Places with the least natural disasters
Sep 12th 2005, 5:24 pm
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
Places with the least natural disasters
Where would you live in the US if your only concern was natural
disasters? Note: it has to be in a city of at least 25,000 people.
West coast states are out - earthquakes.
The Gulf coast is out - real out.
Iowa is out - flood of 1993.
disasters? Note: it has to be in a city of at least 25,000 people.
West coast states are out - earthquakes.
The Gulf coast is out - real out.
Iowa is out - flood of 1993.
Sep 12th 2005, 5:29 pm
#2
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Places with the least natural disasters
x-no-archive: yes
[email protected] wrote:
> Where would you live in the US if your only concern was natural
> disasters? Note: it has to be in a city of at least 25,000 people.
> West coast states are out - earthquakes.
> The Gulf coast is out - real out.
> Iowa is out - flood of 1993.
The tornado alley is out also. So is Buffalo NY, and the northeast
states.
How about Lincoln NB? Salt Lake City?
[email protected] wrote:
> Where would you live in the US if your only concern was natural
> disasters? Note: it has to be in a city of at least 25,000 people.
> West coast states are out - earthquakes.
> The Gulf coast is out - real out.
> Iowa is out - flood of 1993.
The tornado alley is out also. So is Buffalo NY, and the northeast
states.
How about Lincoln NB? Salt Lake City?
Sep 12th 2005, 6:47 pm
#3
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Places with the least natural disasters
"Hatunen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 12 Sep 2005 10:24:52 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>Where would you live in the US if your only concern was natural
>>disasters? Note: it has to be in a city of at least 25,000 people.
>>West coast states are out - earthquakes.
>>The Gulf coast is out - real out.
>>Iowa is out - flood of 1993.
> When we decided it was time to retire and leave the San Francsico
> Bay Area we decided to return to Tucson, Arizona, We were pleased
> to see that National Geographic magazine had recently published a
> map showing Tucson to be an area of mimimal natural disaster.
> There was an earthquake in the 1880s but it was epicentered some
> distance away in Mexico and did little damage to even the
> primitive adobe buildings here. Every decade or so there are some
> heavy rains that cause flooding on our normally dry rivers, but
> the areas affected is a pretty small percentage of the Tucson
> Valley and are clearly delimited. There was a minimal tornado
> some decades ago that managed to wreck a couple of trailer homes
> (what else?). Dust devils are common and sometimes one gets
> strong enough to damage a carport roof. From time to time a dust
> storm cause a multiple car pileup on I-10 between here and
> Phoenix.
> That's about it. Unless you count 113F temps in the summer as a
> "natural disaster".
Well, when you are as pigmentally challenged as I am with absolutely no
ability to tan, that might just qualify...
James
> ************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
> * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
> * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
news:[email protected]...
> On 12 Sep 2005 10:24:52 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>Where would you live in the US if your only concern was natural
>>disasters? Note: it has to be in a city of at least 25,000 people.
>>West coast states are out - earthquakes.
>>The Gulf coast is out - real out.
>>Iowa is out - flood of 1993.
> When we decided it was time to retire and leave the San Francsico
> Bay Area we decided to return to Tucson, Arizona, We were pleased
> to see that National Geographic magazine had recently published a
> map showing Tucson to be an area of mimimal natural disaster.
> There was an earthquake in the 1880s but it was epicentered some
> distance away in Mexico and did little damage to even the
> primitive adobe buildings here. Every decade or so there are some
> heavy rains that cause flooding on our normally dry rivers, but
> the areas affected is a pretty small percentage of the Tucson
> Valley and are clearly delimited. There was a minimal tornado
> some decades ago that managed to wreck a couple of trailer homes
> (what else?). Dust devils are common and sometimes one gets
> strong enough to damage a carport roof. From time to time a dust
> storm cause a multiple car pileup on I-10 between here and
> Phoenix.
> That's about it. Unless you count 113F temps in the summer as a
> "natural disaster".
Well, when you are as pigmentally challenged as I am with absolutely no
ability to tan, that might just qualify...
James
> ************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
> * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
> * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Sep 12th 2005, 6:58 pm
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Places with the least natural disasters
Hatunen wrote:
> >Salt Lake City?
> Earthquakes.
Crickets.
> >Salt Lake City?
> Earthquakes.
Crickets.
Sep 12th 2005, 7:14 pm
#5
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Places with the least natural disasters
On 12 Sep 2005 10:24:52 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>Where would you live in the US if your only concern was natural
>disasters? Note: it has to be in a city of at least 25,000 people.
>West coast states are out - earthquakes.
>The Gulf coast is out - real out.
>Iowa is out - flood of 1993.
When we decided it was time to retire and leave the San Francsico
Bay Area we decided to return to Tucson, Arizona, We were pleased
to see that National Geographic magazine had recently published a
map showing Tucson to be an area of mimimal natural disaster.
There was an earthquake in the 1880s but it was epicentered some
distance away in Mexico and did little damage to even the
primitive adobe buildings here. Every decade or so there are some
heavy rains that cause flooding on our normally dry rivers, but
the areas affected is a pretty small percentage of the Tucson
Valley and are clearly delimited. There was a minimal tornado
some decades ago that managed to wreck a couple of trailer homes
(what else?). Dust devils are common and sometimes one gets
strong enough to damage a carport roof. From time to time a dust
storm cause a multiple car pileup on I-10 between here and
Phoenix.
That's about it. Unless you count 113F temps in the summer as a
"natural disaster".
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
>Where would you live in the US if your only concern was natural
>disasters? Note: it has to be in a city of at least 25,000 people.
>West coast states are out - earthquakes.
>The Gulf coast is out - real out.
>Iowa is out - flood of 1993.
When we decided it was time to retire and leave the San Francsico
Bay Area we decided to return to Tucson, Arizona, We were pleased
to see that National Geographic magazine had recently published a
map showing Tucson to be an area of mimimal natural disaster.
There was an earthquake in the 1880s but it was epicentered some
distance away in Mexico and did little damage to even the
primitive adobe buildings here. Every decade or so there are some
heavy rains that cause flooding on our normally dry rivers, but
the areas affected is a pretty small percentage of the Tucson
Valley and are clearly delimited. There was a minimal tornado
some decades ago that managed to wreck a couple of trailer homes
(what else?). Dust devils are common and sometimes one gets
strong enough to damage a carport roof. From time to time a dust
storm cause a multiple car pileup on I-10 between here and
Phoenix.
That's about it. Unless you count 113F temps in the summer as a
"natural disaster".
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Sep 12th 2005, 7:15 pm
#6
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Places with the least natural disasters
On 12 Sep 2005 10:29:09 -0700, "PeterL" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>[email protected] wrote:
>> Where would you live in the US if your only concern was natural
>> disasters? Note: it has to be in a city of at least 25,000 people.
>> West coast states are out - earthquakes.
>> The Gulf coast is out - real out.
>> Iowa is out - flood of 1993.
>The tornado alley is out also. So is Buffalo NY, and the northeast
>states.
>How about Lincoln NB?
Tornados and blizzards.
>Salt Lake City?
Earthquakes.
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
wrote:
>x-no-archive: yes
>[email protected] wrote:
>> Where would you live in the US if your only concern was natural
>> disasters? Note: it has to be in a city of at least 25,000 people.
>> West coast states are out - earthquakes.
>> The Gulf coast is out - real out.
>> Iowa is out - flood of 1993.
>The tornado alley is out also. So is Buffalo NY, and the northeast
>states.
>How about Lincoln NB?
Tornados and blizzards.
>Salt Lake City?
Earthquakes.
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Sep 12th 2005, 7:29 pm
#7
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Places with the least natural disasters
PeterL wrote:
> The tornado alley is out also. So is Buffalo NY, and the northeast
> states.
Why is Buffalo out? It can count on a good snowfall every year. That
means a few extra snow days in the winter but it is not a disaster. I
live on the other side of the border about 30 miles from Buffalo. Winter
temperatures seldom drop below 0 F, and there are a few weeks in the
summer where it seems hot and sticky, but nowhere near as hot and humid
as the south eastern US. The last hurricane that reached this far was
Hurricane Hazel in 1954. We had about 10 hours of heavy rain from
Katrina. The last blizzard we had was in 1976. The only earthquake I
recall was about 10 years ago and was centered more than 400 miles away
so we hardly felt it. We seldom get tornadoes, and those that we get are
relatively small.
> The tornado alley is out also. So is Buffalo NY, and the northeast
> states.
Why is Buffalo out? It can count on a good snowfall every year. That
means a few extra snow days in the winter but it is not a disaster. I
live on the other side of the border about 30 miles from Buffalo. Winter
temperatures seldom drop below 0 F, and there are a few weeks in the
summer where it seems hot and sticky, but nowhere near as hot and humid
as the south eastern US. The last hurricane that reached this far was
Hurricane Hazel in 1954. We had about 10 hours of heavy rain from
Katrina. The last blizzard we had was in 1976. The only earthquake I
recall was about 10 years ago and was centered more than 400 miles away
so we hardly felt it. We seldom get tornadoes, and those that we get are
relatively small.
Sep 12th 2005, 7:39 pm
#8
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Places with the least natural disasters
PeterL wrote:
> The tornado alley is out also. So is Buffalo NY, and the northeast
> states.
WHY the northeast states? I live in Schenectady, NY, and the worst
things we have are snowstorms. I wouldn't call a snowstorm a "natural
disaster", no matter how deep.
P.S. I lived through the famous "blizzard of '93" here, and things went
fine.
> The tornado alley is out also. So is Buffalo NY, and the northeast
> states.
WHY the northeast states? I live in Schenectady, NY, and the worst
things we have are snowstorms. I wouldn't call a snowstorm a "natural
disaster", no matter how deep.
P.S. I lived through the famous "blizzard of '93" here, and things went
fine.
Sep 12th 2005, 8:10 pm
#9
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Places with the least natural disasters
In article <[email protected]. com>,
[email protected] wrote:
> Where would you live in the US if your only concern was natural
> disasters? Note: it has to be in a city of at least 25,000 people.
>
> West coast states are out - earthquakes.
> The Gulf coast is out - real out.
> Iowa is out - flood of 1993.
Philadelphia, Baltimore, New York City, Boston, Wilmington, DE and
Washington DC and other cities along the mid-Atlantic region rarely see
natural disasters. The only thing that comes to mind is a blizzard,
which happens only once every few decades.
[email protected] wrote:
> Where would you live in the US if your only concern was natural
> disasters? Note: it has to be in a city of at least 25,000 people.
>
> West coast states are out - earthquakes.
> The Gulf coast is out - real out.
> Iowa is out - flood of 1993.
Philadelphia, Baltimore, New York City, Boston, Wilmington, DE and
Washington DC and other cities along the mid-Atlantic region rarely see
natural disasters. The only thing that comes to mind is a blizzard,
which happens only once every few decades.
Sep 12th 2005, 8:12 pm
#10
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Places with the least natural disasters
Dave Smith wrote:
> PeterL wrote:
> >
> > The tornado alley is out also. So is Buffalo NY, and the northeast
> > states.
> >
> Why is Buffalo out? It can count on a good snowfall every year. That
> means a few extra snow days in the winter but it is not a disaster.
It depends on your perspective don't it?
I
> live on the other side of the border about 30 miles from Buffalo. Winter
> temperatures seldom drop below 0 F, and there are a few weeks in the
> summer where it seems hot and sticky, but nowhere near as hot and humid
> as the south eastern US. The last hurricane that reached this far was
> Hurricane Hazel in 1954. We had about 10 hours of heavy rain from
> Katrina. The last blizzard we had was in 1976.
The last big one in the west coast hasn't happened yet.
>The only earthquake I
> recall was about 10 years ago and was centered more than 400 miles away
> so we hardly felt it. We seldom get tornadoes, and those that we get are
> relatively small.
> PeterL wrote:
> >
> > The tornado alley is out also. So is Buffalo NY, and the northeast
> > states.
> >
> Why is Buffalo out? It can count on a good snowfall every year. That
> means a few extra snow days in the winter but it is not a disaster.
It depends on your perspective don't it?
I
> live on the other side of the border about 30 miles from Buffalo. Winter
> temperatures seldom drop below 0 F, and there are a few weeks in the
> summer where it seems hot and sticky, but nowhere near as hot and humid
> as the south eastern US. The last hurricane that reached this far was
> Hurricane Hazel in 1954. We had about 10 hours of heavy rain from
> Katrina. The last blizzard we had was in 1976.
The last big one in the west coast hasn't happened yet.
>The only earthquake I
> recall was about 10 years ago and was centered more than 400 miles away
> so we hardly felt it. We seldom get tornadoes, and those that we get are
> relatively small.
Sep 12th 2005, 8:15 pm
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Places with the least natural disasters
In rec.travel.usa-canada Shawn Hirn <[email protected]> wrote:
> Philadelphia, Baltimore, New York City, Boston, Wilmington, DE and
> Washington DC and other cities along the mid-Atlantic region rarely see
> natural disasters. The only thing that comes to mind is a blizzard,
> which happens only once every few decades.
Isabel hit DC last year. We had some areas with no electricity for a week,
and virtually no loss of life. It was a Category 1 when it hit Richmond, and
just sub hurricane strength when it hit DC. That's the worst I've seen in
25 years of living in this area.
Unless you count September 11th. Which of course is not a Natural Disaster,
but might put folks off living here.
--
Julie
**********
Check out the blog of my 9 week Germany adventure at www.blurty.com/users/jholm
Check out my Travel Pages (non-commercial) at
http://www.dragonsholm.org/travel.htm
> Philadelphia, Baltimore, New York City, Boston, Wilmington, DE and
> Washington DC and other cities along the mid-Atlantic region rarely see
> natural disasters. The only thing that comes to mind is a blizzard,
> which happens only once every few decades.
Isabel hit DC last year. We had some areas with no electricity for a week,
and virtually no loss of life. It was a Category 1 when it hit Richmond, and
just sub hurricane strength when it hit DC. That's the worst I've seen in
25 years of living in this area.
Unless you count September 11th. Which of course is not a Natural Disaster,
but might put folks off living here.
--
Julie
**********
Check out the blog of my 9 week Germany adventure at www.blurty.com/users/jholm
Check out my Travel Pages (non-commercial) at
http://www.dragonsholm.org/travel.htm
Sep 12th 2005, 8:45 pm
#12
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Places with the least natural disasters
PeterL wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
> > PeterL wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The tornado alley is out also. So is Buffalo NY, and the northeast
> > > states.
> > >
> >
> > Why is Buffalo out? It can count on a good snowfall every year. That
> > means a few extra snow days in the winter but it is not a disaster.
> It depends on your perspective don't it?
Not really. Snow is a natural and recurring phenomenon. We tend to enjoy the
snow. When it comes, we co out and play in it. When it comes in huge doses,
like the Blizzard of 77 we bundle up and wait for it to blow over. Then we go
out and shovel ourselves out while the maintenance crews plow the streets. It
is an inconvenience, especially if you have to go out somewhere, but it is not
a disaster.
> Dave Smith wrote:
> > PeterL wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > The tornado alley is out also. So is Buffalo NY, and the northeast
> > > states.
> > >
> >
> > Why is Buffalo out? It can count on a good snowfall every year. That
> > means a few extra snow days in the winter but it is not a disaster.
> It depends on your perspective don't it?
Not really. Snow is a natural and recurring phenomenon. We tend to enjoy the
snow. When it comes, we co out and play in it. When it comes in huge doses,
like the Blizzard of 77 we bundle up and wait for it to blow over. Then we go
out and shovel ourselves out while the maintenance crews plow the streets. It
is an inconvenience, especially if you have to go out somewhere, but it is not
a disaster.
Sep 12th 2005, 10:16 pm
#13
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Places with the least natural disasters
"Hatunen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 12 Sep 2005 10:24:52 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>Where would you live in the US if your only concern was natural
>>disasters? Note: it has to be in a city of at least 25,000 people.
>>West coast states are out - earthquakes.
>>The Gulf coast is out - real out.
>>Iowa is out - flood of 1993.
> When we decided it was time to retire and leave the San Francsico
> Bay Area we decided to return to Tucson, Arizona, We were pleased
> to see that National Geographic magazine had recently published a
> map showing Tucson to be an area of mimimal natural disaster.
> There was an earthquake in the 1880s but it was epicentered some
> distance away in Mexico and did little damage to even the
> primitive adobe buildings here. Every decade or so there are some
> heavy rains that cause flooding on our normally dry rivers, but
> the areas affected is a pretty small percentage of the Tucson
> Valley and are clearly delimited. There was a minimal tornado
> some decades ago that managed to wreck a couple of trailer homes
> (what else?). Dust devils are common and sometimes one gets
> strong enough to damage a carport roof. From time to time a dust
> storm cause a multiple car pileup on I-10 between here and
> Phoenix.
> That's about it. Unless you count 113F temps in the summer as a
> "natural disaster".
> ************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
> * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
> * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
=====
To quote your previous post Dave:
"Except for the many people who die as a consequence of those
blizzards." (Try Heat Waves instead of blizzards.)
<VBG>
Geoff
news:[email protected]...
> On 12 Sep 2005 10:24:52 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>>Where would you live in the US if your only concern was natural
>>disasters? Note: it has to be in a city of at least 25,000 people.
>>West coast states are out - earthquakes.
>>The Gulf coast is out - real out.
>>Iowa is out - flood of 1993.
> When we decided it was time to retire and leave the San Francsico
> Bay Area we decided to return to Tucson, Arizona, We were pleased
> to see that National Geographic magazine had recently published a
> map showing Tucson to be an area of mimimal natural disaster.
> There was an earthquake in the 1880s but it was epicentered some
> distance away in Mexico and did little damage to even the
> primitive adobe buildings here. Every decade or so there are some
> heavy rains that cause flooding on our normally dry rivers, but
> the areas affected is a pretty small percentage of the Tucson
> Valley and are clearly delimited. There was a minimal tornado
> some decades ago that managed to wreck a couple of trailer homes
> (what else?). Dust devils are common and sometimes one gets
> strong enough to damage a carport roof. From time to time a dust
> storm cause a multiple car pileup on I-10 between here and
> Phoenix.
> That's about it. Unless you count 113F temps in the summer as a
> "natural disaster".
> ************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
> * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
> * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
=====
To quote your previous post Dave:
"Except for the many people who die as a consequence of those
blizzards." (Try Heat Waves instead of blizzards.)
<VBG>
Geoff
Sep 12th 2005, 10:47 pm
#14
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Places with the least natural disasters
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 16:45:55 -0400, Dave Smith
<[email protected]> wrote:
>PeterL wrote:
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>> > PeterL wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > The tornado alley is out also. So is Buffalo NY, and the northeast
>> > > states.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Why is Buffalo out? It can count on a good snowfall every year. That
>> > means a few extra snow days in the winter but it is not a disaster.
>> It depends on your perspective don't it?
>Not really. Snow is a natural and recurring phenomenon. We tend to enjoy the
>snow. When it comes, we co out and play in it. When it comes in huge doses,
>like the Blizzard of 77 we bundle up and wait for it to blow over. Then we go
>out and shovel ourselves out while the maintenance crews plow the streets. It
>is an inconvenience, especially if you have to go out somewhere, but it is not
>a disaster.
Except for the many people who die as a consequence of those
blizzards.
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
<[email protected]> wrote:
>PeterL wrote:
>> Dave Smith wrote:
>> > PeterL wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > > The tornado alley is out also. So is Buffalo NY, and the northeast
>> > > states.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Why is Buffalo out? It can count on a good snowfall every year. That
>> > means a few extra snow days in the winter but it is not a disaster.
>> It depends on your perspective don't it?
>Not really. Snow is a natural and recurring phenomenon. We tend to enjoy the
>snow. When it comes, we co out and play in it. When it comes in huge doses,
>like the Blizzard of 77 we bundle up and wait for it to blow over. Then we go
>out and shovel ourselves out while the maintenance crews plow the streets. It
>is an inconvenience, especially if you have to go out somewhere, but it is not
>a disaster.
Except for the many people who die as a consequence of those
blizzards.
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Sep 12th 2005, 11:06 pm
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Places with the least natural disasters
In article <[email protected]>,
GeoffP <[email protected]> wrote:
>To quote your previous post Dave:
>"Except for the many people who die as a consequence of those
>blizzards." (Try Heat Waves instead of blizzards.)
Even if you don't die, having to put up with that stuff every year is no fun.
Some of those places have both blizzards in the winter and heat waves in
the summer for double the misery.
No wonder Americans are getting so fat. The weather in much of the country
doesn't leave much time for active outdoor sports. I think obesity causes
more premature deaths than weather.
GeoffP <[email protected]> wrote:
>To quote your previous post Dave:
>"Except for the many people who die as a consequence of those
>blizzards." (Try Heat Waves instead of blizzards.)
Even if you don't die, having to put up with that stuff every year is no fun.
Some of those places have both blizzards in the winter and heat waves in
the summer for double the misery.
No wonder Americans are getting so fat. The weather in much of the country
doesn't leave much time for active outdoor sports. I think obesity causes
more premature deaths than weather.