Comments on: Rocking and rolling... California style!

Rocking and rolling... California style!

RockBandit — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:35:53 -0800

San Andreas primed to "explode." Growing up in SoCal, we constantly practiced earthquake drills in anticipation of the "Big One." Now, new evidence suggests that the Big One will be even worse than we all feared. At the moment, everything looks calm though. People say we're crazy for living in either San Francisco or Los Angeles, of course we think living in New Orleans is crazy too. But cities are rebuilt. And no matter where you go, you really can't escape natural disasters. Besides, some of the biggest earthquakes in the United States were in Missouri! In any case, Forbes compiled a list of the safest and least safest places to live in the U.S. in regards to natural disasters. Apparently... we should all move to Hawaii!

By: 1adam12

1adam12 — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:49:21 -0800

I advise against Honolulu. Having lived there for a couple years, I have to say that I'm pretty confused every time someone talks about what a nice place to live it is. I thought it was an isolated little nothing kind of city, with little of the culture that makes big city living a neat thing. I wouldn't go back willingly. I'd say that we're crazy for continuing to build the same stick-frame houses in such disaster-prone locations. The quality of our homes is, frankly, poop, and as a result every time there's a hurricane or quake people die unnecessarily.

By: mischief

mischief — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:54:51 -0800

Katarina: The Great Gentrification

By: mischief

mischief — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:55:44 -0800

-a

By: amro

amro — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 18:57:19 -0800

Is there a way to see the lists in the Forbes article without having to click through one at a time?

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:10:25 -0800

Least safest? *thwack*

By: bukharin

bukharin — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:15:39 -0800

I can't help but notice that the, erm, least safe (safetiest?) places to live are all in the South and Midwest. Truly God's country.

By: RockBandit

RockBandit — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:21:01 -0800

I can't help but notice that the, erm, least safe (safetiest?) places to live are all in the South and Midwest. Truly God's country. Of course! You have to watch out for all that fire and brimstone that's raining down! (My apologies for my grammatical error! I mean I study rocks after all! :-P )

By: headspace

headspace — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:28:53 -0800

Hell, the midwest isn't *that* safe. The New Madrid earthquakes in 1811, 12, etc., were in the 8.0 range, and felt all the way to the Pacific coast. And then... tornadoes!

By: gum

gum — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:45:06 -0800

I think that Forbes list is measuring danger to property as well as persons -- that's the only way you'd get away with ranking tornadoes up with hurricanes and earthquakes on the danger scale. I'll take my chances in Kansas City over Los Angeles.

By: sameasthem

sameasthem — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:50:58 -0800

I think I'd like Hawaii...in spite of the lack of culture normally attached to cities. It would beat the midwest!

By: fshgrl

fshgrl — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:55:09 -0800

I don't mind the stick frame houses at all, they flex better and they don't do as much damage when they fall and what with CA haivng the toughest building codes in the world they're less and less likely to fall. However, I now live in a Bay Area neighbourhood that got leveled in 1906 and was rebuilt the sact same way: with brick. Good job idiots.

By: solid-one-love

solid-one-love — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 19:58:54 -0800

I already saw that documentary. Lex Luthor's plan is foiled when Superman flies around the earth to turn back time.

By: Steven C. Den Beste

Steven C. Den Beste — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:05:25 -0800

I grew up in Portland, and it was pretty common for us to make jokes about SF and LA and how stupid the people were to live there on top of the fault line. ...but that stopped on May 18, 1980 when Mt. St. Helens blew up, and we discovered that we were living in the middle of one of the most active ranges of volcanos on the planet. During one of the preliminary eruptions before the big one, the wind was blowing towards Portland and we got about a quarter of an inch of volcanic ash laid on top of everything. If, on May 18, the wind had been exactly the same, the city would have been buried 8 feet deep in ash, and most of the people in the city would have died over the next couple of weeks from hunger or thirst, because there would have been no way to rescue them and no way to bring in supplies.

By: Joey Michaels

Joey Michaels — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:05:58 -0800

1adam12: I advise against Honolulu. Having lived there for a couple years, I have to say that I'm pretty confused every time someone talks about what a nice place to live it is. I thought it was an isolated little nothing kind of city, with little of the culture that makes big city living a neat thing. I wouldn't go back willingly. I've lived in Honolulu for 16 years now and see plays on a regular basis, attend gallery opening pretty regularly, have the option to see opera and classical music on a reasonable regular basis and attend a number of dance concerts each year. We have a growing comedy scene, a decent variety of nightclubs and downtown is increasingly gentrified. While we do have a small town feel, I've never felt like I am missing anything significant I had when I was living in the New York area. Plus, comfortable temperatures all year long, some of the nicest beaches in the world and a tremendous variety of cultural influences (which means we have some an amazing variety of outstanding restaurants). What we lack is professional sports, and this is a big issue for me but not enough for me to want to return to the land of winter. Anyhow, my complaint about Honolulu would be the cost of living. It is truly outrageous. But cultural opportunities abound. What specifically were we missing that made you dislike it so much? Anyhow, I am sorry that your Honolulu experience wasn't positive. Mine has been fantastic and I'll probably never leave.

By: davidmsc

davidmsc — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:16:48 -0800

Interesting list, but no real surprises. Lived in OK for several years, and tornadoes (to me) are one of the most awesome spectacles one could ever see. Pound-for-pound, the most destructive force that Mother Nature can throw at us, so it's a damn good thing that they're so small. Good to see Idaho represented on the "safest" list. As for me...the most dangerous thing that I have to fear here in central Montana is the eruption of Yellowstone. Don't think it'll happen anytime soon, but if it does, there's no point in worrying about it, because based on the TV shows and websites that address the possibility, if it does blow, then there won't be anything left in my neck of woods. Oh, and it does get a bit chilly and windy around here, sometimes, but I'm fine with that. Heh.

By: Ynoxas

Ynoxas — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:18:10 -0800

I had no idea there was a site dedicated to April 3, 1974. My family lost several houses and a family member (one of 10 dead) that day. I was three years old and weathered the storm in the floorboard of an old Buick, my mother laying on top of me, that was crushed (and luckily anchored) under a mammoth tree, in a scene frightenly similar to this picture.

By: buggzzee23

buggzzee23 — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:22:57 -0800

By: jefgodesky

jefgodesky — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:27:47 -0800

Pittsburgh--all we've got to worry about is snow.

By: Mitrovarr

Mitrovarr — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:34:26 -0800

Wouldn't Honolulu be in danger of tidal waves? They're also the first targets for North Korea if they ever get itchy with the nukes. I'm in the middle of Wyoming, so I should be completely safe until the Yellowstone supervolcano explodes. I believe I'm in the 'dug out of the ash by archaologists in ten thousands years' range.

By: RockBandit

RockBandit — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:37:59 -0800

The San Jacinto Fault is also a big worry for us SoCalians. The good news is we're almost as prepared as one can be for the Big One. We'll definitely see widespread destruction and suffer casualties when it hits, but thanks to strict building codes, advance planning and constant education, we'll do better than most other areas would under similar circumstances. Hah, I grew up in Redlands. The San Jacinto Fault is another big one and has some interesting implications with it too. Namely, is the ability to produce something called "cascading earthquakes." This happens when the fault ruptures and hits some other fault crossing it (i.e., the Sierra Madre-Rancho Cucamonga Thrust or even the San Andreas as it passes through the Cajon Pass) and starts to rupture that fault, creating two simultaneous earthquakes. That will be fun! (Of course creating two M7.0 EQ's is something like creating "only" a M7.1 due to the logarithmic scale and how much energy is released between two earthquakes of different magnitudes)

By: rmm

rmm — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 21:12:38 -0800

I look forward to taking the results from the Institute for Biz and Home Safety survey to my landlord...

By: quin

quin — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 21:36:39 -0800

Well, according to the TV show Millennium, Pocatello, Idaho is the safest place to be. I believe Brad Dourif to be the great seer of our time.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 21:41:00 -0800

Where's Southern New England in this list? The worst thing we get is a blizzard every few years that kills off some of the elderly, and the people stupid enough to drive in it. No tornadoes or earthquakes or forest fires or locusts, and by the time hurricanes get here they are like class 0.

By: hyperizer

hyperizer — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 21:48:01 -0800

I'm pleased to see Santa Fe at number 3 for safest places, but I'm confused that the brush fire score is 0 and tornado is 3. There are mad fires here!

By: blacklite

blacklite — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 22:08:02 -0800

And no matter where you go, you really can't escape natural disasters. Well, in the US, anyway. Canada doesn't really have much. I think we had a drought once in the 20s. Ice storms occasionally. A hurricane hit the atlantic provinces in the 80s or something. Oh and a tornado in Edmonton in 1989. But it's pretty tame.

By: jahmoon

jahmoon — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 22:36:55 -0800

Apparently... we should all move to Hawaii!

Yeah, and all it would take is one tsunami to wipe those islands off the face of the earth.

By: jahmoon

jahmoon — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 22:40:54 -0800

Also, NJ is pretty safe. We occasionally get bad T-storms and we can be succeptible to hurricanes, but I don't think we've had anything more than a tropical storm in the last 10-15 years. There are very rarely tornados here. Although I guess being a coastal state we are also at risk for a tsunami should there ever be one.

By: quin

quin — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 22:43:35 -0800

Actually, now that I think about it, (and it's been a long time since my last vulcanism/ plate tectonics class in college) it does kinda seem that as you get closer to the Equator, shit gets markedly worse. Is there a reason for this? Does being Equatorial make the area more naturally vulcanistic [and is that a real word?]

By: Goofyy

Goofyy — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 22:48:17 -0800

The list is rendered rather meaningless, IMO, because of their over-regard for simple cold weather. Snow really isn't that much a disaster, except in places not geared to handle it. It takes very little to disrupt St. Louis, almost nothing to shut down Atlanta. But up in Minnesota, 6" of snow is a trifle. Sure, severe cold happens, but you can dress for that. And extreme cold generally doesn't happen at the same time as extreme snowfall. And neither is as bad as an ice storm. Ice storms kill trees, take down power lines, and cause stupid people to make traffic accidents.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 22:54:32 -0800

Is there a reason for this? Does being Equatorial make the area more naturally vulcanistic [and is that a real word?] As you know, the sun is made of the essence of gold, and the moon is made of the essence of silver. Since the sun shines on the equator more then other parts of the world, gold deposits form in the crust, and since gold is so soft the crust is weakened, causing volcanos.

By: rmm

rmm — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 23:05:19 -0800

Thank you Goofyy - I was going to make a sarcastic remark about the presence of cold weather being noted as a disaster but didn't. You raise a good point; if you're prepared for it, it's not a disaster. Surprised there's no talk of emergency preparedness per se - talk about not being prepared for disasters...

By: gpolito

gpolito — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 23:14:32 -0800

not a damn thing happens in chicago, i don't even thing it's a terrorist target!!.i worked five blocks from the hancock building and on sept 11 they didn't even evacuate that part of the city.nothing happened.i can't remember the last time it rained here.we got some snow a few years back,no wind at all,leaves just fucking hang there forever.....what a boring fucking place this is.sub woofers and hookers are both illegal and if that isn't enough you can't smoke ,drive ,hand dance,talk on the phone and eat ribs at the same time! it's all illegal! can you imagine that? what a place................

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 23:17:12 -0800

Especially when Carl Johnson gets the Hot Coffee mod.

By: RockBandit

RockBandit — Fri, 23 Jun 2006 23:33:29 -0800

Also, NJ is pretty safe. We occasionally get bad T-storms and we can be succeptible to hurricanes, but I don't think we've had anything more than a tropical storm in the last 10-15 years. There are very rarely tornados here. Although I guess being a coastal state we are also at risk for a tsunami should there ever be one. True! Especially if the feared Canary Islands tsunami ever happens...

By: fourcheesemac

fourcheesemac — Sat, 24 Jun 2006 00:10:52 -0800

Dangerous on what time scale . . .? In the longer run, the coasts are doomed, and so are areas in proximity to major tectonic mountain ranges. Coasts have tsunamis, which we now know kick ass on any other natural disaster with human population so large and so coast-bound, earthquakes, hurricanes and cyclones, and ultimately they are all sliding under the sea when global warming melts freaking Greenland. Be at least a few hundred miles inland if you're planning on being around even 100 years from now. And move north while you are at it. Major mountain ranges over active tectonic regions would also seem to be dubious choices -- anywhere within, say, a 500 mile radius in the worst situations (Himalayas, Rockies, volcanic atolls, etc.) Over time, 12 billion humans (which we'll hit easily) will need to crowd into smaller patches of real estate with fewer sources of fresh water, and increasingly scarce agricultural husbandry. Population density will cause epidemic diseases to spread much more rapidly. So if we're talking one lifetime, your own, then there's one way of thinking about risk. But if you are trying to settle your tribe somewhere -- let us say along a little beach called Gaza, or in a strange northern city like Kansas City, where you work in a meat plant to send money home to Puebla and work to get everyone across that line eventually -- it's something else again to make a place caled "home." Where will there be social unrest first? Are there positions one could defend easily if necessary? How well does the immediate environment provide some level of sustenance, and especially fresh water? We're all on the move all the time, slowly creeping over the planet, spreading genes and diseases liberally around, tribes mixing with tribes, etc. But that can't happen fast enough to make a difference, and there are a lot of tribes actively scouting the terrain and making careful emplacements in the few best places, and dealing with securing what those places don't have enough of (say, oil). Some have names, some don't. Some are basically criminal enterprises masquerading as "nations." Should you align yourself with a stronger tribe by marrying into it? Raising your kids to assume the full identity? Where's the place that's likely to kick ass and take names when the going gets really tough? The place that sends in the Marines if you mess with their fucking oil supply, the place that still has a big empty plain in its middle, the place with the money to fix some of the probles climate change will produce in conjunction with population growth and cycles of culling by epidemic disease and starvation of the weakest and most under-resourced societies, as happens now in the global south and Africa above all. We are evolved to discern and measure environmental risks and act in our own immediate best interest, and ultimately the interest of our genes. We learned to scan the horizon for trouble and make for cover a long time ago, and have perfected it to the point that we are numb from paranoia and look urgently to science to save our sorry asses after treating real science like utter shit in the corrosive political and entertainment and religious culture of our time, in more than one society. But at least we'll be have our oil supply secured as we crowd into the northern great plains, we Americans. And there will be a lot of us. And it will be a bad, bad time. Nice, huh?

By: Meridian

Meridian — Sat, 24 Jun 2006 00:14:46 -0800

Ha ha, glad I live in Tokyo, suckers!

By: weretable and the undead chairs

weretable and the undead chairs — Sat, 24 Jun 2006 07:16:03 -0800

Where's Southern New England in this list? The worst thing we get is a blizzard every few years that kills off some of the elderly, and the people stupid enough to drive in it. No tornadoes or Well, not many. Vermont and New Hampshire in particular seem to have very few tornadoes and most are very weak. But sometimes places unlikely to get a tornado can get a pretty nasty one.

By: saladpants

saladpants — Sat, 24 Jun 2006 09:14:58 -0800

I love how Kansas City has a 3 hurricane rating. Because there's ANY risk of a hurricane hitting Kansas City.

By: Relay

Relay — Sat, 24 Jun 2006 10:09:50 -0800

I lived on the North Shore of Oahu for three years. Hawaii is a nice place, for what it is, but now I live in SF, and believe it or not, it's actually cheaper. I never hear people mention the possibilities of hurricanes when discussing island living. Sooner or later, Honolulu is going to get hit. Kauai was nailed a while back, and most of the buildings were flattened ... I don't want to think what Oahu would look like. I always figured that no matter where you live, you're always at risk of some natural disaster. You live in the south east, you got hurricanes. The Midwest has tornadoes, earthquakes in the coastal west, and potential ice storms and blizzards in the north and east (best not to go into the hazards of living in Alaska).

By: mike3k

mike3k — Sat, 24 Jun 2006 11:35:39 -0800

How about Vancouver? I see it isn't on either the safest or least safe lists. I know there's some earthquake concerns. I'm planning to move from Florida to Vancouver.

By: hangashore

hangashore — Sat, 24 Jun 2006 12:53:55 -0800

How about Vancouver? Not exactly in the clear. (Unless it's Vancouver, WA you're thinking about...)

By: fshgrl

fshgrl — Sat, 24 Jun 2006 13:00:14 -0800

I always figured that no matter where you live, you're always at risk of some natural disaster. I lived in Ireland for 10 years and nothing ever happens there, bar high winds.

By: parmanparman

parmanparman — Sun, 25 Jun 2006 01:13:53 -0800

I am from Berkeley but now live in the East. When I was in high school my parents retrofitted our house for earthquake safety. When we kids ran through the house, or when the wind blew, the whole house would shake. Then one night there was a tremor, 3.2 I recall. The house moved around for about a minute afterwards. Remembering back, my dad asked the contractor what exactly the retrofit would do. He replied that it would give my parents another three minutes to get dressed and grab the china. That house, my aunt's house, and my grandmother's all have the Hayward fault running directly underneath. It will be a disaster.

By: Poagao

Poagao — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 01:57:48 -0800

The earth is screwed anywhere you go; we need to settle Mars.

By: thedaniel

thedaniel — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 11:51:11 -0800

I'm sort of looking forward to fleeing the crumbling ruins of Los Angeles via motorcycle - given the insane congestion, it might be the only way out when the Big One hits.

By: cell divide

cell divide — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:03:18 -0800

One place which seems to have no natural disasters is Israel. Hmm.

By: hardshoes

hardshoes — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:09:37 -0800

I'm not worried, FEMA will take care of me

By: betaray

betaray — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 16:21:32 -0800

glad I live in Tokyo Being US-centric they didn't account for giant radio-active lizards.