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.
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 know there's most likely a small chance of it happening, but I live in the phoenix area, and there are quite a few dams around us. Most are concrete, but the waddell dam isn't. It's actually called the new waddell dam now, the old waddell dam was breached and its under the water right behind the new one so IDK lol. Anyway i hear people say phoenix is so immune to natural disasters, but yet there has been billions spent on a flood protection system.
I'm not sure I agree with this list. Since when is Honolulu a high risk city for a disaster? Hurricanes are quite rare in Hawaii & earthquakes\ tsunami's are infrequent. And all the California cities on the list also puzzles me. The last strong earthquakes over the past 25 yrs couldn't have produced more than 200 dead total in California. The Northridge earthquake in Los Angeles only killed 72 people & just 62 in the Loma Prieta\ San Francisco earthquake [and during the same time period the other California quakes only killed just a handful of people]. Also the last tsunami to kill people in California occurred after the Alaska earthquake in 1964 & only 11 people died. Seems to me that tornados are more dangerous but have a fairly small area compared to earthquakes. Also hurricanes have to be more deadly than earthquakes.
O YEA!
New Orleans should be the worst no matter what the population is.. that whole area is a dead zone.
LOL IDK y people who obviously never been to N.O have such neg views. This is why the media has such a hold on us as a country. At least N.O has some kind of protection, Miami is just out there, even if they get devastated, they can rebuild but they'll jus be waiting on another storm. At least N.O can put up a fight.
I'm not sure I agree with this list. Since when is Honolulu a high risk city for a disaster? Hurricanes are quite rare in Hawaii & earthquakes\ tsunami's are infrequent. And all the California cities on the list also puzzles me. The last strong earthquakes over the past 25 yrs couldn't have produced more than 200 dead total in California. The Northridge earthquake in Los Angeles only killed 72 people & just 62 in the Loma Prieta\ San Francisco earthquake [and during the same time period the other California quakes only killed just a handful of people]. Also the last tsunami to kill people in California occurred after the Alaska earthquake in 1964 & only 11 people died. Seems to me that tornados are more dangerous but have a fairly small area compared to earthquakes. Also hurricanes have to be more deadly than earthquakes.
You have natural disasters mixed up with natural occurrences. When 72 people die and serious damage is done, it is a disaster (not the worst) but still a disaster caused by nature, which makes it a natural disaster.
Hawaii is on an island with volcanoes, and the possibility of a tsunami, its probably more so the vulnerability of being on an island during these natural occurrences, rather than the natural occurrences happening frequently........................also earthquakes are WAY more deadly than hurricanes. In the U.S I believe the deadliest killed 8000, you can probably bump that up to say 8500 counting all. I don't think katrina counts, as many people died from the flooding of the levee breaches which for the most part happened after the storm passed. It was more of an engineering disaster rather than natural. If you count the 8000 people from the galveston hurricane (maybe more than 8000) and others as oppose to earthquakes in the u.s then yes hurricanes have been ore deadly in these events. (mostly because before the gal. hurricane people didn't know the storm was so strong, and like I said with katrina was more an engineering disaster. For the most part we have learned from both occurrences but mistakes in the past puts hurricanes ahead of earthquakes. But if you look at the world, already this year more than 200,000 people have died (mostly haiti). I saw on tv the other day it's normal to have over 20,000 deaths in the world from earthquakes, but hurricanes, typhoons and such people evacuate so hurricanes are usually less deadly. Earthquakes u never see em coming lol.
I knew it would be on the safer side for Natural disasters, but didnt know it was that safe. This is great news.
Its funny how Columbus is only about 120 miles south of Cleveland, but is on the most dangerous side of the list.
LOL a little bit of snow never hurt anyone. That 120 miles makes a big differance, people in Cleveland drive 80 through 5 inches of snow, but get half an inch in Columbus and everybody pulls to the side of the freeway. Its funny, I never knew Columbus was such a naturally dangerous city? Tornadoes maybe????
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'm surprised Columbus ranked that low. Tornadoes?
I'm surprised Columbus ranked that low. Tornadoes?
I feel that if you live in an urban environment (higher the residential & commercial density the better) then a tornado is a negligible threat. I'm surprised that Chicago isn't top 10 for that alone. Tornadoes seem to only have an impact on those patches of rural areas.
I feel that if you live in an urban environment (higher the residential & commercial density the better) then a tornado is a negligible threat. I'm surprised that Chicago isn't top 10 for that alone. Tornadoes seem to only have an impact on those patches of rural areas.
I know, right? Chicago should have been in the top 10, and I was very surprised that it wasn't. Although a tornado risk does exist in the suburbs, the city itself hasn't had a tornado since 1969, and the urban density and high concentration of tall skyscrapers probably help impede tornado formation.
Chicago doesn't get hurricanes (geographically impossible) or dangerous earthquakes (not near any major fault lines). All the city gets are blizzards, which I personally don't consider to be natural disasters. They don't come close to the destructive potential of earthquakes, wildfires, tornadoes, and hurricanes.
Plus, the city's location would render it immune to flooding from climate change-related sea level rises.
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.
That 120 miles makes a big differance, people in Cleveland drive 80 through 5 inches of snow, but get half an inch in Columbus and everybody pulls to the side of the freeway. Its funny, I never knew Columbus was such a naturally dangerous city? Tornadoes maybe????
