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.
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.
Nice. I wish I'd known that.
But now I DO ! THANX.
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.
Los Angeles is at a low tsunami risk. It doesn't have the kinds of offshore faults one sees say in Japan. There are some offshore faults near San Onofre but they are likely to cause smaller and less catastrophic tsunamis, if at all.
Further north along the Pacific coast, however, the tsunami risk does increase. Washington, Oregon, and Northern California are exposed to a greater risk, in addition to the earthquake risk.
LA's biggest threats are earthquakes, forest fires, and drought. Forest fires are more of a threat on the fringe areas though especially near the national forests.
Overall, I'd say Miami is most at risk. With it being right on the ocean, a direct hit from a Cat 5 hurricane could annihilate the city.
... 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.
Who? Well, Houston (and yourself) would.
I don't want to derail this thread by pointing out who is a hater...
so I'll leave it at that.
But that is just for a large natural disaster. For the actual amounts of disasters, California cities and Alaska cities have to be up there as they get tons of Earthquakes just not big ones all the time. Also Tornado valley cities have to be up there as they get tons of tornadoes just not big ones all the time. And tornadoes tend to destroy smaller areas compared to hurricanes or earthquakes. Florida actually gets a TON of tornadoes just mostly weak ones.
As for the most likely city to be destroyed. I would say New Orleans or a city close to the mega volcano under Yellowstone.
I also thought of St.Louis. This city has a history of violent tornadoes, could you imagine one of those long track EF4s or EF5s making a direct hit on the city? Then we are squeezed between these rivers that showed what they can do in 1993 when we were flooded. The worst I fear would be a major earthquake from New Madrid, unlike people in California, Missourians wouldn't have a clue what to do and like the other poster stated, some of these buildings are over a hundred years old and nothing has been built with earthquakes in mind.
I wouldn't underestimate the volcanos in the Pacific Northwest.. roughly as many people died in the Mt. St. Helens eruption in 1980 as did in the 1989 San Francisco earthquake.
Honolulu would probably be the most dangerous: volcano, earthquake, tsunami, and tropical storm threats.
I also thought of St.Louis. This city has a history of violent tornadoes, could you imagine one of those long track EF4s or EF5s making a direct hit on the city? Then we are squeezed between these rivers that showed what they can do in 1993 when we were flooded. The worst I fear would be a major earthquake from New Madrid, unlike people in California, Missourians wouldn't have a clue what to do and like the other poster stated, some of these buildings are over a hundred years old and nothing has been built with earthquakes in mind.
If they haven't already, they really should start educating people about what to do if an earthquake does happen. Or at least have some kind of major disaster plan in place.
Some place in Florida, for sure. Hurricanes can just dance right across Florida from the Gulf to the Atlantic or vice versa without even noticing they crossed a land mass.
Any place in Florida is far more likely to be struck by a hurricane than any place anywhere else will be struck by a tornado...insurance companies have the stats down pat.
I wouldn't underestimate the volcanos in the Pacific Northwest.. roughly as many people died in the Mt. St. Helens eruption in 1980 as did in the 1989 San Francisco earthquake.
Honolulu would probably be the most dangerous: volcano, earthquake, tsunami, and tropical storm threats.
That's a good point too.. I read recently somewhere that the magma is starting to churn again under Mount St. Helens. Ah, here it is:
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.
THANX.
