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.
I'm thinking about hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, flash floods, mud slides, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes. The lowest risk places I can think of: Phoenix/Tucson AZ, Albuquerque NM, Boise ID, Spokane WA, Raleigh/Greensboro/Charlotte/Asheville NC, Greenville SC, Knoxville/Johnson City/Chattanooga TN, Richmond/Roanoke VA. Those are the areas that come to mind for me.
But who really cares about blizzards? They don't devastate or destroy an area. It snows, you get a day off work, shovel or plow, then it melts....
Tell that to my in-laws in the Boston area in Jan. 2015, lol. It was pretty darn bad. Couldn't go anywhere and roofs were caving in from the weight of the snow.
Tell that to my in-laws in the Boston area in Jan. 2015, lol. It was pretty darn bad. Couldn't go anywhere and roofs were caving in from the weight of the snow.
A roof, or two, hardly compares to an earthquake, or volcano.
I'm thinking about hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, flash floods, mud slides, volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes. The lowest risk places I can think of: Phoenix/Tucson AZ, Albuquerque NM, Boise ID, Spokane WA, Raleigh/Greensboro/Charlotte/Asheville NC, Greenville SC, Knoxville/Johnson City/Chattanooga TN, Richmond/Roanoke VA. Those are the areas that come to mind for me.
One thing you didn't mention, was drought. That's a serious potential problem in a couple of these cities.
The Rust Belt. They're not near the coasts or any major fault lines, and they're too far from flat plains (the ones with large metro areas at least) for tornadoes.
A roof, or two, hardly compares to an earthquake, or volcano.
A blizzard doesn't have the direct connection to death tolls like earthquakes and volcanos, but Blizzards do kill. The death toll for one of the storms last winter was about 50. Many of the deaths are heart attacks while shoveling. Many are caused by carbon monoxide from people warming up their cars before clearing the area around the exhaust. People fall off ladders and roofs while shoveling. Some are killed by falling limbs from snow-heavy trees. More die in car wrecks because of the road conditions. While not included in the data, first responders also have a hard time reaching people in need during a blizzard which leads to deaths. Sure, many of these are preventable, but they always happen. Last year was tough on infrastructure and city and state budgets. So at face value, I'd take a blizzard over a volcano or earthquake. However, given the frequency of blizzards (and how widespread they are) vs. major earthquakes and eruptions, I'd argue that blizzards are responsible for far more deaths in the U.S. than earthquakes or volcanoes.
The unpredictability of certain natural disasters does make some of them irrationally scarier. For example, hurricanes/cyclones are deadly and occur more frequently than major earthquakes or eruptions. However the fact that a hurricane is typically predicted and monitored at least a few days out whereas an earthquake or major eruption (though they're somewhat predicable too) could happen at any time makes the prospect scarier for many (including myself). Hurricanes and cyclones have killed more Americans than any other type of natural disaster, but I'd guess that earthquakes still worry people more.
A roof, or two, hardly compares to an earthquake, or volcano.
I'm not comparing. A natural disaster is a natural disaster, even if one is worse than the other. Otherwise, only one disaster could be considered since it's "worse" than all of the others. But, I do agree, an earthquake is worse than maybe all of them. It does so much damage and you really get no warning. Hurricanes are up there too. Brings more consistent wide-spread damage, but you have warnings before it hits land. Pretty frightening for sure!
One thing you didn't mention, was drought. That's a serious potential problem in a couple of these cities.
Yep. You're right. Drought is truly a natural disaster as well and should be on the list. I was just thinking that some places like Phoenix are use to such a dry climate and have acclimated accordingly.
After this recent tornado scare, I've gotta say I'm starting to think about focusing my job search on places that don't deal with them. What cities are least at risk of a natural disaster (tornadoes, earthquakes, and hurricanes)? I looked up a couple lists online, but they were both largely biased and inconsistent, so I figured I'd get some opinions around here.
Hi DownSouth88, do you have like a specific region where you are looking for living in the U.S.A?
Because I can tell Denver, Chicago and Alletown in Pennsylvania are really good options, this cities has never seen any significant damage in a natural disaster theme.
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.
