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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-06-2009, 11:32 AM
 
Location: Houston, TX
1,305 posts, read 3,489,375 times
Reputation: 1190

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AK123 View Post
Cleveland OH is on the safe list and Columbus OH is on the dangerous list? Please explain...
Tornadoes, maybe? Perhaps the New Madrid fault which is poised to crumble any day now?
http://planningforever.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/earthquake.JPG (broken link)

I think it would be odd to include Columbus for earthquake potential without also including St. Louis, Memphis, Louisville, Cincinnati or Indianapolis though.

Good question. I really don't understand the inclusion of Columbus.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-06-2009, 11:34 AM
 
10,624 posts, read 26,729,919 times
Reputation: 6776
I agree that urban wildfires should have been included. Having seen the close proximity of the big fires in Griffith Park in LA just a couple of years ago, it was very clear just how dangerous and devastating to the city those fires could have been with just a little wind.

I see the study accounted for frequency, but from I've read if an earthquake were to hit NYC (which it may well do) the city would be worse off than would SF or LA, where the higher frequency and more immediate quake danger has meant that things have been stabilized, emergency responses have been more practiced, and the people are simply more prepared to deal with it when it happens. I'd rather be in SF for a huge earthquake than in NYC for even a smaller (but big) one, although of course the likelihood of it happening in my lifetime is much bigger in SF.

I remember my geology professor telling us in Minneapolis that we lived in one of the safest areas, natural-danger-wise, in the world. Some tornados, but no hurricanes, earthquakes, or flooding there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2009, 01:14 PM
 
Location: Cleveland
3,070 posts, read 11,922,658 times
Reputation: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK123 View Post
Cleveland OH is on the safe list and Columbus OH is on the dangerous list? Please explain...
I was wondering about that as well.

Although Im sure theres more to it, a lot of it may be because of tornadoes. Cleveland is actually 1% below US average for tornado activity, while Columbus is 34% above US average for tornado activity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2009, 01:36 PM
 
Location: Columbus,Ohio
1,014 posts, read 3,585,561 times
Reputation: 509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghengis View Post
According to Sustain Lane Natural Disaster Risk - 2008 US Cities Sustainability Ranking by SustainLane.com, the worst 12 U.S. cities (of the 50 most populated) at risk of a natural disaster are:

39.Columbus, OH
39.Tulsa, OK
39.Oklahoma City, OK
42.Long Beach, CA
43.Los Angeles, CA
45.San Jose, CA
46.Honolulu, HI
47.San Francisco, CA
48.Oakland, CA
49.New Orleans, LA
50.Miami, FL
(not too many surprises there)


the 10 safest are:

1. Mesa, AZ
1. Milwaukee, WI
3. Cleveland, OH
3. Phoenix, AZ
3. Tucson, AZ
3. El Paso, TX
7. Colorado Springs, CO
8. Philadelphia, PA
8. Minneapolis, MN
8. Detroit, MI

The cities above were ranked by risk of natural disasters that could change the landscape of a city in a short period of time, affecting most city structures, water and energy supplies, in addition to the widespread loss of life. Drought and urban wildfires were not included.
I live in Columbus Ohio and our weather is somewhat bland compared to the other cities in your list of the top 10 dangerous ( even though we can get nasty thunderstorms and straight line winds.) Whats up with that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2009, 05:37 AM
 
Location: Bel Air, California
23,766 posts, read 29,045,903 times
Reputation: 37337
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK123 View Post
Cleveland OH is on the safe list and Columbus OH is on the dangerous list? Please explain...
Looked foe awhile for the reasons for this but couldn't find anything conclusive other than a higher than "normal" flood risk. Way on the edge of earthquake zone and even tornadoes. Maybe the statisticians that compiled this list are accounting for the potential that has been building up all these years. You might want to glance out your window more often if you live in Columbus. I'll also check to see if the organization had a connection to the University of Michigan!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2009, 09:12 AM
 
Location: The Woods
18,356 posts, read 26,489,954 times
Reputation: 11350
I'm surprised Anchorage, AK wasn't on the top of the list, another earthquake like 1964 would be quite a disaster...

And, I think any big city along the New Madrid Fault is a disaster waiting to happen...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2009, 09:20 AM
 
Location: Surprise, AZ
8,613 posts, read 10,143,894 times
Reputation: 7969
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghengis View Post
According to Sustain Lane Natural Disaster Risk - 2008 US Cities Sustainability Ranking by SustainLane.com, the worst 12 U.S. cities (of the 50 most populated) at risk of a natural disaster are:

39.Columbus, OH
39.Tulsa, OK
39.Oklahoma City, OK
42.Long Beach, CA
43.Los Angeles, CA
45.San Jose, CA
46.Honolulu, HI
47.San Francisco, CA
48.Oakland, CA
49.New Orleans, LA
50.Miami, FL
(not too many surprises there)


the 10 safest are:

1. Mesa, AZ
1. Milwaukee, WI
3. Cleveland, OH
3. Phoenix, AZ
3. Tucson, AZ
3. El Paso, TX
7. Colorado Springs, CO
8. Philadelphia, PA
8. Minneapolis, MN
8. Detroit, MI

The cities above were ranked by risk of natural disasters that could change the landscape of a city in a short period of time, affecting most city structures, water and energy supplies, in addition to the widespread loss of life. Drought and urban wildfires were not included.
I don't understand why they separated Mesa and Phoenix with Milwaukee and Cleveland between them. Mesa and Phoenix are less than 20 miles apart.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2009, 01:54 PM
 
Location: Mile high city
795 posts, read 2,409,945 times
Reputation: 266
You could add NYC to that list. Recent trends show a rising ocean to be affecting NYC.

Rising Seas: A View from New York City
NASA GISS: Science Briefs: Rising Seas
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-07-2009, 05:41 PM
 
Location: Chandler, AZ
105 posts, read 274,789 times
Reputation: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZLiam View Post
I don't understand why they separated Mesa and Phoenix with Milwaukee and Cleveland between them. Mesa and Phoenix are less than 20 miles apart.
Yeah, I don't get that either. They should have just combined them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-14-2010, 02:47 AM
 
65 posts, read 218,198 times
Reputation: 60
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZLiam View Post
I don't understand why they separated Mesa and Phoenix with Milwaukee and Cleveland between them. Mesa and Phoenix are less than 20 miles apart.
Phoenix might be a little more at risk for flooding since it's lower than mesa. I live in mesa, I noticed my neighborhood is on top of a pretty big hill, and when It rained it was like a river going down the street.
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