Article from yesterday’s NY Times shows has a cool map showing where in the US you are most and least in danger of natural disasters.
Texas didn’t fare well. I was shocked at how low the risks are in California.
Corvallis is the safest? What about AI cults and post-apocalyptic nightmares?
Well, apparently we’re due for a big Earthquake here in Ohio. I live near a faultline… less active than most, but i think I get some Ulfs here.
I’m surprised that New England rates so high. Hurricanes rarely make it up this way. we do get some powerful storms, but I’d take those over the risks elsewhere.
And howcum the West Coast is so damned green when they have such a high earthquake risk? San Francisco had that huge earthquake back in '89 and gets a green circle while Boston, which hasn’t had anything comparable in that time, gets yellow? Especially when you consider the potential outcomes of such disasters, the risk of hurricane/storm in Boston has to be far lower than earthquakes in San Francisco.
On top of which, they don’t include volcanic eruptions. I’d say it was far-fetched, but we had Mount St. Helens in that very green Pacific Northwest thirty years ago, and Mt. Rainier is only dormant.
“Earthquake risks are based on United States Geological Survey assessments and take into account the relative infrequency of quakes, compared with weather events and floods.”
Map’s apparently not an assesment of potential level of consequences but of potential risk of encountering a “natural disaster”? So, one significant earthquake every decade and a half rates greener than multiple instances of hurricane, nor’easter, flood, and severe ice storm yearly, and likewise with the Cascadia volcanos, sure, when Rainier pops it’ll take out much of Seattle but how imminent is it. I would not be surprised at all if someone from Oklahoma would say “sure we get tornados and floods and drought but we know how to deal with those, I’d take those over earthquakes any day”.
Yeah, but I make those points above – my statement was one of incredulity that this map was made this way when earthquake risk, though smaller than hurricane risk, is still pretty damned probable in California and the Pacific Northwest, and the consequences we’ve had have been pretty great, too. If the earthquake risk on the west Coast were like that in Boston or New York (which had large quakes back in the 18th century), I’d accept putting it in the green, but not when the probability of quakes is high and the likelihood of damage also high.
Yes, we have earthquakes, but we are prepared for them, for the most part. Besides, the major ones happen very infrequently. You guys get winter every year.
The only place I see where all 3 disaster types were shaded was South Carolina, yet it wasn’t mentioned on the list.
Blizzard-prone Wyoming, sitting on top of the country’s only Super Volcano, one that’s past due and currently experiencing an increase in regional uplift and earthquake frequency, doesn’t even rate a blip.
Seattle, with tsunami, earthquake and lahar risks is safer than… Austin?
But Austin as lots of country music stations … eeeew. And they argue over who makes the best BBQ and chili …
The OP is wrong – everyone hates TX, except Texans.
And it looks to me that Florida is higher risk for the size it is. Not to mention the whole Northeast Corridor, where you’re never outside of a threat zone.
… and play bongos naked. Point taken.
Hey- we even got hail here in Dallas last night, and probably are seeing flooding somewhere around here now.
Seriously, the only “real” natural disasters we have to contend with are tornadoes and droughts. Hurricane remnants aren’t usually much to worry about this far from the Gulf, and we have enough topography such that the places that will flood are well known. (if my home floods, someone had better have built an Ark!)
Hey- we even got hail here in Dallas last night, and probably are seeing flooding somewhere around here now.
That article is kind of misleading- Dallas may have a smorgasboard of possible disasters, but the magnitude of damage for anything beyond tornadoes and drought is pretty small.
Does anyone know why is there a slightly higher earthquake risk just west of Chicago?
Remember the story of the Tower of Babel? God smacked them down for arrogance.
God is now tired of the Chuck Norris meme.
Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.
Wow that makes no sense. The only circle on Hawaii is over Kauai and the Big Island has a currently erupting volcano.
I find it astonishing that Southern Michigan has a higher Tornado risk than Eastern Wyoming. I have lived both places and the number of Funnel clouds/tornados I saw In Wyoming was at least 50 to 1 compared to Michigan
Where are you looking? I zoomed in on the earthquake map and saw no color at all west of Chicago. There is a big risk area a couple of hundred miles to the southwest, where there is a major fault line.
Like Boyo Jim mentions, I assume you’re pointing to the New Madrid Fault Zone, an area that’s produced some of the largest earthquakes in the country, around a magnitude 8.0, back in 1811 and 1812. It’s the failed arm of a triple junction and potentially affects an enormous, and now heavily populated, area.