What was the worst Natural Disaster in U.S history?

[Jim Cantore]

This was approved

and by natrual disaster I mean weather related

[cycloneye]

Members can participate at this poll as the staff gave the ok to it.

[AussieMark]

its a toss up between Galveston/Katrina

altho the toll of Galveston will never be known but 8,000+ fatalties is a bad disaster in anyones language no matter what time frame it is

[Stratosphere747]

There is one thing that can't be replaced, and that is life.

Everything else on this list pales in comparison to Galveston, with its loss of life by some accounts at close to 12k.

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

Katrina because she had more then enough warning with levees. The 1900 hurricane no one knew it was coming plus there was nothing to stop the water.

[Jim Cantore]

this is going to be a war between Katrina and 1900

[Tstormwatcher]

I have to say galveston because of the great loss of life.

[CHRISTY]

THESE ARE SOME OF THE PICS OF THIS INCREDIBLE DISASTER....with know doupt the 1900 GALVESTON HURRICANE was greatest disaster in the united states history for the lost of lives and the damage just take a look at the pictures.

















MAY THE REST IN PEASE.

[Jim Cantore]

1900 and Katrina have so much in common

[AJC3]

You should probably specify that you want people to consider the worst "weather-related" natural disasters (if that, in fact, is your intent).

The reason I say this is that disease/pandemic/famine all fall into this category, and there are countless disease-related episodes that would qualify as "disasters", and dwarf those listed here in terms of death and human suffering.

Topping the list hands-down would be the Post - WWI Spanish Influenza Pandemic. Killed over half a million people in the U.S. alone in about a 6-12 month period, and shortened the average life expectancy of males living in the U.S. by 10 years.

[MiamiensisWx]

CHRISTY, that second Galveston image looks like Holly Beach/Cameron after Rita and Mississippi after Katrina. Just foundations left.

[gtalum]

It has to be the Galveston hurriane because of the death toll.

[Aslkahuna]

In terms of death toll, Galveston wins hands down. In terms of economic losses it's probably a tossup between Katrina and the Dust Bowl (when adjusted for inflation). For sheer prolonged human misery and the largest mass migration within the US, the Dust Bowl pure and simple.

Steve

[Audrey2Katrina]

THESE ARE SOME OF THE PICS OF THIS INCREDIBLE DISASTER....with know doupt the 1900 GALVESTON HURRICANE was greatest disaster in the united states history for the lost of lives and the damage just take a look at the pictures.

The "damage" pics from Katrina are every bit as terrible in the swath of her terrible surge. The major difference would be the death toll--and that's no small matter. The figures for Galveston's death toll run from 6,000-12,000 depending on your source of information, and once again we run into the catch-22 and that is by "worst natural disaster" do you mean in terms of human life alone? If so, it'll be Galveston, hands down. If by "worst" you mean factoring in many variables, such as size of devastation, loss of life, AND overall total $$$ damage and destruction, it is likewise Katrina, hands down. I guess it's all in how you want to look at it.

Personally, life is the one most important factor for me, an entire orphanage of children was wiped out along with 6,000 citizens of Galveston alone, so I say Galveston inasmuch as it's probably at least 3 times as many deaths as the closest storm to it--and when all is said and done that might very well be Katrina; so I'd make that one a close second. Why close? Because as has already been mentioned, the folks in Galveston had virtually no forewarning of their impending fate. The Central Gulf DID, and STILL the deaths will in all likelihood be over 2,000 when the final tally is in, IMO, (It's already over 1600 with over 1800 bona-fide missing who are NOT criminals, or deadbeat dads--what-have-you; but according to La. dhh, it's mostly elderly and poor in the affected area--they may never be found.) The swath of destruction was unprecedented--90,000 sq. miles. Just imagine if Katrina had plowed into the area with virtually NO evacuation or notice--the numbers would have been staggering.

No question it's got to be between these two; but as stated earlier, you can replace property/damage--a life is irreplaceable--Galveston.

A2K

[Ixolib]

Katrina gets my vote...

She took lives, completely changed lives (mine included), and otherwise significantly impacted thousands of lives for years to come. And this doesn't even take into account the material impact over 90 miles of coastline - plus a swath across S. FL.

I believe if Katrina and the 1900 storm would have both occurred in closer proximity to one another, Katrina's overall impact would have been more significant - even in the lives lost.

The 1900 storm impacted (primarily) a barrier island. Katrina impacted a much larger area of the CONUS mainland. If the same 1900 storm hit the same place today, it is highly doubtful that 8 to 12k people would have perished. And the property damage would have been equal to what countless other storms of a similar magnitude have done to a barrier island.

But I can surely see some interesting debate coming out of this poll. Perhaps even over-heated debate. We'll see....

[wxmann_91]

Good poll. I had a tough time deciding between Galveston, Katrina, Dust Bowl, and Super Outbreak. In the end I voted Galveston, for the shear death toll. But the greatest impact which we still can feel today across the country was the Dust Bowl. The Super Outbreak may never happen again in our lives; so many things went perfect.

[Extremeweatherguy]

Katrina gets my vote...

She took lives, completely changed lives (mine included), and otherwise significantly impacted thousands of lives for years to come. And this doesn't even take into account the material impact over 90 miles of coastline - plus a swath across S. FL.

I believe if Katrina and the 1900 storm would have both occurred in closer proximity to one another, Katrina's overall impact would have been more significant - even in the lives lost.

The 1900 storm impacted (primarily) a barrier island. Katrina impacted a much larger area of the CONUS mainland. If the same 1900 storm hit the same place today, it is highly doubtful that 8 to 12k people would have perished. And the property damage would have been equal to what countless other storms of a similar magnitude have done to a barrier island.

But I can surely see some interesting debate coming out of this poll. Perhaps even over-heated debate. We'll see....

I agree with all of your points, except there is one thing to think about. If the 1900 storm were to hit again today it would not only impact Galveston, but the winds would rip through the now 4th largest US city of Houston. The damages could be quite immense and millions upon millions would feel/see hurricane force winds. Just something to think about.

[Jim Cantore]

also look at it opposite, if Katrina hit in 1900, no warning, the death toll would be unimagineable.

[AussieMark]

wasn't Galveston one of the larger areas population wise at the turn of the last century?

maybe I am wrong I thought I read something like that thats all

[milankovitch]

How about adding the Peshtigo Fire to the list, estimates range up to 2500 fatalities. Read "Firestorm at Peshtigo" in my opinion it is certainly one of the most horrific natural disasters. Some of the accounts in that book were very unsettling.