Which U.S. state has the fewest natural disasters?

[Sauron]

The hurricane question on the front page prompted this question.

Which U.S. state has the fewest naturally-occurring problems? The East Coast states get hurricanes frequently, here in the Southeast we get tornadoes for much of the year (ditto for the Southwest), California suffers from periodic earthquakes ...

Where in the U.S. can you live without being exposed to weather that tries to kill you?

[Spoke]

I'm guessing that New England is the most disaster-free area. In the Midwest, you get tornadoes and floods. Ditto the Southeast, with the added fun of hurricanes. In the West, you get fires and earthquakes and mudslides. Ditto the Northwest, plus volcanoes and tsunamis (potentially).

New England seems to have few such disasters. Only very rarely does a hurricane or tornado strike that far north, and I can't remember the last time I heard about a huge wildfire there. Assuming you're not worried about possible glaciation during the next Ice Age, New England would seem to be the place for the risk-averse.

[LazarusLong42]

Both the Northeast and the Great Lakes area. Here in Michigan we don't get hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, landslides, deluges, etc... the only thing we get are heavy rain, blizzards, and ice storms, about the same as what you get in New England.

My hometown, Toledo, OH, is even better off; being on the lee side of Lake Erie, there is rarely a snowstorm or ice storm. But they do get a tornado or two a year :)

LL

[Shagnasty]

Deleware hands down. Nothing ever happens there.

[LateComer]

New England? Did none of you see the perfect Storm?

I would have to say Pennsylvania. It is too far inland to see the effects of Ocean storms. It is too hilly to have many tornadoes. No Earthquakes (well, not major ones. PA did have a small one last year). No volcanoes. Just minor flooding in some areas (Pittsburgh in particular) and an occasional snowstorm. And, of course, Erie which is on Lake Erie doesn't consider snowstorms Natural disasters. They are work for the plow operators.

Of course some might consider Philadelphia to be a very large natural disaster.

[Whack-a-Mole]

I forgot the show I was watching but I think the 'safest' place in the US is either in Montana or Idaho (I forget which one). They even have it down to a specific location in that state. It is geologically very stable, no nearby volcanos, far enough from any coast to worry about tsunamis, etc. The worst you can expect there are heavy snow storms but certainly nothing that'll kill you outright like a tornado or earthquake.

[conway]

Originally posted by mavpace
Delaware hands down. Nothing ever happens there.

I thought it was decided that Delaware doesn't exist?

[Occam]

Since when are snow storms not considered lethal? Yeah I wouldn't call them 'disasters', but I'll bet snow and cold have killed many more poeple than tornados.

My vote: Treasure Valley in west Idaho. It's always mild temperature wise (They never see snow), moutains all around disrupt tornados, no fault lines, and there's rarely a drout.

[Padeye]

I wouldn't call Montana benign. Tell that to the folks in the biterroot that suffered through the summer fires. As for the easter 2/3 of the state they have some brutal winters and a fair number of tornados.

[BobT]

I believe New Mexico fares pretty well when it comes to natural disasters. It's not in an active seismic area. It's too far inland for tropical storms. I don't believe it gets too many tornadoes.

Wildfires would be your biggest problem.

[wireless]

1. it's small, so not a lot happens here anyway (statistically or otherwise).
2. it's in the mid-atlantic region, which is pretty quiet, in the natural disaster sense, as discussed above.
3. it doesn't have the amount of coastline that Rhode Island - the other tiny state - has. So we don't get those infamous "nor'easters" (a la "the Perfect Storm").

Having said that, I will add that while living in Delaware, I've experienced both a (mild) earthquake and a hurricane (Agnes). Both were back in the early-mid '70's however. Also, we do get the occasional river flood.

And we do have among the highest level of non-natural disasters in the form of chemical pollution and superfund sites-per-capita. And the cancer rates bear this out. Thank you, DuPont et. al.

So, as Emily Litella would say:
"Nevermind"

(God, have I dated myself!)

[Spoke]

LateComer wrote:I would have to say Pennsylvania.

You have heard of the Johnstown Flood, I presume? I figure any disaster prominent enough to have a song written about automatically disqualifies a state.

As for the Great Lakes area, it may be geologically stable but there is the occasional problem with wildfires. (Peshtigo, WI had the most deadly wildfire in U.S. history, IIRC.) Dunno about Michigan, specifically, but I would imagine that the U.P. and the northern section of the L.P. face a risk from fire. (Not to mention the Edmund-Fitzgerald-sinking storms that blow in off of Lake Superior. Hmm, there's that song-worthy disaster disqualification again...)

Delaware, as we established in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=35621), simply does not exist, and therefore is disqualified. The closest Delaware could ever come to a natural disaster would be if the intricate computer program that passes it off as an actual state were to crash. (And besides, even if the theoretical "Delaware" did exist, it's purported location is exposed to danger from Atlantic hurricanes.)

As for the so-called "Perfect Storm," that was only a problem at sea, wasn't it? If you're living in, say, Vermont, I still think you are safe and sound.

[Fear Itself]

To answer this question, we first have to agree on a definition. No state is without any kind of bad weather or natural phenomena; it is a matter of degree and comparison. For the purposes of this discussion, how about limiting qualified disasters to those reported by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)?

The archives of FEMA (http://www.fema.gov/library/lib01.htm) is the best place to find out information on disasters of all kinds. They have a map of Presidential disaster declarations since 1964 (http://www.fema.gov/library/imgs/dd-1964.gif). There is also Major Disaster Declarations, 1972-1997 (http://www.fema.gov/library/diz72-98.htm).

Based on these resources, the answer to the question seems to be Wyoming.

[wireless]

Originally posted by spoke-

As for the so-called "Perfect Storm," that was only a problem at sea, wasn't it? If you're living in, say, Vermont, I still think you are safe and sound.



I wasn't refering to just that one storm but rather to storms like it. Vermont, perhaps, would be OK from such a storm. But doesn't the coast (of ME, RI, MA, etc.) get the same storms as the sea? Or was it just mirages that all those fishermen and sailors crashed into in all those storms in history? ;)

As for the Delaware-not-existing comments, I'm gonna have to let them slide for now as I've been remiss in submitting my photographic evidence to the contrary. But, spoke-, you're on notice. (again ;) )

[panamajack]

I'm willing to mostly agree with Fear Itself that FEMA statistics provide a good sense of a relatively safe place to live in one's lifetime.

But I recently saw a show that mentioned that the Yellowstone caldera is one of the most likely to cause a major regional disaster (with worldwide consequences) if it has a massive eruption. So maybe Wyoming isn't so great after all, depending on your criteria. Such an event is extremely rare, but would be considered the worst natural disaster in U.S. History if it were to occur anytime soon.

[schief2]

Originally posted by Fear Itself
The archives of FEMA (http://www.fema.gov/library/lib01.htm) is the best place to find out information on disasters of all kinds. They have a map of Presidential disaster declarations since 1964 (http://www.fema.gov/library/imgs/dd-1964.gif).

Based on these resources, the answer to the question seems to be Wyoming.

One could make a pretty good case for Nevada, too, based off this stuff.

Does anyone else find it fascinating how North Dakota, of all places, sticks out like a sore thumb on the map above? County-per-county, it's the worst area in the U.S. - practically every county in the state's had anywhere from seven to twenty(!) presidential declarations of disaster in the last 35 years. The only other state that really even gives it a run for the money is California, and we all know about them... ;) Southwestern Maine's a lot more catastrophe-prone than I would've thought, too...

Fascinating link.

[red_dragon60]

I would venture to guess Washingotn State or Hawaii. Hawaii because there are only volcanoes and tsunamis, and Washington because they are just about only able to be hit by earthquakes.

[Spoke]

But doesn't the coast (of ME, RI, MA, etc.) get the same storms as the sea? Or was it just mirages that all those fishermen and sailors crashed into in all those storms in history?

I guess my point is that I wouldn't consider it a "disaster" for purposes of the OP unless people are losing their homes. Fires, earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, tsunamis, mudslides and hurricanes are notorious destroyers of homes. Sure, your Nor'easter will sink some ships, but is anyone's home getting blown away?

As far as Delaware goes, I'm sure that if anyone could ever actually find their way to that Shangri-la, nothing would happen to them, because nothing happens there, period. ;)

[Max Torque]

I'd have to agree with New Mexico, having lived there for many years. The fires this past summer were a bizarre fluke. Beyond that, NM has nothing more than the occasional flood, which normally only means some river swelling and running water in typically-dry riverbeds, not destruction of houses and whatnot, like you get in states along the mighty Mississip.

New Mexico is too far inland to get any tropical storms, and most of the state is at an altitude that thwarts tornados. Weather is usually quite pleasant, not too hot, and very little humidity. Earthquakes are unheard of. I'd live there still, if I could afford it....

[Whack-a-Mole]

Looking at that FEMA map I'm surprised to see Chicago (actually Cook County which is 95% the city of Chicago alone) on the map at the highest disaster level.

I've lived here for 33 of the 36 years that map covers and I have a hard time thinking what the disasters could be. Mostly I come up with snowstorms but except for the blizzard of '79 nothing THAT disastrous comes to mind. At least not disastrous enough to declare a Federal Disaster Area.

Does the '68 Democratic National Convention count? How about the '92 ('93?) flood where a hole was poked in the Chicago River flooding Loop basements? Those aren't natural disasters but what the hey...

Mostly Chicago (Cook County) seems pretty immune to anything really bad.

[BrothaTJ]

Jeff I agree, my family has lived in the Chicago suburbs for over 30 years and we can't recall any major disasters other than the ones you mentioned plus the '99 blizzard. The suburbs took some hits over the years: The Plainfield tornado of '90 (or '91?), the Naperville/Aurora floods of '97, but none of those would be included in Cook County stats. Does the '79 plane crash at O'Hare that killed 275 people count? I think most of Cook County's disasters are man-made, like you said.

My vote would be for Hawaii. Other than occasional volcano or hurricane, it seems like it's always 80 and sunny there.

[amarinth]

Originally posted by red_dragon60
I would venture to guess Washingotn State or Hawaii. Hawaii because there are only volcanoes and tsunamis, and Washington because they are just about only able to be hit by earthquakes.

Actually, under the right (wrong?) conditions, Washington could be hit by all three (earthquake, volcano, tsunami) at once. Which probably wouldn't be very much fun.

-amarinth

[Chronos]

Quoth spoke-:
You have heard of the Johnstown Flood, I presume? I figure any disaster prominent enough to have a song written about automatically disqualifies a state.Except that the Great Johnstown Flood (the one in 1889, and presumably the subject of the song) wasn't a natural disaster. The direct cause was poor mainenance (or rather, none at all) of the South Fork Dam upstream from Johnstown. Come a thunderstorm, and not even a terribly big one at that, the whole thing let loose, sending a fifty-foot high wall of water racing down the valley at 30 mph. There've been a couple more floods since, but nothing even comparing to the Missouri River floods a few years back.

[Kami_Bum]

What about good ol Ohio? The few Earthquakes can't even be felt if you're walking outside. Fires? Not naturally, unless the corn catches on fire!!!

Of course, you will have to deal a good deal of snow in the northern area(just last week we a little bit), but it usually doesn't snow more that 1-2ft. With the exception of that one blizzard where the snow piled up to 5ft.

Southern OH doesn't have too many natural disasters, but the milk down there tastes and looks like white paint mixed with a little water.

[MDS]

As someone who lives fairly near to that "region of death" in the northern Midwest (I actually hail from the fair city of Winnipeg, which is about 100 km north of the ND-MN border), here's my two cents on its origin:

If you look at a map of the area, you'll notice that it aligns pretty neatly with the drainage basin of the Red River (all you Texans can tack on "of the North" if you want.) The Red River, unlike most rivers in the rest of the States, flows north. (Into Lake Winnipeg, and eventually into Hudson Bay.) So when the river thaws in the spring and starts flowing north, it eventually runs into colder regions that haven't thawed yet, and essentially gets backed up. Add this to the fact that the area is flatter than flat, which means once it overflows, it spreads out an awful lot, and you've got... well... a recipe for disaster... :-)

Since 1964 (the date on the map), the Red River has flooded in Fargo in '69, '79, '89, '93 (twice), '94, and most recently in '97.

[rowrrbazzle]

According to this BBC show on supervolcanoes (http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon/supervolcanoes_script.shtml),"Yellowstone [supervolcano] was on a 600,000 year cycle and the last eruption was just 600,000 years ago."

Not only is it due soon, but it'll make Mt. St. Helens look like a popping balloon. The effect on the climate will be tremendous. And when it happens, pretty much the only thing that everyone on the planet will be able to do about it is to bend over and kiss their asses goodbye.

[Geek Mecha]

I'd have to dispute the Hawai'i votes. Hawai'i has seen its share of excitement-- one earthquake, two hurricanes, and two tsunami warnings, all in the last decade and a half or so. The volcano Kilauea is still active.

The earthquake was in the late 1980s, and admittedly, it was a mild one; I don't think it registered higher than a 4.0 or 5.0 on the Richter scale. I thought the rattling was just someone jumping up and down on the second floor landing.

The two hurricanes were about eight years apart-- 1984 and 1992, I think-- and wreaked a lot more havoc than the earthquake did. The most recent one, Hurricane Iniki, did millions of dollars in damage to Kaua'i. I think parts of the island have only recently recovered. However, those are just the hurricanes that have hit us; we usually have a handful of tropical storms and hurricanes brewing near us every season.

The tsunami warnings were interesting. Remember the Kobe earthquake in 1995? We spent that morning looking over the horizon, expecting to see a towering wall of blue water coming to obliterate us. I think the "tsunami" topped out at half an inch. We had to check the surf report to be sure. Oh well... at least we got out of school. Really, though, when present, the tsunami threat is taken quite seriously. The thought of a huge wave wiping out the whole state is unnerving to everyone. (Thank god I live relatively far inland.)

The only active volcano in the state is Kilauea, on the Big Island of Hawai'i. (Well, okay, there's a new island forming, I think, but it's underwater now and it won't appear for a loooooong time.) It's been a few years since Kilauea's gotten ugly, but in the past it has posed a serious threat to houses and property. I remember a couple years ago, they had this couple on the news who got to watch the lava from Kilauea's latest eruption slowly consume their home. It took hours for the lava to creep towards the house; the house itself burned to the ground in a matter of minutes. It was pretty sad.

Not a lot, but considering most of it's happened within a pretty short time span, that's enough for one state.

[Flymaster]

Originally posted by wireless
I wasn't refering to just that one storm but rather to storms like it. Vermont, perhaps, would be OK from such a storm. But doesn't the coast (of ME, RI, MA, etc.) get the same storms as the sea? Or was it just mirages that all those fishermen and sailors crashed into in all those storms in history? ;)

Just for the record, I'm from Beverly, MA, on the coast, and 2 cities south of Gloucester, the setting of The Perfect Storm. As horrible of a storm as it was on the sea, I vividly remember going out trick or treating that night. It wasn't NEARLY as bad just 1/2 a mile inland as it was on the VERY coast, and, even moreso, 200 miles out to sea.

However, we definetly get our share of "disasters."

If I had to pick a safest place (nature wise, anyway), I'd go with New York.

[Punoqllads]

Originally posted by spoke-
I'm guessing that New England is the most disaster-free area.
Greenheads happen every f##king year. If that isn't a natural disaster, I'm Jesse "The Governor" Ventura.

[Equipoise]

Originally posted by zgystardst
According to this BBC show on supervolcanoes (http://www.bbc.co.uk/horizon/supervolcanoes_script.shtml),"Yellowstone [supervolcano] was on a 600,000 year cycle and the last eruption was just 600,000 years ago."

Not only is it due soon, but it'll make Mt. St. Helens look like a popping balloon. The effect on the climate will be tremendous. And when it happens, pretty much the only thing that everyone on the planet will be able to do about it is to bend over and kiss their asses goodbye.

Oh thank you very much! After reading this site, the transcript and other pages about Supervolcanoes, I think I'm going to have nightmares every night about the coming destruction! Sometimes, ignorance *is* bliss.

<sigh>

Oh well, party like it's Supervolcano Eve!

[Yossarian]

It's tricky asking which State is the least disaster-prone since several of the states (AK, TX, CA, MT) are fairly large and diverse. So, obviously in a large state some corner or other is going to be prone to something, when in reality the goings-on in one corner have no effect on another. To wit: Texas. Dallas could be swollowed by a huge tornado and Houston could fall into the sea and it wouldn't affect us out here one bit, in arguably the least disaster-prone corner of the U.S., the Big Bend and Davis Mountains area of far west Texas:

Earthquakes? Maybe twice a century, but at a mere ~6.0 and out in the middle of the desert they're hardly disastrous. Hell, they get us in the news so they're actually a boon!

Volcanoes? 30 million years dead. No worries.

Blizzards? Nope. Just ~2-3 nice snowfalls a year. Just enough snow to enjoy without being a hinderance.

Mudslides? Never.

Floods? We WISH! Just localized flashing during storms, but nothing you can't avoid--and nothing that doesn't go away in a couple of hours.

Tornadoes? Nope.

Hurricanes? Too far inland. If they get this far, they just bring some nice storms.

And for that matter, the only real crime around here is from drug trafficking from Mexico. But they're just passing through; we have no drug-reltated crimes per se, save the odd mysterious death in the desert once or twice a year....

[jesuslynch]

Originally posted by Jeff_42
I forgot the show I was watching but I think the 'safest' place in the US is either in Montana or Idaho (I forget which one). They even have it down to a specific location in that state. It is geologically very stable, no nearby volcanos, far enough from any coast to worry about tsunamis, etc. The worst you can expect there are heavy snow storms but certainly nothing that'll kill you outright like a tornado or earthquake.


That was an episode of the X-Files.

[Spoke]

uh..."Greenheads?"

By the way, I'm not sure the FEMA stats are useful. Highly populated areas are more likely to get disaster relief. Hence, Chicago gets disaster relief to the puzzlement of even our Chicago posters. Meanwhile, states like Wyoming are so thinly populated that even if a natural disaster strikes, it is likely to affect relatively few people. Not enough to motivate a vote-conscious federal government.

Incidentally, I'm guessing that heat waves in Chicago get treated as natural disasters for FEMA purposes, since there are still so many buildings there without air conditioning. Seems like every time a heat wave comes through (and there have been several in recent years) a whole bunch of folks without A/C keel over.

[jazzmine]

Originally posted by Occam
Since when are snow storms not considered lethal? Yeah I wouldn't call them 'disasters', but I'll bet snow and cold have killed many more poeple than tornados.

My vote: Treasure Valley in west Idaho. It's always mild temperature wise (They never see snow), moutains all around disrupt tornados, no fault lines, and there's rarely a drout.

This is where I live and I agree that it is probably one of the safest places. Hardly ever any snow at all, and never blizzards. No earthquakes. No forest fires. No hurricanes. No Volcanoes.

There are four seasons, but just barely. It doesn't get extremely cold or extremely hot here.

Now, you DO have to like farms and cowboys ;)

[Punoqllads]

Greenheads -- huge, ugly, mean, biting flies. These suckers can bite through denim. They laugh at insect repellant.

[The Great Zamboni]

Kami_Bum,

Ohio can get tornadoes. Xenia just got hit again. Columbus is a disaster, but it's not natural. What about when the Cuyahoga river caught fire? But that's not natural either.

[Cervaise]

red_dragon60: I would venture to guess Washington State or Hawaii. Hawaii because there are only volcanoes and tsunamis, and Washington because they are just about only able to be hit by earthquakes.
I've done a fair amount of disaster-preparedness training here in Washington State, and I can tell you that if this is the kind of thing that worries you, Washington isn't where you want to be. Mount Rainier is, geologically speaking, extremely close to the highly-populous I-5 corridor; the Red Cross lists it as one of the most potentially dangerous and damaging geological risks in the world (as of a couple of years ago, anyway).

In addition, the earthquake risk is higher here than in California, for the specific reasons that they're (1) less common and (2) more powerful. California gets them all the time, so they have a higher level of awareness and preparedness. Our "big ones," by contrast, come along once every several decades, which of course leads to generational forgetfulness.

The state of earthquake preparedness in the Pacific Northwest is woeful, bordering on criminal. We have huge warehouses designed for food storage, modeled after similar facilities in California, except most of ours are empty. Most of our tremor-proofing is imported from California, even though our faults are of a completely different type, so nobody really has any idea how the buildings will respond (remember Kobe?). An 8-pointer anywhere is bad news, but up here, it'll be devastating.

(...He says from the 16th floor of a 20's-era brick-and-masonry tower located in the heart of downtown.)

[SuaSponte]

That fabled and imaginary land apparently suffers a natural disaster twice daily. According to Thomas Carper the (imaginary) former governor of that "state", "Delaware has three counties ... two at high tide".

So, twice a day, one-third of that never-never land is apparently underwater. The human suffering, if there were such a thing as "Delawarians", would be immense. If Delaware existed, it would make Bangladesh seem like a Utopia in comparison.

Sua

[jab1]

Originally posted by Pantellerite
It's tricky asking which State is the least disaster-prone since several of the states (AK, TX, CA, MT) are fairly large and diverse.One could say the same thing about certain counties. Look at that FEMA map and you'll note that there are some really big counties in southern California, San Bernardino and Riverside being the largest two. If a disaster area is declared anywhere within their borders, the map would show the WHOLE county as being a disaster area. San Bernardino County goes all the way to the Nevada and Arizona state lines and is bigger than Delaware and Connecticut combined. But the map does not distinguish between a flood on the Colorado River and an earthquake in San Dimas. Either event would cause the whole county to be colored red on that map.

spoke- mentioned heat waves. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the most deadly weather phenomenon in the U.S. is extreme heat. It has killed more people than either hurricanes, floods or blizzards. According to this chart from NOAA (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/reports/billion/disasterchart_pg.gif), the single worst weather-related disaster was the heat wave of 1988. Total cost: $56 billion. Total number of deaths: 7,500. (But the 1980 heat wave/drought caused 10,000 deaths but cost "only" $44 billion.) The dollar figures have been corrected to account for inflation.

This page o' charts 'n graphs (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ol/reports/billionz.html) gives a lot more info. According to one map, the southeast has more weather-related disasters than anywhere else.

[chique]

I'd like to point out that the map mentioned above is a bit misleading. If a large area of cropland has been destroyed by, say, hail or unusually wet conditions, the congressman for that district works on getting the area declared a disaster area so farmers can get federal aid. It doesn't mean anyone died.

[bare]

::danger::WARNING::danger:: This is a test and only a test. All humans are commanded to avoid moving to this area! Northern Idaho is a very bad area, stay out! This is only a test.