Most dangerous city in terms of natural disasters? (live, population, Los Angeles)
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.
Which of the following disaster-prone cities do you think is the most dangerous? Which one would you be most afraid to live, considering only natural disaster risk and nothing else?
Los Angeles (Earthquakes)
San Francisco (Earthquakes)
New Orleans (Hurricanes)
Miami (Hurricanes)
Tampa (Hurricanes)
Houston (Hurricanes)
Oklahoma City (Tornadoes)
It's definitely between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Apparently many seismologist proclaim that San Francisco in particular is long overdue for a catastrophic earthquake.
Any coastal city is at serious risk, even those that don't have a history of natural disaster, like all 5 of the Northeast cities.
I voted for Miami in this case, but it's really a toss up between Miami, LA and SF in my mind. All of them will inevitably be greatly affected by natural disaster. Maybe because I'm from the East Coast and see nasty storms every year, but I'm more afraid of hurricanes than earthquakes.
It's definitely between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Apparently many seismologist proclaim that San Francisco in particular is long overdue for a catastrophic earthquake.
More people have been killed in the last decade of hurricanes than the last century of earthquakes. Earthquakes are not that bad. The occasional big one my be bad, but look at Katrina. When was the last time LA or SF looked like that?
Any coastal city is at serious risk, even those that don't have a history of natural disaster, like all 5 of the Northeast cities.
I voted for Miami in this case, but it's really a toss up between Miami, LA and SF in my mind. All of them will inevitably be greatly affected by natural disaster. Maybe because I'm from the East Coast and see nasty storms every year, but I'm more afraid of hurricanes than earthquakes.
Miami??? Really???
The last hurricane to make landfall there was in 1992, 19 years ago. Prior to that it was like 1964. Meanwhile everyone talks about LA solely for earthquakes but has everyone forgotten the mudslides and wildfires?? Pretty much every year either or both happen. I'd be more afraid of earthquakes, fires and mudslides where there is little or no warning. Hurricanes are broadcast to the highest alert level and you have plenty of time to prepare.
Which of the following disaster-prone cities do you think is the most dangerous? Which one would you be most afraid to live, considering only natural disaster risk and nothing else?
Los Angeles (Earthquakes)
San Francisco (Earthquakes)
New Orleans (Hurricanes)
Miami (Hurricanes)
Tampa (Hurricanes)
Houston (Hurricanes)
Oklahoma City (Tornadoes)
FYI, Tampa has never had a hurricane make landfall there since it's not actually on the coast. St Petersburg, the twin city of the Tampa Bay area (the one actually on the coast) hasn't had one make landfall there either.
I would have to say New Orleans. When you live in a city that is shaped like a bowl surrounded by water, all it takes is a failure of the levys by another strong hurricane and you have Katrina all over again. I would put San Francisco close behind due to being located on a peninsula with bridges and freeways being the only way out. If a category 10 hits and fires run rampant, the 700,000+ residents will have to rely on the surface streets (probably broken) and limited ferry service to escape the city while fires run rampant. I would not want to live there when that happens. Another interesting one to think about would be NYC with hurricanes. I heard that although it is unlikely, if one hit Manhattan it would be extremely devastating
You can see and forecast hurricanes days away and thousands of miles out. There are zero warnings for earthquakes. Because of that, I voted San Francisco as most at risk, but LA isn't far behind.
The last hurricane to make landfall there was in 1992, 19 years ago. Prior to that it was like 1964. Meanwhile everyone talks about LA solely for earthquakes but has everyone forgotten the mudslides and wildfires?? Pretty much every year either or both happen. I'd be more afraid of earthquakes, fires and mudslides where there is little or no warning. Hurricanes are broadcast to the highest alert level and you have plenty of time to prepare.
Mudslides are extremely localized, and wildfires more often than not happen in sparsely populated wilderness. The closest "LA" comes to burning is if Malibu or anywhere in the Santa Monica Mtns burns. But even that is only a drop in the bucket in terms of population affected.
Historically speaking, even the deadliest earthquake in LA's history doesn't even scratch the surface of the most deadly hurricanes. Even with all that warning, hurricanes kill more people.
Hurricane Katrina: A week or preparation and warning and 1,833 lives lost.
Northridge Earthquake: No warning whatsoever. 57 lives lost.
I don't know....57 < 1,833. Just saying, I'll take earthquakes, mudslides and wildfires every single day than ONE hurricane season. Warning and all.
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.
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.
