Safest cities from natural disasters - Page 9

***Taller, Better*** · December 6th, 2012, 06:07 PM

A city built within earthquake, or potential flood zones would be the most vulnerable to true disaster. Any town or city built on the Canadian
Precambrian Shield has much less chance of serious earthquake than one built near a fault-line. A blizzard is hardly in the same category; it is disruptive and
can cause the odd death, but once the snow melts it is over. Crowded cities with many wooden structures would be targets for extensive fires.
Also, cities without a steady, reliable fresh water source are potentially disaster zones.

gfd08 · December 24th, 2012, 03:00 AM

Montevideo, the capital city of Uruguay - South America - is not affected by tornadoes, floods, droughts, earthquakes or extreme temperatures.

CarltonHill · December 25th, 2012, 06:55 AM

Perth, Australia.

-It has a great climate and the most amount of sun out of all of the Australian capital cities. It's also extremely safe and not susceptible to as many natural disasters as the rest of Australia.

Azrain98 · December 26th, 2012, 10:38 PM

I think Brunei maybe ?

Denjiro · December 27th, 2012, 10:13 PM

Brunei is a country..

:jax: · December 28th, 2012, 04:13 PM

Even in Scandinavia Oslo is unusually well protected from the environment. Mountain ranges mean that adverse weather only would arrive from the south to the east, while adverse weather normally comes from the north to the west. Thus storms are very rare, not to speak of hurricanes. Thunderstorms and hailstorms are rare, tornadoes are unheard of. While forest fires happen, they wouldn't affect the city. Oslo is very far from any earthquake zone. There are no nearby volcanoes or supervolcanoes, Iceland volcanoes could lead to air traffic problems, but is unlikely to be more than a nuisance. There was a flood in Oslo a few years ago, the worst in living memory, front page news. The damage was that a handful cellars near the river had become waterlogged.

As a coastal city it is in theory vulnerable to storm surges, tsunamis, and sea level rises, but it is in the inner part of a narrow and wiggly fjord. Tsunamis would have no good angle, and the force would be dissipated before reaching Oslo. The same goes for storms and there are hardly any. Sea level rises would be offset by that the whole of Scandinavia is rising too. A climate change scenario including the loss of the Golf Stream current would hurt Oslo, but that would be offset by the warming. The end result would likely be a few degrees colder and somewhat more severe weather, but the weather would still have no convenient way of reaching the city.

A direct hit by an asteroid could obliterate Oslo, but it would be more likely to survive a nearby hit than most places, for reasons given above, but even so the aftereffects would likely persuade the survivors to emigrate.

December 6th, 2012, 06:07 PM	#161
*Taller, Better* Administrator Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Toronto Posts: 52,813 Likes (Received): 302	A city built within earthquake, or potential flood zones would be the most vulnerable to true disaster. Any town or city built on the Canadian Precambrian Shield has much less chance of serious earthquake than one built near a fault-line. A blizzard is hardly in the same category; it is disruptive and can cause the odd death, but once the snow melts it is over. Crowded cities with many wooden structures would be targets for extensive fires. Also, cities without a steady, reliable fresh water source are potentially disaster zones. __________________ Please visit my photoblog! Montréal \| Mexico \| Niagara-on-the-Lake \| Brazil \| Hamilton aka "The Hammer"! "Fine words butter no parsnips"-17th Century proverb.

December 24th, 2012, 03:00 AM	#162
gfd08 Germán Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Montevideo Posts: 1,255 Likes (Received): 52	Montevideo, the capital city of Uruguay - South America - is not affected by tornadoes, floods, droughts, earthquakes or extreme temperatures. __________________ Los arquitectos no tienen el Ego grande... es sólo que la habitación es muy chica

December 26th, 2012, 10:38 PM	#164
Azrain98 innocent man. Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Malacca ( MALAYSIA ),Mosgiel ( NEW ZEALAND ) Posts: 289 Likes (Received): 16	I think Brunei maybe ? __________________ I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear. - Martin Luther King, Jr. follow my twitter : Azr. no facebook :)

December 27th, 2012, 10:13 PM	#165
Denjiro Truly Saigonese. ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤ Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: Rotterdam ♦ Saigon Posts: 2,493 Likes (Received): 958	Brunei is a country.. __________________ ViVid VietNam VietNam Projects - VietNam Infra Saigon Photography - Saigon Skyline - PhuMyHung Urbanetics Hanoi Skyline - Danang Skyline World of NhaTrang - World of DaLat

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

December 25th, 2012, 06:55 AM	#163
CarltonHill Registered User Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: Metro Manila Posts: 1,066 Likes (Received): 64	Perth, Australia. -It has a great climate and the most amount of sun out of all of the Australian capital cities. It's also extremely safe and not susceptible to as many natural disasters as the rest of Australia.

December 28th, 2012, 04:13 PM	#166
:jax: Registered User Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Prague Posts: 475 Likes (Received): 37	Even in Scandinavia Oslo is unusually well protected from the environment. Mountain ranges mean that adverse weather only would arrive from the south to the east, while adverse weather normally comes from the north to the west. Thus storms are very rare, not to speak of hurricanes. Thunderstorms and hailstorms are rare, tornadoes are unheard of. While forest fires happen, they wouldn't affect the city. Oslo is very far from any earthquake zone. There are no nearby volcanoes or supervolcanoes, Iceland volcanoes could lead to air traffic problems, but is unlikely to be more than a nuisance. There was a flood in Oslo a few years ago, the worst in living memory, front page news. The damage was that a handful cellars near the river had become waterlogged. As a coastal city it is in theory vulnerable to storm surges, tsunamis, and sea level rises, but it is in the inner part of a narrow and wiggly fjord. Tsunamis would have no good angle, and the force would be dissipated before reaching Oslo. The same goes for storms and there are hardly any. Sea level rises would be offset by that the whole of Scandinavia is rising too. A climate change scenario including the loss of the Golf Stream current would hurt Oslo, but that would be offset by the warming. The end result would likely be a few degrees colder and somewhat more severe weather, but the weather would still have no convenient way of reaching the city. A direct hit by an asteroid could obliterate Oslo, but it would be more likely to survive a nearby hit than most places, for reasons given above, but even so the aftereffects would likely persuade the survivors to emigrate.