Being from California, I'm mostly used to earthquakes. I say "mostly" because the 1989 Loma Prieta quake was the first time I thought I might actually die. I was taking refuge under the table in my office at the time and had never felt such a rockin' and rollin' quake like that. In my head, I said my goodbyes to my family when the room went completely dark and book shelves and their contents were falling down around us. Half way through the quake, I assumed my dad was already dead. He was high up in one of the all glass highrises downtown in San Francisco's financial district and I figured there was no way the building would survive. I'm glad I was wrong.
Still, I don't think I'd trade my quakes for hurricanes, tornadoes, ice storms and the like in other parts of the country.
So, where would you rather live? Quakes, hurricanes, etc.?
I've lived through earthquakes in California
Blizzards in New York
Tornado in Pennsylvania
Hurricane in North Carolina
Sand Storm in California
Wild Fires in California...
I'll take Volcanoe eruption in Hawaii
A very difficult question for a Briton to answer, having no experience of either.
We live in a country which has very little detectable seismographic activity or weather extremes.
Given the choice, therefore, I am afraid that we would have to opt for neither!
I live basically in the middle of Tornado country. We are under various Tornado watches and warnings from March to October, give or take. They can be scary, but having abasement and knowing what to watch for helps. I can honestly say I would not want to have to deal with quakes, fires, hurricanes etc. We had a smallish to medium quake here a few months ago, butthey are pretty rare.
I live in Florida. I think I have gone through about a dozen hurricanes. Hurricane Andrew I was 5. We've lost power for weeks at a time when it was 100 degrees outside. We have "hurricane days" at school. I know it sounds crazy, but I love it here so much.
Of the two choices, hurricanes. At least you have a day or two to get prepared or evacuate. No warning whatsoever with earthquakes. I experienced a tiny tremor once that lasted about 45 seconds. That was more than enough to make me never want to be in SoCal or SF during a quake!
Washington seems to be a pretty safe state relative to the others for natural disasters.. Biggest worry in the Puget sound is Mount Rainier blowing up in the next 10,000 years. Earthquakes are a potential threat but rarely occur with enough severity to cause structural damage. I think flooding is probably the worst thing for some.
I'll take my chances with the potential earthquake and volcano threat.. I would'nt live anywhere else.
I'm a New Zealander and a geologist.
Without a doubt - earthquake - but in a western country with a strong building code California and NZ have some of the best - though prieta Loma showed up some problems with the freeway system in CA. I've been thru several and they are no big deal - that said there were a few old buildings in Wellington that I would never live in...
Hurricanes/tornados whatever - I saw what happened in Darwin - the museum there is amazing - warnings did not help the people of New Orleons.
The scariest though are bushfires - and there are large parts of Australia I wouldn't live in because of that - nearly 200 died in Victoria - within a few hours drive of Melbourne. Bushfires are erratic, can be caused by humans and you are very dependent on authorities warning systems.
Earthquakes they just have to dig you out afterwards - most countries can manage that LOL
Volcanoes are very easy to predict they usually gives weeks of notice - the people most likely to get killed by them? Geologists - seriously LOL
It's not a matter of where I live really because disasters can happen almost anywhere. If I had to choose it makes sense to go with what gives you advance information so you can prepare somewhat. Obviously in a earthquake,they just happen. I just hope for the best and wish for none.
by And Drewson 7 years ago
I'll start.Would you rather live in a hot or cold climate all year round?
by stanwshura 5 years ago
Would you rather live a life that is "boring" but serene, or exciting but frought with risk?Would you rather have certainty, calm and peace - or excitement, adventure and danger?
by HattieMattieMae 4 years ago
Would you rather live in denial or truth!
by YvetteParker 6 years ago
Which would you rather live oceanfront or mountainside and why?
by Franchescavere 12 months ago
Would you rather live a short rich life or a poor long life?Short life meaning 35 years or less. Poor life meaning, struggling to find something to eat everyday. What is your meaning of life? How do you make the best of it?
by LailaK 6 years ago
Would you rather live in a country with warm or hot climates?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|