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?
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.
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
Deleware hands down. Nothing ever happens there.
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.
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.
I thought it was decided that Delaware doesn’t exist?
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.
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.
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.
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!)
LateComer wrote:
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, 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.
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 is the best place to find out information on disasters of all kinds. They have a map of Presidential disaster declarations since 1964. There is also Major Disaster Declarations, 1972-1997.
Based on these resources, the answer to the question seems to be Wyoming.
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 )
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
