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.
None; this area of the country doesn't get natural disasters, unless you call lots of snow in the winter a disaster.
In Cleveland I'd be more concerned with unnatural disasters like, say, rivers catching on fire.
Here in Denver the primary natural disaster is either hail or wildfires (in the foothills) followed by typically weak tornadoes - none of which are all that scary.
Earthquakes - They might sound scary for someone who doesn't live in an active seismic zone, but they are not common enough to scare anyone who lives here really. No one thinks about earthquakes until they happen.
Wildfires/Mudslides - Contrary to popular belief, I would wager that only about 20-30% of Californians actually live in a fire/mudslide prone area. I'm being very generous with that assumption. Anyway I live miles and miles from the nearest one, so these don't scare me.
Tsunamis - This one really used to scare me as a kid, but I know now that there is ample warning time, and great tsunami evacuation routes where I live.
I guess I'm not really afraid of any natural disasters here.
The people who should fear earthquakes who probably don't are residents of St. Louis. They sit on top of one of the largest faults in the US, and their infrastructure isn't built to withstand massive earthquakes. It's a ticking time bomb.
None; this area of the country doesn't get natural disasters, unless you call lots of snow in the winter a disaster.
This. I also live in a natural disaster free zone and it's boring. The worst natural disaster we have to deal with is the occasional lady with bad 80's bangs.
In Chicago? Not much. There's the occasional tornado watch, but this isn't nearly as big of a problem here as it is back in St. Louis. People don't even blink when there's a tornado warning down there because they occur so frequently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleverfield
None; this area of the country doesn't get natural disasters, unless you call lots of snow in the winter a disaster.
Cleveland is similar in Chicago in this way, but you guys did have a large tornado hit the city in the 50s. Just something to keep in mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleverfield
The people who should fear earthquakes who probably don't are residents of St. Louis. They sit on top of one of the largest faults in the US, and their infrastructure isn't built to withstand massive earthquakes. It's a ticking time bomb.
Assuming it happens. Occasionally there will be an article saying maybe the New Madrid fault won't be able to produce a big quake like it did in the early 1800s, and then you have another that talks about how everything is going to collapse when it happens because everything is brick, and it could happen "any day now," etc.
It's not just St. Louis though; Memphis will also suffer the same fate as the fault is in between them, and Memphis also uses a lot of brick.
In Cleveland I'd be more concerned with unnatural disasters like, say, rivers catching on fire.
Here in Denver the primary natural disaster is either hail or wildfires (in the foothills) followed by typically weak tornadoes - none of which are all that scary.
For some reason people think telling jokes about something that happened 45 years ago is still funny.
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.
