Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.