While I normally love their maps, the The New York Times published a map titled Where to Live to Avoid a Natural Disaster which I find quite suspect. The map ranks urban areas on hazard vulnerability based on danger from earthquakes, tornadoes, and hurricanes while avoiding other prominent disasters. Thus, the name is completely misleading.
According to the ranking and map, Dallas, Texas is the hazardous place in the United States and Corvallis, Oregon is the safest place. Corvallis' city disaster plan includes planning assumptions for fires, floods, winter storms, dam failure, earthquakes, volcanic hazards, and landslides.
I'm not sure why the Times decided not to include flood, fire, or landslide risk in their mapping project. Flooding is the most common natural disaster and is becoming more and more common. I don't know how Seattle and Honolulu were rated among the safest urban areas in the country. The dangers are obvious. Seattle is at risk for a catastrophic earthquake and Honolulu is at high risk from hurricane and other geologic hazards. Los Angeles, which sits on long-too-silent San Andreas Fault rates medium risk (without taking into account fires - Southern California's Santa Ana Winds are almost a season onto itself.)
This map is irresponsible as it gives a false sense of security to those who live in extremely hazardous cities and overstates the hazard in tornado-prone regions. Perhaps the map is simply a reflection of recent disasters in the news. Regardless, no city west of the Rocky Mountains should be listed as low risk as the entire Western United States is seismically active. They definitely could have done better.
Comments
My first thoughts exactly, when considering the safest places and…oh, i don’t know: VOLCANOES! Seattle and the Pacific NW as well as Hawaii are both at risk there.
I totally agree with your assesment of the NY Times map data Matt. Obviously the reporters did not consult with a real geographic authority before publishing this type of map data–very misleading.
I would also point out that although Honolulu does not sit on an active volcano, it is in the path of hurricanes and tidal waves/tsunami from the entire ring of fire along both Pacific coastlines. It also has its share of mid-magnitude earthquakes.
If Mauna Loa volcano on the Big Island of Hawaii blows (it is overdue and growing in size annually) it could cause an ash cloud that may drift over the entire state like last year’s Icelandic volcano that wiped out air traffic to the island and most of Europe.
You guys are right…WHO in his/her right mind would place cities from N Calif to Canada in the green!?! Amazing…then again, I know very few “journalists” who actually question the data they are given. My first year students know better than to make these assumptions. Thanks for pointing it out…now I have a “why not to always believe” map to refer to!!
How can they get it so wrong?
S California is one of the most disaster prone areas in the US.
Quakes, fires, flooding, mudslides, not many left.
Matt have you questioned NYT?
Agree with the direction of the comments above. What about a tsunami – which may originate hundreds of miles off the coast? There are 30 million people living along the East Coast of the United States who would be in danger if, like Japan, an earthquake were to occur hundreds of miles offshore. NYC, in long range plans, is also including the risks and remedial measures for just such an event, plus the impact of rising rides resulting from global warming.
New York Times – ’nuff said.
Good assessment of the NY Times article. Tornadoes are never a high risk–touching you once on broad average only about every 1,526 years and killing you only once in 5,431 years. Those values slide based on the part of the country of course, but the point is; tornadoes are rare events that touch only small shares of real estate, even in their favorite haunts. Adequate shelter prevents most injuries and deaths. Whereas, floods can have medium footprints and occur more frequently, and hurricanes and earth quakes have huge footprints.
I knew right when I saw this from basic elementary school studies that this map was totally flawed. I actually contacted the NY Times about this. Wonder if they’ll bother to respond. Just goes to show you- if the New York Times, a world-renowned and respected newspaper, publishes this misinformation, what will it publish about other topics? And what will less-respected papers publish?
As a former disaster management professor, a native New Yorker, and a current Newarker, I think this map is irresponsible, too. The the entire New York area is at the top of its hurricane cycle and is probably going to be hit by a Category 5 storm within the next 20 years. Previous storms of this magnitude made at least one island in Long Island Sound disappear, and caused an 1800s winter snowstorm in the northeast that killed people as they were walking across the street.
The east coast also gets earthquakes, though they tend not to be as severe as those in the west. Current disaster planning in the New York area posits that during a natural disaster of any real magnitude, hundreds of thousands of people and perhaps even more would be trapped, and would have to shelter in place. Most of the hospitals would close down or be completely overwhelmed, and since we’ve had numerous hospital closings over the past two year, it’s impossible to tell how bad things could be.
Oh wow. Jeez. Thanks New York Times for making Dallas Texas the most dangerous place. It isn’t that bad. Thank you Matt for pointing this out!