I vote for upstate NY as well. Not much affected by hurricanes, tornadoes, or earthquakes (even though it is technically in an earthquake zone.) Plus most places are not in flood or landslide zones, and many places do not get very bad blizzards, either. At least I’d rather have the blizzards in any place but Buffalo than the heat waves that affect the entire South for 6 months of the year.
I don’t really think tornadoes are an aberration in Alabama. There were often tornado warnings in the four years I lived there, and it seems when severe storm weather comes, it often comes through the Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia corridor. Now half-mile wide super tornadoes were not common, but they are not common anywhere.
Vermont and New York are in Region 1 shown on my linked map. The most common disasters seem to be ‘severe storm’ and ‘flood’. (IOW bouv is correct about the hazard of flood there).
According to pie chart for Region IV (includes Alabama), the risk of tornado is significant but overshadowed by ‘severe storm’, ‘flood’, and ‘hurricane’. Tornadoes appear to be a significant hazard in all the Southern states, as well as the Midwest.
[quote=“Randy_Seltzer, post:13, topic:580086”]
[li]WA, OR - Avalanche, blizzard, tsunami[/li][/QUOTE]
:dubious: The most an Avalanche is probably going to do is screw up your travel plans and except for some smaller towns up north blizzard conditions are nearly unheard of. Mt. St. Helens killed “only” 57.
The only major mass casualty (say 100+) natural event I could see for Washington would be The Big One.
KS is pretty damn safe. Even with tornadoes, the damage done is limited by the sparseness and the loss of human life is low.
Pretty much anywhere along the Atlantic coast or the Gulf coast is at risk for hurricanes, with the Gulf coast states and lower Atlantic ones like SC and GA being at the most risk. Hurricanes do however occasionally go as far north as Boston though.
Well, to be fair, Mt.St.Helens was a piddling little firecracker of a volcano as far as explosive volcanic eruptions go and was situated in such a way that the mudflow damage to populated areas was minimal.
The biggest threat to the Seattle/Tacoma area is Mt. Rainier, which has bigger eruptions for one, but also has the potential for devastating lahars. These are mudflows caused when water from melting snow mixes with volcanic material that set up like concrete when they stop. A great deal of the Seattle/Tacoma metro area and their suburbs are built on top of Mt.Rainier lahars, so they certainly have the potential to reach heavily populated areas. What’s worse is that the mountain doesn’t even need to erupt for this to happen-- Mt. Rainier has a huge amount of water tied up in it its glaciers and is overly tall and structurally unstable from hydrothermal activity. There is potential for serious lahar events triggered by the mountain simply collapsing, perhaps in a worst-case scenario triggered by a major Cascadia earthquake. Although lahars exacerbated by severe ashfall from an eruption would be no picnic either.
Of course, the important question is that if Mt. Rainier erupts and kills many thousands, will they keep it on the license plate?
OH NOES! WE HAD AN EARTHQUAKE IN MINNESOTA!!!
A 2.5 Earthquake in north central Minnesota at 2:20am this morning.
“The USGS says the largest earthquake recorded in Minnesota was a magnitude 4.6 quake that caused minor damage to walls and foundations in Stevens County around Morris. But Chandler said the most destructive was in Staples in 1917. Its magnitude was estimated at 4.3, and it knocked over chimneys, shook items off shelves and shattered windows, he said.”
I’ll second that (I’m from central VT, which is geographically similar to the Albany area). There are just too many mountains, etc., for a tornado to gain enough momentum to do significant damage, even if the proper conditions exist for one to form (rare). Like Chuck says, hurricanes become weaker as they fly over land (I live about 200 miles from the nearest coastline in NH) so by the time they reach us they are really just heavy, long lasting rainstorms. Most injuries/deaths that can be “blamed” on mother nature occur when drivers lose control of their vehicle due to snow/ice. Occasionally, there is property damage due to flooding when a river rises due to a severe infusion of water from heavy rains or large amounts of snow and ice melting quickly in spring, but damage is usually confined to areas in the immediate vicinity of the river.
I don’t have a cite but I heard that there is actuarial data that gives New Mexico the lowest multiplier for Natural Disasters.
Well, okay then. We don’t have any 4.6 magnitude earthquakes in California. That we notice.
Here’s an article from the New York Times on this question. Various metro areas in Oregon and Washington State (along with Grand Junction, Colorado) have the lowest risk.
The cite you are looking for is the map to which which I posted a link in post #39, which also seems to have been largely ignored. :dubious:
Yup, if you get kilt here, you’ll die screaming and alone.
The trouble is that the FEMA map only really covers semi-frequently recurring disasters like tornadoes, flooding and hurricanes. A lot of the supposedly “safe” regions by that measure have the potential for serious disasters that just so happen to have not occurred during the brief history of white settlement. For example, most of the population of New Mexico lives within the Rio Grande Rift, which has had strong earthquakes and volcanic activity in historic times, just not since white folks have lived there. Ditto with the various geologic hazards facing the Pacific Northwest. These hazards occur much less frequently than the weather hazards, but are potentially much more damaging. So I suppose which is more threatening depends on your own personal definition of risk.
Also, that FEMA map is based on presidential declarations of emergency which mainly serve to release extra federal funds to mitigate a disaster and which don’t necessarily correlate directly to the frequency of disasters in general. For one, these are sometimes politically-motivated, but also they depend on the number of people living in those areas. If disaster strikes some rural backwater, usually you don’t need special federal funds to deal with it, whereas they might be if a similar disaster strikes in a city. I think the map in that post bears this out as most of the high-disaster counties are simply the higher population ones. Also, something like a major snowstorm might not warrant an emergency declaration in a town that regularly gets them like, say, Buffalo, but it might warrant one in Atlanta, for example.
Thank you for at least commenting on its usefulness to the discussion.
I would contend that the presidential declarations do give a good indication of the severity of natural disasters occuring in each county, which translates (to me) to a location’s relative “safety”. I think that the smaller, more frequent event wouldn’t pose a threat to people and could be ignored.
It is a relatively short period of record, 'tis true.
Just notice this map which Brynda posted in another forum. Haven’t had time to look at it yet.
but the Central Valley in California has had the highest rate of car theft in the nation for many years and still tops every list.
Boise, Idaho and most places in Arizona seem pretty free of natural disasters. The Pacific Northwest gets pretty severe black ice every few years where driving is treacherous for a few days.
That’s not a natural disaster though, it’s because of all of the zombies (note the date of the post before yours).