Would you rather have Earthquake first, then Hurricane?

As opposed to the Hurricane causing flooding and the Earthquake creating drainage holes?

 

I've been through both.
You always want the Hurricane first.
Earthquakes shake buildings loose (roofs), allowing more flooding from the wind and rain.

Of course.....if earthquakes start fires....then the hurricane can help put them out...

 

I have been through many quakes in the last 32 years in SoCal, I would rather have the Earthquake, at least I am not getting blown around and drenched!

 

hurriquake!

 

Just goes to show Americans haven't learned a thing from the past 10 years.

If we had the earthquake during the hurricane all the Nervous Nellies wouldn't have run out of the buildings. Monty, I want to trade the hurricane (which will be a real problem) for another BFD earthquake last the last one.

 

We do evacuate buildings on the Wet Coast after an earthquake... who is telling those poor people on the Early Coast that we don't? :huh:

All state employees in this state are required to evacuate the building as soon as the shaking stops, and meet in a "clear" area. We cannot re-enter the building until it has been inspected.

 

I've observed wasps learning from their building mistakes by reconstructing in a different location, after the first one failed.

Weather extremes are bound to get worse - we're going to have to adapt our housing standards to be able to survive them.

 

I agree, an Earthquake just suddenly jumps up and smacks you and then leaves you to deal with the mess.

A hurricane can worry you for days as it approaches, last for hours when it hits you, then you still have to deal with the mess, and it's a wet mess.

 

I think they were implying they left their buildings during the quake.

 

Makes me wonder where the safest place in the world to live is? Is there are places hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, earthquakes are rare?

 

I'm with bisco above (hurriquake) or they should be simultaneous that way you get it over and done with quick. Oh, by the way, make sure you have lots of rain the week before the hurricane gets there so the ground is good an saturated.

BTW: that's all BS I'm praying and sending good thoughts your way for safety, hang tight. God Bless!

 

I have seen at least one large article online that ranked metropolitan areas by danger from natural disasters.

If you look for the actual safest areas instead of ranking by metropolitan area, the answers might surprise you. I live in an area of Northern California that hasn't had an earthquake as big as the recent east coast earthquake in recorded history and is on geologically stable ground with a very low probability of a significant earthquake in the future. I live near a small hilltop so no flood danger, on rocky ground so no mudslides and vegetation is well enough controlled that there is no real wildfire hazard.

 

Some areas are safer than others; no question. But we can't all move there. I was also lucky enough to be born in a highly desirable location, but I have too many neighbours already.

Most houses are pretty fragile. We could all take a lesson from the story of the three little pigs, and build something better the next time. Rebuilding the same thing in the same place is not a good idea.

 

But statistically, your area in California has a much higher probability of having an earthquake then most any metropolitan area in the East coast. See how fickle probabilities can be (especially seeing where the epicenter of the East coast quake was)?



I think what would do in the East coast would be rising waters (since most the population is in metropolitan areas along the coast), tornados and hurricanes (like freak tornado that hit downtown Atlanta a few years ago), and extreme humidity.

 

Safest And Least Safe Places In The U.S. - Forbes.com