4 replies to this topic

[Austin55]

An interesting study and branch off the Harvey topic.

 

http://www.bestplace..._disasters.aspx

 

Weirdly, despite Dallas being ranked the most dangerous city, Fort Worth came 9th. Those 32 miles make a difference!

[bclaridge]

I wonder if this study was based on the probability of a natural disaster occurring, but not considering the severity or areal extent of that natural disaster when it occurs.  Tornadoes, for instance, cover very little area in terms of where the damage occurs, and the majority are relatively minor (EF0-EF1) in terms of the damage they cause.

I have a feeling that those "safe" Pacific Northwest cities are not as safe from natural disasters as this study makes them out to be once you take disaster severity and areal extent into account.  A massive earthquake with serious consequences for the Pacific Northwest region will eventually occur.  While the major cities are inland (and shielded from the threat of tsunamis) and thus further from the subduction zone, Seattle is built upon soil which would amplify the effects of earthquakes.  Not to mention numerous smaller, local fault lines (which are in or near the major cities) as well as the volcanoes in the Cascade Range.  Some of the suburbs of Tacoma, WA that are on low-lying ground are in the threat zone for a lahar (volcanic mudflow) that would come from Mount Rainier.

[RD Milhollin]

Interesting that OK City is not on the list considering the tornadoes

[Big Frog II]

I would rather be sitting in the DFW area than Houston or New Orleans.

[Austin55]

While DFW may have higher chances of getting hit, we are also much more capable of dealing with disaster as well. Houston,Miami & NOLA are not built or prepared for these big hurricanes. DFW is fully capable of handling a bit of hail or a nasty heatwave.