I would certainly include WA and OR in the volcano risk department. When Mt. St. Helens blew, fifty-seven people were killed and we were covered with ash.
As a resident of Fresno, CA I can second that. We get a little of everything on the wind and rain scale, temperatures from freezing to 110+ for days at a time, but your chance of dying in a natural disaster, pretty much nil.
We had tornados in 48 states last year (guess which two were missed). If you’re looking at states like an insuramce company, you’d have to go with Montana as the least disaster-prone state. At least, until that super volcano blows.
Moab Utah doesn’t get: Hurricanes, Tornadoes, Floods, Blizzards, Volcanoes, Earthquakes, Wildfires, Landslides, Significant Hail, Plagues of Locusts, Ice Storms or much Ground Lightning.
You’ll most likely die slowly and alone. 
Zombie nostalgia for a zombie thread.
I’d say Lukenbach Texas, where “ain’t nobody feeling no pain”. 
BTW, Chowchilla CA (in the middle of the San Joaquin Valley, or “Central Valley”) has some history of earthquakes and other natural disasters. From this fact sheet:
with some other biggies in 1980, 1983, and 1984.
Also:
Until he cut off his arm, Aron Ralston almost died alone. And if you consider 127 hours a long time, then he almost died slowly, too.
I vote for San Francisco. Sure, there are earthquakes and if you’re not from there (like me) then you’ll likely think, No Way!
Earthquakes are sensationalizd in the news (and in Irwin Allen disaster movies), but the odds of dying from one, or from its side-effects (fire, traffic accident) are pretty small. The building codes are pretty good, too, and withstand quakes pretty well.
Twitch Aron Ralston is an asshole that deserved to die. It’s almost like he planned it in advance. I’m pretty sure that I’m friends with, or at least have met, all 13 people that went out there to Blue John to recover his stupid hand. Fuck Him and fuck everyone that intentionally exposes them self to risk ‘Knowing’ that Ranger Rick will swoop down in a helicopter to save them from their own stupidity.
The Southwest is my first thought too.
Ever hear of Sandy, Irene and Gloria? They are quite a trio and none of them were blizzards.
If we define “area” as a region with a combination geological, environmental, and weather features discrete from adjacent regions, then I’d nominate south-central Texas. More specifically, the counties of Bexar, Guadalupe, Medina and Comal:
Avalanche–not an issue;
Blizzard–largest accumulation from a single storm was 13" (~33cm) in early 1985. That was a very rare event. The worst winter-weather problem is ice accumulating on roads and power lines.
Cyclone/hurricane–we’ll get rainy remnants from Gulf Coast storms that can flood low-lying elevations and cause flash-flooding in seasonal creeks, but these dangers can be avoided by using common sense (“turn around, don’t drown”, stay out of creek beds during and after rain);
Drought–not life-threatening if one lives in urban areas;
Earthquake–rare and minor ones have occured which are no danger to life;
Flood/landslide–again, by using common sense when around rivers and creeks during and after rain events, there is no threat to human life;
Heat wave–not a serious problem in urban environments, as municipalities can provide air-conditioned places for people to escape the heat (e.g., public libraries).
Limnic eruption–not an issue;
Meteorite–I’ve not heard of any sigificant meteorite strikes in this area;
Storm (non-cyclone)–the area does get significant rain storms containing strong wind gusts, lightning strikes and hail (sometimes as large as baseballs [cricket balls]). Once again, if one heeds the weather reports and observes typical safety precautions, such storms are not life-threatening per se. That said, people have been killed by broken tree branches/uprooted trees falling on houses. [Soap Box]If people monitored their trees’ health and removed sick/dying trees in a timely fashion, much damage could be avoided.[/S.B.]
Tornado–the area has seen some F0/F1 tornadoes. However, it doesn’t get the numbers usually seen in “Tornado Alley” because the (relatively) sudden drop in elevation at the Balcones Escarpment breaks up wind patterns, thus protecting the area from those mile-wide monsters.
Tsunami–not an issue;
Volcano–with the exception of the threat posed by the Yellowstone Caldera, not an issue;
Wildfire–not an issue for city-dwellers.
Until this week I would have said NJ. The chances of getting hit directly by a hurricane have been historically almost zero. We get hit with remnants that dump a lot of rain every now and then. Unless you choose to live in a flood area it’s not an issue. We only have a couple of bad snows a year at most. Those are just inconvenient for a day or two. We have some tornados but they are the small kind that take a few days for them to officially declare a tornado. It was big news when we had a tremor that people felt. So for the most part relatively disaster free.
Until yesterday.
Normally, I would say central MD below Baltimore. We did get Snowmageddon in 2010 and got mostly brushed with Irene last year and Sandy this year. It depends on where you live and if your area is prone to flooding.
I know this is an old thread. After the the '89 Loma Prieta earthquake in the SF Bay Area, some of the large banks and other big businesses realized having all their operations located in the financial district of SF was a risk they would rather not take. They relocated their technical side outside the city, but kept corporate offices and functions in SF for business purposes. The servers with all their banking data was moved to a newly developed business park in an unincorporated area 20 miles east of Sacramento, near Rancho Cordova (now incorporated into same city).
Evidently, the area is at low risk for flooding, earthquakes, tornados, volcanos, and no risk for coastal storms and tsunamis, blizzards, and what have you. I am sure these companies had an army of actuaries crunch all kinds of data to see where, in CA, would be least risk for the most sensitive area of their business - the data. Access to SF was probably also a consideration, as Rancho is 90 min to 2 hrs from SF. Close, but safe.
BTW, this area would be considered in California’s central valley.
[quote=“Randy_Seltzer, post:13, topic:580086”]
[li]WA, OR - Avalanche, blizzard, tsunami[/li][/QUOTE]
The nice thing about Washington is we have that lovely Puget Sound that would shield our most populated areas (somewhat) from a tsunami. Edit: unless the tsunami event happened INSIDE the Sound, then we’d be screwed. I wouldn’t consider avalanche here a natural disaster; it’s more a “pain in the butt for the highway department”.
Earthquake and volcano are probably the two most likely to occur here, and you missed those. Eastern Washington also rarely has tornados, I believe, but in exchange is immune to tsunami.