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 10-16-2012, 02:33 PM
 
3,635 posts, read 10,739,684 times
Reputation: 1922

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1greatcity View Post
I agree! The combined real threat of tornadoes, flooding and earthquakes poses a much greater danger than any one type of disaster alone.
St. Louis is in the same situation as Memphis. The area has been hit by major tornadoes many times; it was a victim of the Great Flood of 1993; and it lies at the northern end of the New Madrid Fault, which poses a huge threat to a city composed of many brick buildings. On top of all that, (and I've mentioned this before): Except by one major road, St. Louis city and county cannot be reached without crossing a river. If a major earthquake destroyed or damaged those bridges, over 1.3 million people would be isolated from assistance and rescue.
The "big one" hits every 300-500 years, and it's just now been 200 years since the last one. So hopefully we won't have one in our lifetimes. And maybe by the time the next one comes, they'll be way more prepared

And I think the threat to St. Louis is overblown. It's not very close to the fault line. Memphis on the other hand is very close, but still not on the fault line like some people say




Last edited by Smtchll; 10-16-2012 at 02:44 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-17-2012, 04:34 PM
 
Location: South St Louis
4,363 posts, read 4,558,321 times
Reputation: 3165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smtchll View Post
The "big one" hits every 300-500 years, and it's just now been 200 years since the last one. So hopefully we won't have one in our lifetimes. And maybe by the time the next one comes, they'll be way more prepared

And I think the threat to St. Louis is overblown. It's not very close to the fault line. Memphis on the other hand is very close, but still not on the fault line like some people say


I disagree that the earthquake threat to St. Louis is overblown. St. Louis definitely falls in the category labeled "considerable damage to poorly built structures"-- due to the thousands of old brick buildings that are extremely vulnerable in an earthquake. In a major quake, the majority of the city of St. Louis would sustain significant damage, making them uninhabitable. Many structures would completely collapse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2012, 05:27 PM
 
Location: Chicago
303 posts, read 578,587 times
Reputation: 212
Miami
Houston
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2012, 04:51 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,828 posts, read 9,408,272 times
Reputation: 6288
Based on fatalities, heat waves are far more devastating than earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes COMBINED. Rarely gets mentioned in these discussions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2012, 05:10 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,384 posts, read 28,495,298 times
Reputation: 5879
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
Based on fatalities, heat waves are far more devastating than earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes COMBINED. Rarely gets mentioned in these discussions.
But heat waves primarily effect old people. That is like saying, the flu is more dangerous, b/c it is more prevalent in cities which are cold and dense. And flu's can of course be epidemic.

Last edited by grapico; 10-18-2012 at 06:04 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2012, 05:35 PM
 
9,961 posts, read 17,511,478 times
Reputation: 9193
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
Based on fatalities, heat waves are far more devastating than earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes COMBINED. Rarely gets mentioned in these discussions.
Though on the other hand, heat waves don't cause billions in property damage and destruction like earthquakes and hurricaines can.

I guess though part of this whole discussion of what's the "most dangerous" city in terms of natural disasters comes down to if you consider more common and frequent events for some cities (yet are less potentially destructive) as being more dangerous than cities facing the threat of a much more rarer event---such as a Gulf Coast hurricaine or earthquake in California going down the line to even rarer events like less active faultlines in the Mississippi or even a volcano in the Cascades.

I mean, a large earthquake in the Bay Area could be huge, but it's fairly rare--and another big one might not even happen in our lifetimes--or it could happen tommorow. If Mt. Rainier erupted like St. Helens, Tacoma and even the edge of Seattle would be at risk from lahars coming down the river valleys--though that might not occur in even a thousand years. On the other hand there's parts of the Great Plains that frequently get tornadoes and large hail storms. There's places built on river basins that are often at risk of floods during a especially wet season. There's forested areas that often are burning in late summer wildfires on the edge of some major metros. And as you pointed out, plenty of people die every year(mostly old people, yes) from much more average weather phenomena as heat waves and also blizzards.

Though I think it's more the fear of massive destruction that people are referring to in threads like this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2012, 06:42 PM
 
Location: LBC
4,156 posts, read 5,558,208 times
Reputation: 3594
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
Based on fatalities, heat waves are far more devastating than earthquakes, hurricanes and tornadoes COMBINED. Rarely gets mentioned in these discussions.

Extreme temperature ranges are characteristic of “four-seasons”, the only proper climate for human habitation as defined by those residing in those areas. It is “normal” and, therefore, exempt from being considered a “natural disaster”, no matter how many people die as a consequence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-18-2012, 10:15 PM
 
932 posts, read 1,943,491 times
Reputation: 553
Quote:
Originally Posted by nslander View Post
Extreme temperature ranges are characteristic of “four-seasons”, the only proper climate for human habitation as defined by those residing in those areas. It is “normal” and, therefore, exempt from being considered a “natural disaster”, no matter how many people die as a consequence.
Hey now, I live in a 4-season area, and I'm an ardent believer that humans aren't supposed to live in conditions below 60 degrees. What I wouldn't give to live in southern Florida..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2012, 04:35 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,495 posts, read 32,927,318 times
Reputation: 7752
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
You guys are all crazy. It's OKC by a long shot.

Baseball size hail, F5 tornadoes, extreme heat/drought, all stuff that happens quite frequently and is not so easy to prepare for or evacuate to safe areas. Twice as many people died in the small city of Joplin when they got hit by a tornado than in the 1989 earthquake that hit the heavily populated bay area 23 years ago.

So my guess is a city that is not even listed.

Dallas/Fort Worth.

If an F5 Tornado were to stay on the ground for 20 or even 50-60 miles in the DFW area, 1000’s would die and billions of dollars worth of destruction would occur. It's only a matter of time when one of these tornadoes hits a very large sprawling metro area and does incomprehensible damage.
yeah. DFW would be a good option on the list, wonder why they left it out.

Just like OKC they often get the baseball sized hail, the extreme heat/drought in addition to the threat of monster tornadoes. Earlier this year there were two big tornadoes in DFW at the same time. looked so scary watching the split screen. One was in Dallas County the other in Tarrant County. Saw trailers being picked up and tossed around like mere toys.

Then they had that major hail storm earlier this summer and then some killer heat. To top it off there was that West Nile outbreak. DFW was hit really hard this year
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. The time now is 11:09 PM.

© 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