Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [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)
View Poll Results: Which of these disaster-prone cities is the most dangerous?
Los Angeles (Earthquakes) 6 8.70%
San Francisco (Earthquakes) 15 21.74%
New Orleans (Hurricanes) 23 33.33%
Miami (Hurricanes) 11 15.94%
Tampa (Hurricanes) 1 1.45%
Houston (Hurricanes) 1 1.45%
Oklahoma City (Tornadoes) 9 13.04%
Other 3 4.35%
Voters: 69. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-14-2012, 06:01 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,495 posts, read 32,760,188 times
Reputation: 7752

Advertisements

what about snow storms, fires, Hail Storms, droughts.

Also, I don't see a lot of Tornado alley cities in there
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-14-2012, 06:07 PM
 
Location: Keizer, OR
1,371 posts, read 3,035,830 times
Reputation: 1184
Here's something you might like
Other than earthquakes, LA doesn't really get many terrible disasters. We get mudslides and floods on occasion but not on the same level as other places.
If you ask me, I'd much rather be in an earthquake than a tornado or hurricane.
Also, if you want to debate with me over California falling into the ocean, I have plenty of proof that completely proves that theory wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2012, 06:14 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,495 posts, read 32,760,188 times
Reputation: 7752
I have been in Houston since 1999 and have not been through a hurricane here (was out of town for Ike). I should probably knock on wood.

I think Galveston would have warranted more votes if the OP had listed it instead of Houston.
Houston's problem is due to flooding caused by concreting over flood plain. The Hurricane surge and the winds themselves are not that bad by the time it gets to the city
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-14-2012, 07:06 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,385 posts, read 28,372,317 times
Reputation: 5877
What about the risk of a tsunami off the coast of LA or SF??? We have all recently seen the recent devastation that happened in Tokyo and the Indian Ocean.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2012, 04:12 PM
 
Location: In the city
1,581 posts, read 3,837,505 times
Reputation: 2417
Sigh.

Because Hurricane Katrina got an INCREDIBLE amount of media attention (due in no small part of the colossal f*** up of federal rescue efforts) and we saw people scrambling on their roofs like animals, most of the US is convinced that living in New Orleans is amazingly dangerous. I witnessed this myself during Issac this year. My phone blew up with calls and texts from family and friends who were concerned that I was being washed away, raped at the Superdome, or shot in the street. In reality, my power went off for approx ten minutes ( I was lucky, yes, I realize that many of my neighbors suffered without AC for a week), plants in my garden got blown around, and my hurricane shutters lost a few slats on one window. It was a big storm. The wind sounded scary. But honestly, I never felt endangered.

Its all about perspective. The Gulf Coast gets a BAD storm about every 20-30 years and less bad storms make landfall every few years. If San Francisco suffered from another earthquake like the big one at the turn of the century next week, and we saw houses down and bodies in the street, we would all be saying "OMG! SF is a warzone! How can people live there!?" When I lived in the Bay Area, we had little quakes every few months. No one thought anything of it. But if the Big Bad came, you better believe people would be scattering and saying "No way I would live there!"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2012, 04:50 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,084 posts, read 15,758,726 times
Reputation: 4049
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
What about the risk of a tsunami off the coast of LA or SF??? We have all recently seen the recent devastation that happened in Tokyo and the Indian Ocean.
Yeah I mentioned that in one of my posts - basically saying that is much more frightening to me than an earthquake and especially a mudslide or wildfire (which is seriously laughable). Although I think Hollywood is at a high enough elevation that I would make it out ok.

But honestly this is something every coastal city would have to worry about, even those on the East Coast or Gulf Coast. Obviously it is less likely to occur in those places than the WC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2012, 07:09 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,385 posts, read 28,372,317 times
Reputation: 5877
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
Yeah I mentioned that in one of my posts - basically saying that is much more frightening to me than an earthquake and especially a mudslide or wildfire (which is seriously laughable). Although I think Hollywood is at a high enough elevation that I would make it out ok.

But honestly this is something every coastal city would have to worry about, even those on the East Coast or Gulf Coast. Obviously it is less likely to occur in those places than the WC.
The East Coast does have to worry about it, Cumbre Vieja is an active Volcano and if there was a big earthquake or volcano there the eastern seaboard would get a tsunami.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2012, 07:13 PM
 
Location: 602/520
2,441 posts, read 6,977,862 times
Reputation: 1815
Memphis - Tornadoes, Flooding (Mississippi River), and Earthquakes (New Madrid Fault).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2012, 07:44 PM
 
Location: LBC
4,156 posts, read 5,524,718 times
Reputation: 3593
Quote:
Originally Posted by confusedasusual View Post
Sigh.

Because Hurricane Katrina got an INCREDIBLE amount of media attention (due in no small part of the colossal f*** up of federal rescue efforts) and we saw people scrambling on their roofs like animals, most of the US is convinced that living in New Orleans is amazingly dangerous. I witnessed this myself during Issac this year. My phone blew up with calls and texts from family and friends who were concerned that I was being washed away, raped at the Superdome, or shot in the street. In reality, my power went off for approx ten minutes ( I was lucky, yes, I realize that many of my neighbors suffered without AC for a week), plants in my garden got blown around, and my hurricane shutters lost a few slats on one window. It was a big storm. The wind sounded scary. But honestly, I never felt endangered.

Its all about perspective. The Gulf Coast gets a BAD storm about every 20-30 years and less bad storms make landfall every few years. If San Francisco suffered from another earthquake like the big one at the turn of the century next week, and we saw houses down and bodies in the street, we would all be saying "OMG! SF is a warzone! How can people live there!?" When I lived in the Bay Area, we had little quakes every few months. No one thought anything of it. But if the Big Bad came, you better believe people would be scattering and saying "No way I would live there!"
Largely because of building codes, The “Big One” in LA or SF will likely inflict damage not dissimilar to that of the Chilean earthquake. 2010 Chile earthquake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Tragic indeed, but not likely to extract the same human cost if the same magnitude quake were to strike Haiti, Pakistan, etc.

More people have died from lighting strikes in Florida in the last 10 years than in earthquakes in LA over the last 40. Deaths from U.S. Earthquakes
Lightning Deaths 1998-2008 — Infoplease.com

Then there’s deaths attributable to exposure to natural elements (which are natural disasters to those specific people) which are more likely to occur in other cities as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-16-2012, 06:40 AM
 
Location: Los Altos Hills, CA
36,624 posts, read 67,123,456 times
Reputation: 21154
There's even a ranking for this.

Quote:


Munich Re developed a natural hazard risk index to calculate the danger of natural disaster in a given area as well as the value that may be destroyed. No 1. Tokyo scored 710 points, while San Francisco was a distant No. 2 with 167 points. Tokyo's risk was the highest due to its huge population and a high risk of earthquakes, along with lower levels of risk from storm damage, volcanic eruption, and tsunamis.

Top 10 cities with the biggest damage potential from natural disasters:
  1. Tokyo
  2. San Francisco
  3. Los Angeles
  4. Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto
  5. Miami
  6. New York
  7. Hong Kong
  8. Manila-Quezon
  9. London
  10. Paris
Disaster! 10 Cities Most at Risk - Netscape What's New
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. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top