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.
This is ridicules , how can you say the potential loss of life is minimized by earthquake preparedness? Have you ever seen casualty estimates for a major earthquake in a highly populated area?
You list a wide range of weather events that have happened in Houston and I have faced most of those myself, and guess what? We are still here as is Houston. Even the worst case category 5 hurricane would not do the type or severity of damage in Houston that a severe 8 or 9 earthquake would do to a major west coast population center.
Your criteria for judging is very flawed. Show me casualty estimates that support your contentions please..
I can only go by past history of earthquakes in the US. Only 1 earthquake in US history have had death tolls greater than 200 (San Francisco, 3000 to 6000 out of about 400,000 residents, or rate of less than 2%) versus multiple 1000+ fatality events due to flooding (Galveston storm 6000-12000 fatalities of about 40,000 residents, or 25 to 35% of population). There is even contention that 3000 is too high, with actual reported deaths at the time less than 700, and a 1972 NOAA report identifying 700 to 800 deaths.
I do not disagree that an 8 or 9 couldn't do major damage, when it occurs, but the question in this thread was the "likelihood" of a disaster. I suppose on a millennial timescale I could accept earthquake as being "likely", but in the scale of our lifetimes we are more likely to witness and experience damaging and catastrophic flooding. That was the criteria I used.
Disasters in Houston are a part of life (and death) in this area, whether you want to call them disasters or not. Depends on whether you are affected, and by how much, I suppose. Disasters occurred in many great cities (Tokyo, San Francisco, Chicago, New Orleans) but that doesn't make them less great. The great cities pick themselves up and move on. Houston has done just that after previous disasters.
You need to look at cities that have multiple things to worry about, not just one. The easy choice is New Orleans. Hurricanes happen frequently and seeing how they are below sea level and in the hot zone, it's an easy pick as It'll have to face several possible threats every year. But that's really, along with rising water from the gulf from melting ice caps, that they really have to worry about.
But the cities with the most to fear has to be NYC and LA. Let's face it, if someone wants to "hurt" the US and A, they are probably going after NYC first. That's already been proven, and it makes sense. Not to say other cities have nothing to worry about as we had the Boston incident, etc. But when Ali Babi Osamma Bin Bin Bama Liden Muhammed Asif in his little cave in Pakistan is plotting to launch his war of terror on the US and A, he's probably never even heard of Houston or Phoenix. His first choice is probably going to be NYC, unless he feels it's too hot home security wise, then he'll probably choice another. But odds are, he's looking at NYC first. He knows of it, he knows it has lots and lots of people. It's more urban than LA, so more damage can be done. I think the only reason LA hasn't been targeted over Boston, DC, etc is because it's so sprawling. Lots of people, but they are spread out.
2nd reason, LA and NYC are near the water. You never now. Tsunami? Ice caps melt raising water? Long odds? Sure, but it's still a possibility. One that the residents of thistownisboring, Iowa doesn't have to worry about. LA, near water and has earthquakes. That's 3 possible threats for LA, 2 for NYC.
3rd reason: In the event of another World War, who are our enemies going to target first? Probably NYC and LA. Maybe DC and/or Hawaii. But again, NYC and LA, high profile international cities with lots and lots of people. The enemy wants to do the most damage it can. That's where its' going to look.
The Maldives Islands are already looking at purchasing land from countries like Australia & India so their people have some place to live because they are about to be under water. They are straight up gonna have to abandon their homes soon.
Are the islands sinking? I am a sport clammer, sea levels ain't rising champ. Global warming = scam.
I'd have to unfortunately nominate my home city of Seattle. Not too far away is the Cascadia subduction zone which can produce megathrust quakes greater than 9.0 magnitude, not to mention faults running throughout the city (shallow faults at that). There's also that 14,000+ foot active volcano that looms over the metro.....
Seattle is one of the safer cities due to its stricter building standards due to the earthquake potential. Mt. Rainier is a danger to Orting, not Seattle.
The only areas with earthquake fatalities in Seattle in modern times are in the fill land over the old tide flats, where few people live. Once the deathtrap viaduct comes down, Seattle will be even safer. No hurricanes, no tornadoes, no danger of water shortage, no killer winter cold blasts, no killer heat waves.
Definitely agree Andy that we're working to build structures that can withstand a heck of a lot here in Seattle (I'm in the AE industry so see it first hand) so that does help. Orting is far from the only place in danger due to eruption though. Were Rainier to erupt with forces close to that of St. Helens, it is thought by a notable Washington State geology firm that lahars could destroy Enumclaw, Orting, Kent, Auburn, Puyallup, Sumner and all of Renton. Renton alone is about 100,000 people, so no small matter. I'd guess I'd lump that in with Seattle as a metro, not just city of. I agree that Seattle itself will not have much to worry about from an eruption though. And our weather is about as benign as it gets in the US no doubt.
Definitely agree Andy that we're working to build structures that can withstand a heck of a lot here in Seattle (I'm in the AE industry so see it first hand) so that does help. Orting is far from the only place in danger due to eruption though. Were Rainier to erupt with forces close to that of St. Helens, it is thought by a notable Washington State geology firm that lahars could destroy Enumclaw, Orting, Kent, Auburn, Puyallup, Sumner and all of Renton.
No. There is millions of years of geological evidence that shows which areas are in danger. The only areas in danger within Kent, Auburn, Puyallup, and especially Renton (the very least likely to get hit), are in the valley lowlands. Most of the people in these cities live up in the hills. The people around downtown Puyallup (one of the legitimate danger areas), will have sufficient time to escape to nearby higher elevation areas if the mountain were to erupt.
Also, since Mt. Rainier has last erupted, the White River has been diverted from the Green River into the Puyallup River instead, further shielding all of those valley floor warehouses and office parks in Kent and Renton.
- Global temps stable over decade and a half
- Arctic ice levels are robust
- Sea level stable
Meanwhile corporations and scammers are taking advantage of people's understandable desire to keep the planet healthy by throwing out a bunch of junk science, lies, & corporate/Hollywood/big media propaganda to the fools too stupid to do the math for themselves, and are getting filthy rich from it!
New Orleans, easily. It essentially sits in a bowl below sea level with the Mississippi held out by earthen dikes.
Katrina was a Category 1-2 when it hit New Orleans and that nearly destroyed the city. Imagine what would happen to New Orleans should a Category 5 hurricane give the city a direct hit. There would be nothing left except the most solidly built buildings.
Last edited by cpg35223; 05-14-2014 at 04:53 PM..
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.
