Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [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)
View Poll Results: Would you rather live in an earthquake zone or an area prone to hurricanes?
Earthquake zone 30 45.45%
Hurricane area 36 54.55%
Voters: 66. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-09-2013, 08:26 PM
 
Location: Louisiana to Houston to Denver to NOVA
16,508 posts, read 26,319,530 times
Reputation: 13298

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
Hurricane Katrina alone killed more people than all of the USA earthquakes in the last 25 years (if not significantly more years) combined.
The actual hurricane didn't. It was the flooding (after the storm had passed) which killed so many people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-09-2013, 10:01 PM
 
Location: A Yankee in northeast TN
16,076 posts, read 21,154,079 times
Reputation: 43633
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieIndy View Post
Earthquake zone. As much warning as you have with hurricanes you'd have to live almost exclusively around the gulf and southeast and I just couldn't do that.
The northeast doesn't get hurricanes to the same extent, but they do get them. I find it interesting that parts of FL have few strikes.

http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/imag...jpg?1320172208
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2013, 07:51 AM
 
Location: Englewood, Near Eastside Indy
8,981 posts, read 17,294,566 times
Reputation: 7377
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
Because earthquakes do in fact hit those areas, just significantly less frequently. Charleston, SC for example suffered a major earthquake.
If Charleston SC had a major earthquake in the 1800s, would you not consider it earthquake prone?

The New Madrid and Wabash Valley have not produced a damaging earthquake since 1812, yet most of the cities in the zone have earthquake codes for their buildings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2013, 09:58 AM
 
Location: Indianapolis
3,892 posts, read 5,515,157 times
Reputation: 957
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndieIndy View Post
Earthquake zone. As much warning as you have with hurricanes you'd have to live almost exclusively around the gulf and southeast and I just couldn't do that. Plus wouldn't you have to deal with damage every couple of years compared to every few decades? Honestly, I live in a tornado area and would rather move back to where there aren't really any natural disasters... Denver.
no place is immune to natural disasters.
Tornados/Floods/Blizzards can hit Denver too.
Plus the mountain range has earthquake risks too.

Personally I rather deal with Tornados in Indiana. I have a 15 minute warning on average and it sure in hell doesn't take that long to go down into the basement
Earthquakes are low risk in Indianapolis and Hurricanes cant hurt us. We only get the left over rain from them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2013, 11:52 AM
 
1,980 posts, read 3,773,414 times
Reputation: 1600
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broadrippleguy View Post
no place is immune to natural disasters.
Tornados/Floods/Blizzards can hit Denver too.
Plus the mountain range has earthquake risks too.
The safest places in the USA to avoid risk from natural disasters is the western coastal interior of Washington and Oregon. Places like Corvallis and Olympia on the east edge of the coast hills. They do get earthquakes, but the geology and building codes keeps damage to a minimum. Olympia was near the epicenter of the 6.8 magnitude Nisqually Earthquake and suffered minimal damage.

These areas does not get dangerous heat waves, dangerous cold snaps, drought, major tornado events, hurricanes, or tsunami.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2013, 12:02 PM
 
Location: Vancouver, Canada
3,715 posts, read 5,268,607 times
Reputation: 1180
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy View Post
The safest places in the USA to avoid risk from natural disasters is the western coastal interior of Washington and Oregon. Places like Corvallis and Olympia on the east edge of the coast hills. They do get earthquakes, but the geology and building codes keeps damage to a minimum. Olympia was near the epicenter of the 6.8 magnitude Nisqually Earthquake and suffered minimal damage.

These areas does not get dangerous heat waves, dangerous cold snaps, drought, major tornado events, hurricanes, or tsunami.
isnt there a volcano near seattle or something?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2013, 12:08 PM
 
1,980 posts, read 3,773,414 times
Reputation: 1600
Quote:
Originally Posted by patrix542 View Post
isnt there a volcano near seattle or something?
Prevailing winds take the ash east. Only areas the get messed up are the river valleys down stream from said volcano. Orting for example is at risk, South Hill a few miles west is perfectly safe. You will be safe in Seattle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2013, 01:15 PM
 
Location: Seattle, Washington
3,721 posts, read 7,827,396 times
Reputation: 2029
We're all doomed when Yellowstone blows anyway.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2013, 01:25 PM
 
Location: california
7,321 posts, read 6,928,039 times
Reputation: 9258
Having been through several earth quakes ,and seen the devistation of tornados , I prefir the earth quake every time.
I live i n southern california.
Have you hears of the new madrid fault in the mid west ? that one makes the california fault insignificant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-10-2013, 01:49 PM
 
Location: Brooklyn, New York
5,464 posts, read 5,712,176 times
Reputation: 6098
Quote:
Originally Posted by hlcc View Post
If I'm not mistaken, Katrina claimed over 1400 lives, Sandy claimed about 280 lives.

On the other hand, the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake, a 6.9 earthquake in San Francisco claimed 63 lives. The 1994 Northridge earthquake, a 6.7 earthquake in Los Angeles claimed 57 lives.
Keep in mind you are comparing maximum strength hurricanes to "average" earthquakes. Earthquake-prone zones in the US have been lucky in recent memory. A Katrina-force earthquake equivalent would be a 9.0 quake hitting LA.
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.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:03 PM.

© 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