U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-08-2017, 08:11 PM
 
Location: Appalachian New York, Formerly Louisiana
4,100 posts, read 4,730,726 times
Reputation: 5374

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr roboto View Post
A blizzard isn't a natural disaster. It's not even that dangerous.
I think y'all are forgetting a couple of important factors here.

1. Houses can and have collapsed under heavy snow, especially low income housing and aged homes.

2. People have been caught in snow storms on the road and have been trapped in their car or died in an accident.

3. Blizzards that are followed by fast thaws cause flooding.

4. Fire hazards rise due not only to heating, but also power lines that go down.

5. Most common, trees or large branches fall under snow weight and in some cases can crush vehicles or roofs.

While not the most dangerous, blizzards are to be taken seriously.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-08-2017, 08:14 PM
 
2,546 posts, read 1,634,457 times
Reputation: 2029
Hawaii
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2017, 08:40 PM
 
Location: Twin Cities (StP)
3,017 posts, read 1,869,658 times
Reputation: 2342
Salt Lake City. Do they get blizzards?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2017, 09:19 PM
 
Location: Big Bayou
721 posts, read 298,570 times
Reputation: 988
I heard somewhere that Storrs, CT is the least prone city to natural disaster in the country. It is too far inland for Hurricanes, never gets earthquakes, the elevation is too high and it is too hilly for floods, so the only natural disasters that it is prone to are blizzards, which it doesn't seem to get hit with any more often than any other city north of DC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2017, 10:45 PM
BMI
 
Location: Ontario
7,261 posts, read 4,492,065 times
Reputation: 5593
Albuquerque
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2017, 01:59 AM
 
Location: Washington State desert
5,534 posts, read 3,683,135 times
Reputation: 4115
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grizzly Addams View Post
Salt Lake City. Do they get blizzards?
Yes, but not common.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2017, 05:53 AM
 
1,290 posts, read 1,123,930 times
Reputation: 2152
Quote:
Originally Posted by CookieSkoon View Post
I think y'all are forgetting a couple of important factors here.

1. Houses can and have collapsed under heavy snow, especially low income housing and aged homes.

2. People have been caught in snow storms on the road and have been trapped in their car or died in an accident.

3. Blizzards that are followed by fast thaws cause flooding.

4. Fire hazards rise due not only to heating, but also power lines that go down.

5. Most common, trees or large branches fall under snow weight and in some cases can crush vehicles or roofs.

While not the most dangerous, blizzards are to be taken seriously.
Yes I know. I've lived in the upper Midwest my whole life.

When I think 'natural disaster' I think widespread destruction. Like a hurricane or an outbreak of tornadoes or wild fire or earthquakes. Blizzards rarely damage property on any widespread level. Sure on occasion a branch snaps or a roof collapses but those make Facebook or the news cause they are rare.

Flooding from melting snow isn't usually from one storm. That's the thaw in the springtime and is the melting of the whole winters snow. I can't think of some flash melt that caused widespread damage (maybe in the mountains or high desert?).

Torrential rains are more damaging than large snows. They can cause flash floods, mudslides, trees to fall over due to saturated soil and high winds etc. We are far more worried about a 1-2inch/hr summer rainstorm here in MN than a blizzard.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2017, 05:57 AM
 
21,187 posts, read 30,351,954 times
Reputation: 19614
Quote:
Originally Posted by AT9 View Post
Interesting question. I'd nominate Winston-Salem.
It's too far inland to get severe hurricane damage; too far south to get severe blizzards/long-lasting severe cold streaks; it gets hot, but not extremely hot; low earthquake risk; and even the "severe" weather is rare and rather tame compared to severe thunderstorms further south (coastal/deep south) and west (Oklahoma/plains states) where tornadoes, flash flooding, and hail are a constant threat.
I agree. Greensboro and Winston Salem seem just far enough west that incoming tropical systems off the Atlantic don't affect the area as much (or at all) as even Raleigh-Durham which is 45 minutes east, and don't have the other weather hazards pointed out including wildfires or mudslides.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2017, 10:17 AM
 
Location: Appalachian New York, Formerly Louisiana
4,100 posts, read 4,730,726 times
Reputation: 5374
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr roboto View Post
Yes I know. I've lived in the upper Midwest my whole life.

When I think 'natural disaster' I think widespread destruction. Like a hurricane or an outbreak of tornadoes or wild fire or earthquakes. Blizzards rarely damage property on any widespread level. Sure on occasion a branch snaps or a roof collapses but those make Facebook or the news cause they are rare.

Flooding from melting snow isn't usually from one storm. That's the thaw in the springtime and is the melting of the whole winters snow. I can't think of some flash melt that caused widespread damage (maybe in the mountains or high desert?).

Torrential rains are more damaging than large snows. They can cause flash floods, mudslides, trees to fall over due to saturated soil and high winds etc. We are far more worried about a 1-2inch/hr summer rainstorm here in MN than a blizzard.
A natural disaster doesn't have to be on the extreme to be a disaster caused by nature. A disaster to even one person is still a disaster.

Even a tornado is not guaranteed to kill anybody. Neither is a flood. Neither is a fire. Neither is a quake.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2017, 10:33 AM
 
Location: Tennessee
425 posts, read 292,953 times
Reputation: 732
Any Great Lakes city (Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, Grand Rapids, Milwaukee, Buffalo, etc) would be my opinion of least prone to natural disasters. Hardly any tornadoes (at least destructive ones), no major Floods, no wildfires, definitely no hurricanes or Tsunamis. Sure, some Lake Effect snow in certain areas and cold winters, but nothing that causes widespread destruction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top