Good question, Edoka. Pardon me for stating the obvious, but natural disasters can only happen in areas where there are people to experience them.
Before people came to North America, for example, this continent had earthquakes, and the coastal areas had tsunamis. Moreover there were huge volcanic explosions that were hundreds of times more powerful than the Piñatubo eruption in the Philippines in 1991. Two locations for these huge volcanic explosions: the Long Valley Caldera in Eastern California, and the Yellowstone National Park region. But we count them as events, rather than disasters, because they did not harm anyone.
Because the human population has increased dramatically during the current interglacial, a larger number of people are experiencing natural disasters than before. Of course, it all gets reported in the mass media. And because there are so many of us, it's not practical for everyone to live in relatively safe areas. In choosing where we want to live, it's necessary to take some calculated risks.
If the human population was smaller, and everyone made wise decisions about where to build their houses, the probability of some particular family being touched by a natural disaster would also be somewhat smaller.
Interestingly, the worldwide frequency of hurricanes has declined since Katrina.
Side note. I don't expect the recent disaster in Japan to affect decisions about nuclear power in inland areas. The reactors in Japan went into an automatic shutdown mode, just as they were designed to do. However the original design did not take tsunamis into account. There will undoubtedly be stronger safety standards for nuclear power plants in coastal areas of the Pacific Rim. This region is very prone to earthquakes, and especially to the tsunamis that they spawn.