Where to Live in the USA to Avoid a Natural Disaster

[HappinessNow]

interesting article by the NY times:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DQFdmfeZFG4/TcNo8qiGEMI/AAAAAAAABvg/7DuZ_Ev2YZs/s640/where_to_live_to_avoid_natural_disaster.png (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DQFdmfeZFG4/TcNo8qiGEMI/AAAAAAAABvg/7DuZ_Ev2YZs/s1600/where_to_live_to_avoid_natural_disaster.png)

link to original article: http://goo.gl/4vNfF
link to pdf of article: http://goo.gl/QDUDh

[oldsoundguy]

Guess flooding and the chance that Mts Hood, Jefferson, Adams, St Helens & Ranier blowing up do not rate as natural disasters. TOO much green in the Oregon/Washington area. Been through several floods in my lifetime here.
And then there is the Cascade subduction zone just off the mouth of the Columbia that, if it does the same thing that happened in Japan .. it will be catastrophic as the majority of the buildings in the Northwest are not built to any earthquake standards!

Mommie nature bats last and ain't no place she can't visit if she damn well pleases!

[wewantutopia]

Guess flooding and the chance that Mts Hood, Jefferson, Adams, St Helens & Ranier blowing up do not rate as natural disasters. TOO much green in the Oregon/Washington area. Been through several floods in my lifetime here.
And then there is the Cascade subduction zone just off the mouth of the Columbia that, if it does the same thing that happened in Japan .. it will be catastrophic as the majority of the buildings in the Northwest are not built to any earthquake standards!

Mommie nature bats last and ain't no place she can't visit if she damn well pleases!

I definitely agree. Volcanism, earthquakes, and tsunamis.

Looks like, based on the images, that eastern Montana, most of North Dakota, and northern Minnesota would be the best. These places do get tons of snow and are cold and windy, but I would imagine they don't count as natural "disasters".

[tgalati4]

I lived in Minot North Dakota in the mid 60's. It was safe there. Only a few missiles around the base. In case of attack, my mother had a "go-bag" packed by the front door and she knew the route to Lake Winnipeg. We would stay in a lakeside cabin until the fallout levels had reduced. Of course my father would be 250 feet under ground waiting for the fallout as well. That's assuming there was anything left.

[krapp]

Yet another reason to stay away from the South . . .

There's something wrong with the image when the earthquake-prone areas are greener than the snowy northeast.

[doorknob60]

Hah, Corvallis , OR, I live a few hours away from there (gonna be there next week actually). I live in Bend, which is a little more high risk because it's east of the Cascades and only about 20 miles away from them, some volcano threat, but there's still a green dot over where I live :D A little surprising though, since any volcano eruption could possibly be devastating, and there is a chance of earthquakes here, but out here probably not so much. I'm sure there's safer places to live than Oregon, actually, but that's just my opinion.

[HermanAB]

Yellowstone. You will be perfectly safe until it erupts, which is very unlikely, and if it does, it won't matter where you are living.

[JDShu]

When that supervolcano erupts, I think you're still safer living farther away from it than on top of it.

[jonathonblake]

Too much green in the Oregon/Washington area. Been through several floods in my lifetime here.

It seemed absurd to me that Seattle was #8 on the list of safest places to live.

If Mt Ranier blows, everything between it and the harbour in Seattle is destroyed, due to lava flows. Then there is the little matter that Seattle gets a biggish earthquake every forty or so years, and a smaller one every five to ten years.

[ratcheer]

Not Alabama.

Tim

[aguafina]

:( imageshack is the cancer of all forums.

[aaaantoine]

Yet another reason to stay away from the South . . .

There's something wrong with the image when the earthquake-prone areas are greener than the snowy northeast.

I guess the earthquakes in dark green areas aren't as hazardous as the snow in the northeast.

[cipherboy_loc]

In a bunker hundreds of miles underground. Hopefully, the ground won't move too much and crush you. :D

[ve4cib]

I lived in Minot North Dakota in the mid 60's. It was safe there. Only a few missiles around the base. In case of attack, my mother had a "go-bag" packed by the front door and she knew the route to Lake Winnipeg. We would stay in a lakeside cabin until the fallout levels had reduced.

Unfortunately back in the 60s Winnipeg was a major target for Soviet nuclear attacks, since Winnipeg Int'l Airport was the backup runway for the long-range strategic bombers based in North Dakota and the HQ for NORAD's Northern Region is based at 17 Wing in Winnipeg.

Winnipeg -- unsurprisingly -- isn't all that far from Lake Winnipeg, so the fallout from the strikes against the city would likely carry far enough north to make Lake Winnipeg uninhabitable.

Plus if you want to avoid natural disasters Lake Winnipeg is where the Red River eventually dumps into. And that river tends to flood a lot. Remember 1997's "Flood of the Century?" Granted, the lake itself doesn't tend to flood as much as the Red River valley does, but a lakeside cabin would likely get swamped if there was a particularly wet winter and a quick thaw.

[HappinessNow]

:( imageshack is the cancer of all forums.

edited OP, no more imageshack!
:popcorn:

[KingYaba]

I live in the DFW area :-k

[radar920]

Although there are some circles in northeast ohio we are more known for our man made disasters: Cleveland, Youngstown, the Browns, etc...

[Irihapeti]

These maps and lists are all based on one great big limitation: what we don't know.

Less than a year ago, Christchurch was regarded one of the safest places in New Zealand - no nearby active volcanoes, no faultlines, therefore no earthquakes.

Things change...

[radar920]

These maps and lists are all based on one great big limitation: what we don't know.

Less than a year ago, Christchurch was regarded one of the safest places in New Zealand - no nearby active volcanoes, no faultlines, therefore no earthquakes.

Things change...

Not being able to see into the future is a major limitation not just for this but just about everything.

[Irihapeti]

Not being able to see into the future is a major limitation not just for this but just about everything.

Very true. "Make reasonable preparations for known hazards, and then get on with life," is my motto. Getting lost in a maze of what-ifs isn't a fun way to live.

Here endeth the philosophy lesson. :)

[arunb]

when the Mayan doomsday prophecy comes true next year, there won't be any place in the world that is safe.

[tgalati4]

Well, as a 5-year-old, I enjoyed my summers at Lake Winnipeg, regardless of the number of missiles pointed at it.

Now living in Southern California--I'm just waiting for "The Big One."

And you are correct, Soviet "Counter Force" targeting would zero in on 7000' runways because that is what is needed for a loaded B-52. I guess my father felt it was better than being pummeled by the surrounding missile silo targets.

You've only got 20 minutes warning to get out. What's really interesting is I have a 1964 Civil Defense pamphlet that shows the fallout patterns in the US after a major strike. And it happens to be in all the areas that are deemed "safe".

I guess the war planners spent some time figuring out the best places to put missile silos.

[NightwishFan]

Even where I live on the edge of the Appalachian mountains.. We have bad storms and the occasional high river. A tornado every once in a while..