# Safest cities from natural disasters



## schreiwalker (May 13, 2005)

What are the big cities safest from natural disasters? I mean the least extreme weather (blizzards, hurricanes, tornados, droughts), volcanoes, earthquakes, floods, infestations of evil fuzzy rabbits, etc. 

My first thought is London, but I guess they can have storms come flood the city through the thames. Pittsburgh, PA is also pretty safe (or bland, depending on how you look at it), nestled up in a small mountain range with rivers that usually only flood parkland.


----------



## jlshyang (May 22, 2005)

Kuala Lumpur and all the other cities in Malaysia.

Free from all major disasters [ Earthquakes, Tornados, Cyclones, Tsunamis, Volcanos etc]


----------



## japeto (Jul 5, 2005)

Chicago is relatively safe. Blizzards and cold are the only real threats and the city is pretty much ready to deal with them.


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

Madrid?


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

Somewhere in Scandanavia perhaps?

London is quite safe as well, although we are at slight risk of flooding.


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

Paris, Curitiba and Berlin maybe: no earthslides, avalanges, earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes or serious floodings. Also no severe colds like Moscow.


----------



## Danish_guy (May 18, 2005)

wjfox2002 said:


> Somewhere in Scandanavia perhaps?


agreed... don´t think there ever have been a natural disaster in Denmark


----------



## Þróndeimr (Jan 14, 2003)

wjfox2002 said:


> Somewhere in Scandanavia perhaps?
> 
> London is quite safe as well, although we are at slight risk of flooding.


Scandinavia is a safe place, but i don't think many places in Norway is that safe, some places may probably be ranked as some of the most risky places in Europe with the current threat of mountain slides, tsunamies, avalanches, flood, mud slides, blizzards and hurricanes/storms.


----------



## Very Controversial (Dec 4, 2005)

Very tough question to answer. Anyway, very interesting thread.


----------



## blackcountryboy (Jul 6, 2005)

As wjfox2002 said, London is pretty safe in terms of extreme weather. I'd say that this is the case for most Europe cities, certainly in Western Europe. There's only Italy, Greece and Turkey that suffer badly from Earhtquakes and Europe rarely gets large tornadoes, although Birmingham was struck badly last year by 2 tornadoes that caused around £50million worth of damage.


----------



## London_2006 (Feb 9, 2003)

The worst London can get is a drought or flood. Even though we're in the most tornado prone country in the world, most are F0-F1 and the strongest are only about F3. We don't get hurricanes at this latitude, and we don't get blizzards or snowstorms. The geology is all sedimentary rocks and there are no volcanoes anywhere near London. Obviously no earthquakes either (although there are occasional mag. 4 earthquakes once every decade or so).

Btw, due to the current drought, the SE region currently has less water per head than Syria.

Worst I can think of are the 1962/63 abnormally cold winter, the heatwaves of 1976, 1995 and 2003, and the storm surges in 1953.


----------



## LordMandeep (Apr 10, 2006)

Toronto can face a Tornado once ina blue moon. Its biggets threat is severe thunderstorm or a big blizzard but from anything major like earthquakes or Hurricanes. not really.


----------



## bay_area (Dec 31, 2002)

Im jealous of all this safety.


----------



## Azn_chi_boi (Mar 11, 2005)

Chicago probably safe from everything except for 5 things I could think of...

Blizzard : however, Chicago is very ready for that...

Tornados : The suburbs of Chicago could be hit, very oftenly, but in the city, we have the lake to make the Tornado go the other direction.

Floods : But we have 29 miles of Parks and open area, so in case if Lake Michigan Flood, the parks could soak up the water but there wouldn't be any floods, maybe except for Navy Pier and Lower Wacker Drive, that has nothing protecting it... except for locks on the river.

Fire : Given, 1871, but that's when Chicago was all wood, but a heat wave could cause a fire(?)

Earthquake : one of the strongest earthquake in U.S. history happen just happen downstate and Missouri (New Madrid in 1812, magnitude 8.0+), that might affect Chicago too

this is what would happen if the earthquake happen today










Parts of Detroit will be damage, Toledo, Milwaukee, Atlanta, Louisville, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, etc in addtion to a direct attack of St. Louis, Cairo, Memphis, and Evansville...

However, most of the 5 things would be so rare, maybe near none at all... that could happen to Chicago.


----------



## DecoJim (Dec 6, 2005)

What goes for Chicago mostly applies to Detroit. Detroit had its big fire in 1805 when every structure except for one burned... of course Detroit was just a town then. I am not aware of the Detroit River ever flooding. On the other hand, Detroit is not immune from economic disasters.

Global warming could change the equations in a generation or two. Coastal cities might flood while cities on the Great Lakes could actually run low on water if drought conditions occur in the interiors of continents as some scientists postulate might happen.


----------



## Harkeb (Oct 12, 2004)

South Africa in general is safe from any natural disasters (God willing). No volcanoes, earthquakes, tornadoes, the like. However global warming is negatively affecting our rainfall, resulting in city dams drying up (esp in Cape Town).


----------



## Macca-GC (May 20, 2004)

Alice Springs: No Earthquakes, same as the majority of the rest of Australia. No bushfires, it's surrounded by desert. No floods, the 'river' is usually dry. No tornados. No cyclones, I'd like to see one try and get to Alice Springs. No blizzards, avalanches, hailstorms, volcanoes

Droughts are the only possible thing.

Canberra is immune from all those except bushfires(2002)

It's hard to find places in Australia which would be immune from drought, because they're all in the tropics and therefore prone to cyclones.


----------



## ncon (Apr 6, 2005)

Singapore


----------



## OtAkAw (Aug 5, 2004)

As far as I am concerned, my city is not. A volcano is just beside our province waiting to be awakened again.


----------



## Mosaic (Feb 18, 2005)

encon said:


> Singapore


really?? do you recall a forest fire smok from Indonesia that time??


----------



## Mosaic (Feb 18, 2005)

Bangkok I think, There is no earthquake, volcano, blizzard, hurricane, sand storm....


----------



## gruber (Jun 11, 2004)

Milan have a good situation.
out of the Earthquake regions of Italy, just only few small rivers without floods, the closest volcano at 750 km, no blizzard or strong wind, no hurricane in the Mediterranean Sea, no sand storm (except someones vey light and rare from the Sahara), no infestations or malaria or similar.

the last 2 big events were crash airplanes, the Linate one with more than 70 deads and the small palne that crashed inside the main skyscrapers of the city 4 years ago, with fortunally just 3 deads.


----------



## K' (Feb 2, 2006)

Europe:
Scnadinavian cities, British cities, Spanish cities.
the rest get chance of flooding and earthquakes.

Asia:
Middle Eastern (Gulf States)
Malaysian cities

Americas:
Canadian cities
central US cities
central South American cities

Africa:
North African (Cairo, Rabat, Alexndria, Casablanca)
Nairobi
South African cities


----------



## Josh (May 30, 2004)

Brussels is very safe


----------



## bay_area (Dec 31, 2002)

K' said:


> Europe:
> Scnadinavian cities, British cities, Spanish cities.
> the rest get chance of flooding and earthquakes.
> 
> ...


I think Central US Cities have tornadoes-that scares me more then earthquakes.


----------



## Hecago (Dec 1, 2005)

For America I think the Upper Midwest is probably the safest area from natural disaters.


----------



## Grollo (Sep 11, 2002)

Perth in Western Australia.


----------



## ncon (Apr 6, 2005)

Mosaic said:


> really?? do you recall a forest fire smok from Indonesia that time??



oh I forgot :runaway: :runaway: :runaway:


----------



## Sirgarbagemann (Apr 5, 2006)

The ATL is pretty safe, no earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes- barley but i havent hear of any in the city, no volcanoes, but i think ther may be some flodding in the future....


----------



## Chicagoago (Dec 2, 2005)

The central US gets tornadoes, but the chances of YOUR house or city being hit by one are about as good as being hit by lightning. Tornadoes are very unexpected and very violent ( hence why they're so scary ), so normally a fairly large area gets worried when one touches down. The actual damage path is normally very very small though. It gets your blood pumping a lot more than you're actually freaking out scared your personal house/town will be flattened. I would have to say the upper midwest is the safest from disaster in USA. A tornado is more natures "scare tactic" than a full blown hurricane or earthquake - which is when you know mother nature is really pissed.

Also to the post on the prior page for Chicago - tornadoes don't care about mountains/rivers/lakes, they just go right over them. The only thing that might help the city of Chicago is that during April-June, the midwests most active tornado season, the lake temperature in Chicago is still quite low. This cools the areas in the city near the lake, and as a result kinda kills off many powerful storms before they can blow through. More to do with weather systems than the capabilities of an actual tornado.

I actually get annoyed by that, as I use to love huge storm systems pounding through Iowa each spring/summer. It will definitely spice up your average late afternoon...


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

K' said:


> Europe:
> Scnadinavian cities, British cities, Spanish cities.
> the rest get chance of flooding and earthquakes.
> 
> ...


I think that central american cities have eartquakes and hurricanes.. like Managua, Guatemala city or San Salvador.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

The Northeast is probably the safest area in the US (sorry midwesterners)

Low chances of Tornados, too cold for powerful hurricanes, and earthquakes are practically non-existant. 

It has been flooding more lately though, and there are blizzards in the winter, but those are more of an irritant than a disaster.


----------



## jlshyang (May 22, 2005)

Mosaic said:


> really?? do you recall a forest fire smok from Indonesia that time??


That's not a natural disaster. Anyway the smog is blown by wind from Indonesia.


----------



## DMA Brasil (Feb 4, 2006)

Kuesel said:


> Paris, Curitiba and Berlin maybe: no earthslides, avalanges, earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes or serious floodings. Also no severe colds like Moscow.



I thought just in Curitiba! I think also that Bologne perhaps is a very safe place from natural desasters, like Manchester also.


----------



## Evangelion (May 11, 2005)

i'm thinking Seoul, for a major city its pretty safe, they dont get earthquakes/ volcanoes/ typhoons(if ever a fringe gust)/ a snowstorm here and there. In general pretty safe from natural disasters........................... oh but they do get the nasty yellow dust blown over from china every year ( does that count as a natural disaster?)


----------



## Joey313 (May 2, 2006)

los angeles 

















Just kidding


----------



## Novak (May 9, 2006)

Swedish and Finnish cities have very safe location I guess! No earthquakes, no tsunamis, no tornedos/hurricanes and stuff like that.. I'm quite happy that I born to this nation.


----------



## centreoftheuniverse (Nov 16, 2005)

Hecago said:


> For America I think the Upper Midwest is probably the safest area from natural disaters.


Not so. Old Faithful in Yellowstone they say is one of the largest if not the largest volcano on Earth. The Upper Midwest lies just downwind, getting the worst of the volcanic debris and ash. Trust me, if you had saw that Discovery Channel show on this, you know how dangerous it is. No one really know when it will erupt again.


----------



## Hecago (Dec 1, 2005)

centreoftheuniverse said:


> No one really know when it will erupt again.


That's the key sentence right there. No one knows.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Evangelion said:


> i'm thinking Seoul, for a major city its pretty safe, they dont get earthquakes/ volcanoes/ typhoons(if ever a fringe gust)/ a snowstorm here and there. In general pretty safe from natural disasters........................... oh but they do get the nasty yellow dust blown over from china every year ( does that count as a natural disaster?)


I'd consider that a man-made problem due to deforestation and the subsequent desertification.


----------



## ♣628.finst (Jul 29, 2005)

SGoico said:


> I'd say Madrid or Sevilla in Spain. No sand storm, tsunamis, earthslides, avalanches, earthquakes, blizzard, tornados, hurricanes or floodings...
> 
> Can't remember a natural disaster in either city


It's drought for most Spanish cities. Dust storm is rare but bushfire is common.


----------



## ♣628.finst (Jul 29, 2005)

North America: Toronto, Winnipeg, Minneapolis, Montreal, Fairbanks or Yellowknife are very safe in general. Boston, NYC, Halifax or other Maritime Northeast cities are very safe--- you don't have major earthquakes at all. Hurricanes is very rare. Minor floodings and blizzards are the only threat to the region.

Europe: Norway, Sweden, Finland, Jutland and Scotland are the safest. 

Asia: Yakutsk, Norilsk (Interior Siberia)

South America: Curitiba, Cuiaba, Campo Grande (Western plateau of Brazil)

Australia: Northern Territory or Tasmania. Other provinces of Australia are prone to bushfires or dust storm. New Zealand is sadly prone to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, otherwise New Zealand is a very safe place--- same apply to Southern Chile, coastal Alaska and Pacific coast of Canada. very sadly.


----------



## Rapid (May 31, 2004)

It has to be inner-continental cities, away from plate boundaries and tornado zones.


----------



## Æsahættr (Jul 9, 2004)

You can't be near the ocean/bodies of water because of rising sea levels, so Montreal is off.


----------



## flesh_is_weak (Jun 16, 2006)

Cebu City, a beautiful city in an island in the Pacific, Cebu. there are no volcanoes on this island, rarely visited by thypoons, surrounded by other islands, making it very tsunami-safe, has never been hit by any major earthquake


----------



## jlshyang (May 22, 2005)

Xäntårx said:


> I think cyclones are frequent in Malaysia and surrounding countries. No earthquakes or bushfire? Western Malaysia is just 200-300 km off volcanoes in Indonesia.


Nope, there are no cyclones in Malaysia. Bushfires are rare and there were absolutely no earthquakes or volcanoes in Malaysia despite being 200-300km off Indonesia. This makes Malaysian cities among the safest (free from natural disasters) in South East Asia along with Singapore, Bandar Seri Begawan and possibly Bangkok.


----------



## Intoxication (Jul 24, 2005)

Well UK's cities are pretty safe. London has a slight risk of flooding due to the rising sea levels, but that can be overcome by futher strenghtening the thames barrier. Manchester, Glasgow and Liverpool are all safe. Edinburgh is built on the top of a volcano, but i think the volcano is dormat. Birmingham was recently struck by a hurricane but that's a rarity.


----------



## ManhattanBoy (Jun 15, 2006)

Denver, Colorado. The Mile High City. I don't see them getting flooded or getting a hurricane anytime soon.


----------



## bob rulz (Oct 20, 2005)

Skyscraper_guy said:


> Birmingham was recently struck by a hurricane but that's a rarity.


You can hardly compare what people in the United Kingdom call hurricanes compared to what people in the United States call hurricanes...

And also, about Great Britain having the highest density of tornadoes...that may be true, but if the Midwestern U.S. was a separate country, it would have a higher density. The vast majority of the tornadoes in the country occur in the Midwest, Plains, Gulf Coast states, and Florida. Hurricanes can also spawn a lot of tornadoes (rarely ever of high intensity though, almost always F0 or F1; there were about 130 from Frances alone). Huge tornado outbreaks that happen in the Midwest also do not occur in Great Britain. Great Britain gets the highest density of tornadoes, but tornadoes there are hardly ever higher than F2 in intensity; the United States is the only country in the world to have ever recorded an F5 tornado, and it's recorded quite a few of them. In fact, I believe that Canada is the only other country to have ever recorded even an F4 (and only about 5 or less).

Either way, Salt Lake City is relatively safe from disasters. We get the occassional blizzard, but everything else is rare. However, we do lie in an earthquake-prone zone, and they have forecasted an earthquake up to magnitude 7 could happen, so I guess we don't count.

I agree with Denver above, although it does get some crippling blizzards from time to time. The Northeastern U.S. is relatively safe, except from flooding (as evidenced in the last year or so) and blizzards. However, hurricanes do pose a very real threat to the Northeast. Although they're rare (the last one was Bob in 1991), the threat is more real than people may think. They happen every once in a while, and the building codes are nowhere near what they are in other areas. Parts of the Midwest U.S. are also fairly safe (Detroit, Chicago), but Saint Louis is not; it lies near the New Madrid fault, one of the least understood and least prepared for fault in the world. Scientists have no idea how active it is or how soon it could go off, or how big of an earthquake it could produce.

Either way, I believe that Britain, a lot of Western Europe (including Spain), and parts of Southeast Asia (Malaysia, Thailand, Burma) would be the least disaster-prone areas of the world. The Middle East is also relatively safe I believe, despite sandstorms and flooding from heavy rain. Same with the southwestern U.S. (despite it's violent thuderstorms during monsoon season). Southern Chile and southern Argentina, as well as parts of southern Africa (mostly South Africa) all seem pretty safe as well. Large parts of Australia, despite the bushfires and occassional flooding, are pretty safe. I believe those are all safe areas.

And whoever said "Alaska probably experiences a lot of tornadoes" would be wrong. I believe the entirety of Alaska only experiences 1 tornado every 2 years (perhaps even less). The meteorological conditions for producing a tornado just aren't there.


----------



## London_2006 (Feb 9, 2003)

bob rulz said:


> Huge tornado outbreaks that happen in the Midwest also do not occur in Great Britain.


Oh don't they? 

Largest Tornado Outbreak
The largest tornado outbreak in Britain is also the largest tornado outbreak known anywhere in Europe. On November 21, 1981, 105 tornadoes were spawned by a cold front in the space of 5.25 hours. Excepting Derbyshire, every county in a triangular area from Gwynedd to Humberside to Essex was hit by at least one tornado, while Norfolk was hit by at least 13.

http://www.torro.org.uk/TORRO/research/whirlextreme.php


----------



## Martin S (Sep 12, 2002)

We may get more tornadoes in Britain but we are probably far too North for them to have enough power to cause major damage. They will tend to rip a few slates off the roof or uproot a few trees.

We also get earthquakes, in fact my mother's house near Liverpool was slightly damaged by one several years ago. However, again they are far too weak to cause any major damage (although the then tallest building in Britain, the spire of Lincoln Cathedral, collapsed during an earthquake in the Middle Ages).

High winds can be a problem and the South East was hit by a hurricane in 1987, which caused a large amount of damage in London and surrounding countries, but not on the scale that some countries have to put up with regularly.

Edinburgh Castle does sit on the core of an extinct volcano and there are signs of volcanic activity all over Britain but I don't think there has been an active British volcano in recorded history.

The main natural disaster that affect Britain are due to flooding. These are mainly due to rivers bursting their banks in periods of prolonged rainfall and have been made worse in recent years by development on river flood plains, something that is now discouraged.

There was a dramatic flooding incident in Boscastle, Devon a few years ago when a flash flood devastated the town which sits on a narrow river valley.

Flooding due to inundation by the sea is not so common although we sometimes get localised flooding here in Liverpool during very high Spring tides.

Of the major cities of Britain, London is probably most at risk from inundation from the sea due to its central area being low lying and its location making it exposed to storm surges from the North Sea. Extensive flood protection works have been carried out, including the Thames Barrier built in the early 80s but much more will have to be done if sea levels rise.


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

*Tornado Alley*


----------



## Erebus555 (Apr 21, 2006)

Birmingham got two major tornadoes in the space of three months last year. It had the epicentre of an earthquake which was felt around the country. At least it ins't affected by rising sea levels as it is 100 metres above sea level - one of the highest cities in the UK. But then, the Trent and severn are either side of it.


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

Many people do not realize that in the southern midwest lies one of the largest faultlines in North America. The New Madrid fault. Last time it shook was in the 1800's and it was felt as far north as Wisconsin and as far east as New York. A major earthquake along the New Madrid would be as devastating to cities such as *St Louis, Louisvile and Nashville  (Chicago-Milwaukee and Detroit too will feel shaking)* as the San Andreas fault is to The Bay Area and Los Angeles




















*San Andreas*


----------



## Intoxication (Jul 24, 2005)

The US has one of the worst weather in the world. It's got earth quakes, hurricanes, tornados, flooding...what hasn't it got?


----------



## jarcje (Jan 14, 2006)

Mosaic said:


> Bangkok I think, There is no earthquake, volcano, blizzard, hurricane, sand storm....


I agree!


----------



## F-ian (Oct 29, 2005)

^^ Flood  ?


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

Skyscraper_guy said:


> The US has one of the worst weather in the world. It's got earth quakes, hurricanes, tornados, flooding...what hasn't it got?


Well lets see, the United Sates is about this size of Europe. Does Europe have earthquakes? yes. Floods? yes. Tornados? yes. Hurricanes? No because Europe is on a more northerly latitude thus colder ocean waters.


----------



## Minato ku (Aug 9, 2005)

And *Paris*

no earthquakes no tornados no hurricanes ...
flooding : yes but rarely


----------



## bob rulz (Oct 20, 2005)

London_2006 said:


> Oh don't they?
> 
> Largest Tornado Outbreak
> The largest tornado outbreak in Britain is also the largest tornado outbreak known anywhere in Europe. On November 21, 1981, 105 tornadoes were spawned by a cold front in the space of 5.25 hours. Excepting Derbyshire, every county in a triangular area from Gwynedd to Humberside to Essex was hit by at least one tornado, while Norfolk was hit by at least 13.
> ...


Hmm, I didn't realize that the largest tornado outbreak in British history was that big.

However, they still don't get them on nearly the frequency as the Midwest U.S. does. The largest outbreak in history was 148 tornadoes (and probably several more unreported). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Outbreak This included 6 F5 tornadoes. Also, as I said before, the United States is the only country in the world that has reported an F5 tornado, and one of the few in the world that has seen an F4.

I found this text in Wikipedia:

_Tornadoes do occur throughout the world as well; the most tornado-prone region of the world (outside North America), as measured by number of reported tornadoes per unit area, is the Netherlands, followed by the United Kingdom (especially England). Bangladesh, India, Argentina, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, Estonia, and portions of Uruguay also have pockets of high tornadic activity. Occasional strong tornadoes occur in Russia, France, Spain, Japan, and portions of Paraguay and Brazil. Tornadoes have recently hit South Africa and parts of Pakistan in 2001 as well, and on April 4 2006, a rare F2 tornado hit northwestern Israel, causing significant damage and injuries. Approximately 170 tornadoes are reported per year on land in Europe. Perhaps the most notorious tornado of recent years was that which struck Birmingham, England in July 2005 which destroyed a row of houses though - amazingly - without fatalities._

So The Netherlands actually reports the highest density of tornadoes. 

And then there's this passage:

_On average, the United States experiences 100,000 thunderstorms each year, resulting in more than 1,200 tornadoes and approximately 50 deaths per year._

Deaths from tornadoes are rare in Europe, and this is about 10 times the average number of tornadoes recorded across Europe, with the vast majority of these occurring in the Midwest, Plains, Gulf Coast States, and Florida.



Martin S said:


> High winds can be a problem and the South East was hit by a hurricane in 1987, which caused a large amount of damage in London and surrounding countries, but not on the scale that some countries have to put up with regularly.


Hurricanes don't hit England.


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Sandblast said:


> *BIRMINGHAM* ENGLAND
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Manchester is even safer...Birmingham gets tornadoes haha


----------



## ainvan (Nov 15, 2006)

In the US, Corvalis, OR, takes the crown.


----------



## ainvan (Nov 15, 2006)

Among big cities in the US, Detroit, MI, is the safest one.










1. Detroit, MI
Don’t rule out the Motor City. Detroit came out way ahead in all of our criteria, with only 3 major disaster declarations and four total declarations from the Federal Emergency Management Agency during the last 10 years. Detroit’s position on the Detroit River and its proximity to Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie helps regulate extreme weather patterns and also subjects it to colder temperatures.
When there are weather ‘events,’ the most likely are hail – still only 1 in every 4 of them – and flooding (also 1 in 4). Both are products of occasionally intense spring and summer thunderstorms. Detroit residents may have several concerns, but natural disasters don’t top the list!

2. Charlotte, NC
The Queen’s City is strategically located to avoid major disasters. Its suburbs are surrounded by water (Catawba River, Lake Norman, Lake Wylie, and Mountain Island Lake), which again act as good weather regulators. The surrounding water makes it more likely that Charlotte would experience a flood than any other weather event. In fact, one in three Charlotte weather problems involve flooding rather than a wildfire, blizzard, hail, etc.

3. San Francisco, CA
San Francisco doesn’t have a great history with earthquakes, but the city successfully dodges other major weather events fairly well. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration only lists 47 damaging weather events in the city in the last 10 years, and FEMA has only declared 14 major disasters. The City by the Bay seems protected by its infamous summer fog from major weather events such as tornadoes and wildfires.
Milder temperatures also mean fewer thunderstorms with damaging winds, lightning, and hail. The cost of living is high, but residents can rest easy knowing their investments are relatively safe from Mother Nature.

4. Denver, CO
You could say that the Mile High City has its head in the clouds, but its high elevation might help protect it from major disasters. The city actually experiences an average 300 days of sunshine a year.
If you live in Denver, you’re most likely to face hail (1 in 3 weather events) in the summer, and winter storms (1 in 6) in the colder months; however, these two disaster types typically cause the least expensive destruction. The Mile High City just can’t be touched.

5. Boston, MA
There’s a reason the city of Boston has lasted nearly 400 years. The settlers picked a perfect spot for their New England city in 1630. Boston has a continental climate with maritime influence, so the city’s position on the bay makes it even less prone to damaging storms than its inland suburbs. Floods are its only bane, with 1 out of every 3 weather events pouring water into the city.

Home Owners Insurance


----------



## kalinka? (Aug 10, 2014)

Scandinavia excluding Norway


----------



## SpiderBHZ (Feb 11, 2015)

Brasilia.


----------



## aaabbbccc (Mar 8, 2009)

There was a horrible hail event in Denver not too long ago


----------



## 009 (Nov 28, 2007)

Singapore has almost zero risk, although people can occasionally feel earthquakes from Indonesia, but not strongly.


----------



## samdawson012 (Feb 15, 2015)

I've been to Singapore a couple of times and staying for more than a week at times. I can say that I feel the safest there. There was only one time from my many visits that I experienced a minor earthquake, but other than that, it feels peaceful staying there.


----------



## Eric Offereins (Jan 1, 2004)

10 risky cities: 
http://www.theguardian.com/cities/g...yclones-and-tsunamis-10-riskiest-cities-world


----------



## skyrocket2 (Jun 22, 2015)

Singapore is safest. Tokyo, Southern USA and Pakistan least.


----------



## aforl (Jul 20, 2010)

Must be my country Singapore lol.

24~25 years here, only once was a minor tremor felt, that was almost a decade ago, but not even enough to topple anything.

Only 'natural disaster' is probably the occasional haze caused by burnt trees in the jungles in Indonesia.

Heck natural disasters, you are even damn safe from crimes, pickpockets or anything like that. I've never got any of my stuffs robbed, stolen or pickpocket.


----------



## gincan (Feb 1, 2006)

aforl said:


> Must be my country Singapore lol.
> 
> 24~25 years here, only once was a minor tremor felt, that was almost a decade ago, but not even enough to topple anything.
> 
> ...


A Tambora style volcanic eruption in Sumatra and winds in favorable direction, you could see several feet of volcanic ash falling in Singapore, easily. The good new is, it probably will not happen in this century.

just sayin :wave:

On a more serious note, rising sea levels is he most dangerous natural disaster facing coastal cities in the world, not only because of inevitable inundation but also for destroying freshwater sources such as aquifers and lakes.


----------



## castermaild55 (Sep 8, 2005)

schreiwalker said:


> What are the big cities safest from natural disasters? I mean the least extreme weather (blizzards, hurricanes, tornados, droughts), volcanoes, earthquakes, floods, infestations of evil fuzzy rabbits, etc.
> 
> My first thought is London, but I guess they can have storms come flood the city through the thames. Pittsburgh, PA is also pretty safe (or bland, depending on how you look at it), nestled up in a small mountain range with rivers that usually only flood parkland.


I think Tokyo
no building was collapsed at 311
in case of flood









I do not know about Tsunami. however everybody prepared it.
no one will be panic, no riots , .....people maintains the order


----------



## ssiguy2 (Feb 19, 2005)

Calgary is very safe. 

No tornadoes, hurricanes, not huge amounts of snow, no earthquakes, no volcanoes. The only thing Calgary can get is floods like the one a couple years ago which was very severe but it was a once in a century event. Usually Calgary doesn't have to worry about any natural disasters. It's very safe and to make it even better it's also very safe from a crime perspective.


----------



## hacci (Sep 1, 2012)

I think we don't have any city safe from natural disasters in Mexico. Most of our cities are threatened yearly by hurricanes and also most of the country suffers earthquakes.
Socially speaking... Well, none of our cities have excellent security.


----------

