Lightning Bolts, FIRE!, or simply ... GOD striking it down.


Other factors would include Geographical situation of the city,
and its resources.

What is your opinion, and which City is at most risk?

If your city is not on here, just state that city and give
your reason it is the most Dangerous and at-risk.

[RightonWalnut]

I would say Los Angeles and San Francisco are the most likely to have a catastrophic disaster via earthquake. Or any California city in general i presume

[TheDarkSide]

Personally, I think the most Dangerous city to live in according to all the factors
is either Los Angeles, or Houston.

Both are next to LARGE bodies of water and in danger of Tsunami, Hurricane, etc..
Both are most-likely nuclear targets if another country tries to attack.

Both are at risk for EarthQuakes, although Los Angeles takes that category.

But Houston is practically a LIVE BOMB, with all those Gasoline and oil containers.

[bigstick]

Just a matter of time before NO will be flattened by a Hurricane.

[Antny12]

I think Oklahoma city with the constant threat of tornadoes in that area it seems inevitable to be a future possible target of one.

[jamills21]

Originally Posted by TheDarkSide

Personally, I think the most Dangerous city to live in according to all the factors
is either Los Angeles, or Houston.

Both are next to LARGE bodies of water and in danger of Tsunami, Hurricane, etc..
Both are most-likely nuclear targets if another country tries to attack.

Both are at risk for EarthQuakes, although Los Angeles takes that category.

But Houston is practically a LIVE BOMB, with all those Gasoline and oil containers.

There are no Huricanes in Los Angeles & There is no threat of Tsunami either... Where do people get their information from?

[theraven24]

Originally Posted by jamills21

There are no Huricanes in Los Angeles & There is no threat of Tsunami either... Where do people get their information from?

Exactly. Tsunamis and hurricanes? No.

[Jack Lance]

Originally Posted by TheDarkSide

Personally, I think the most Dangerous city to live in according to all the factors
is either Los Angeles, or Houston.

Both are next to LARGE bodies of water and in danger of Tsunami, Hurricane, etc..
Both are most-likely nuclear targets if another country tries to attack.

Both are at risk for EarthQuakes, although Los Angeles takes that category.

But Houston is practically a LIVE BOMB, with all those Gasoline and oil containers.

Houston at risk for a earthquake? I guess if you assume that earthquakes could happen anywhere. Houston has to have the lowest earthquake probability of anywhere in the country save perhaps Florida. I'm sure the Earthquake probabilities in the DFW are much higher along with severe thunderstorms and F-5 tornado's. Obviously Houston has a greater probability of Hurricanes than inland areas but its less than New Orleans or Miami. And lastly, obviously Houston has a higher risk of terrorist, and nuclear attack than Dallas, because who would waste a war head, or suicide bomber, on such a insignificant city with such a vapid population.

[Cleverfield]

You left off St Louis. That city is sitting atop the largest fault in the us. Being an older city with a lot of brick structures, it's a disaster waiting to happen.

[TheDarkSide]

Originally Posted by Jack Lance

Houston at risk for a earthquake? I guess if you assume that earthquakes could happen anywhere. Houston has to have the lowest earthquake probability of anywhere in the country save perhaps Florida. I'm sure the Earthquake probabilities in the DFW are much higher along with severe thunderstorms and F-5 tornado's. Obviously Houston has a greater probability of Hurricanes than inland areas but its less than New Orleans or Miami. And lastly, obviously Houston has a higher risk of terrorist, and nuclear attack than Dallas, because who would waste a war head, or suicide bomber, on such a insignificant city with such a vapid population.

Earthquakes DO happen anywhere and Everywhere.
Just the other month, we had a few here in the DFW. Just small ones (2. somethings)

But they aren't reported or advertised by the media like in California.

Earthquakes , aftershocks, tremors are everywhere.