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

[southerngale]

No doubt Galveston, due to the massive loss of life, not to mention the total annihilation of Galveston, which was the "big" city then, not Houston. I would guess that a lot of people are voting on what is fresh in their mind and/or what affected them, although Katrina was horrific as well. Even with thousands affected by being displaced with Katrina, at least they're alive. The 8000-12,000 people who perished in 1900 did it for me.

[Jim Cantore]

dont forget the flood of 1927 because of the widespread impact; financial impact is in then-year dollars:

16.5 million acres flooded in seven states
637,000 people dislocated
$102 million in crop losses
162,000 homes flooded
41,000 buildings destroyed
6,000 boats used in rescue
250 to 500 deaths.

Thats why I put other, in case I forgot something

[CHRISTY]

No doubt Galveston, due to the massive loss of life, not to mention the total annihilation of Galveston, which was the "big" city then, not Houston. I would guess that a lot of people are voting on what is fresh in their mind and/or what affected them, although Katrina was horrific as well. Even with thousands affected by being displaced with Katrina, at least they're alive. The 8000-12,000 people who perished in 1900 did it for me.

100% agree.

[zlaxier]

Earthquakes don't count as a natural disaster?

The San Francisco earthquake of 1906 definitely has to be considered. It destroyed the most prominent city on the entire West Coast at the time.

A repeat today would dwarf the damage and devestation of Katrina by a large margin.

[Jim Cantore]

Earthquakes don't count as a natural disaster?

The San Francisco earthquake of 1906 definitely has to be considered. It destroyed the most prominent city on the entire West Coast at the time.

A repeat today would dwarf the damage and devestation of Katrina by a large margin.

That would go under other

[Audrey2Katrina]

Earthquakes don't count as a natural disaster?

The San Francisco earthquake of 1906 definitely has to be considered. It destroyed the most prominent city on the entire West Coast at the time.

A repeat today would dwarf the damage and devestation of Katrina by a large margin.

I doubt that seriously. The 1906 quake was a 7.8, and the same area got hit by a 7.1 in October 1989--and yes, it was bad, but not a patch on the Katrina damage--not within light years, in fact. There was no such code in 1906, the buildings were extremely poorly constructed, with a vast section of the city actually built over sunken ship harbors. MOST of the devastation and death toll was consequent to the fires due to a lot of underground networks that have long since been replaced. There is no doubt a 7.8 in the SF-Oakland Bay area would have devastating consequences, and I would be the first to say I hope it never happens (although we all know that in time it will)... claiming its damage (a 7.8) would "dwarf" the 90,000 sq. miles of devastation Katrina left in her wake, goes beyond hyperbole.

Yes, it is a "natural disaster" and I suppose if you think it was the worst, then "other" would be the choice to make. It is not weather related, however. There is little doubt that the worst "natural" disasters of record probably are massive earthquakes, and tsunamis, especially hitting third-world nations and areas with poorly constructed buildings. But I suppose that is a topic for a different thread.

A2K

[Extremeweatherguy]

Earthquakes don't count as a natural disaster?

The San Francisco earthquake of 1906 definitely has to be considered. It destroyed the most prominent city on the entire West Coast at the time.

A repeat today would dwarf the damage and devestation of Katrina by a large margin.

I doubt that seriously. The 1906 quake was a 7.8, and the same area got hit by a 7.1 in October 1989--and yes, it was bad, but not a patch on the Katrina damage--not within light years, in fact. There was no such code in 1906, the buildings were extremely poorly constructed, with a vast section of the city actually built over sunken ship harbors. MOST of the devastation and death toll was consequent to the fires due to a lot of underground networks that have long since been replaced. There is no doubt a 7.8 in the SF-Oakland Bay area would have devastating consequences, and I would be the first to say I hope it never happens (although we all know that in time it will)... claiming its damage (a 7.8) would "dwarf" the 90,000 sq. miles of devastation Katrina left in her wake, goes beyond hyperbole.

Yes, it is a "natural disaster" and I suppose if you think it was the worst, then "other" would be the choice to make. It is not weather related, however. There is little doubt that the worst "natural" disasters of record probably are massive earthquakes, and tsunamis, especially hitting third-world nations and areas with poorly constructed buildings. But I suppose that is a topic for a different thread.

A2K

I 100% agree with you here. The code in SF is much different today and it would take a lot more than a 7.8 magnitude quake to destroy the city.

[AussieMark]

Earthquakes don't count as a natural disaster?

The San Francisco earthquake of 1906 definitely has to be considered. It destroyed the most prominent city on the entire West Coast at the time.

A repeat today would dwarf the damage and devestation of Katrina by a large margin.

I doubt that seriously. The 1906 quake was a 7.8, and the same area got hit by a 7.1 in October 1989--and yes, it was bad, but not a patch on the Katrina damage--not within light years, in fact. There was no such code in 1906, the buildings were extremely poorly constructed, with a vast section of the city actually built over sunken ship harbors. MOST of the devastation and death toll was consequent to the fires due to a lot of underground networks that have long since been replaced. There is no doubt a 7.8 in the SF-Oakland Bay area would have devastating consequences, and I would be the first to say I hope it never happens (although we all know that in time it will)... claiming its damage (a 7.8) would "dwarf" the 90,000 sq. miles of devastation Katrina left in her wake, goes beyond hyperbole.

Yes, it is a "natural disaster" and I suppose if you think it was the worst, then "other" would be the choice to make. It is not weather related, however. There is little doubt that the worst "natural" disasters of record probably are massive earthquakes, and tsunamis, especially hitting third-world nations and areas with poorly constructed buildings. But I suppose that is a topic for a different thread.

A2K

the 1989 quake was not situted under San Francisco

The Loma Prieta earthquake occurred on October 17, 1989, in the greater San Francisco Bay Area in California at 5:04 pm local time and measured 7.1 on the Richter magnitude scale (6.9 on the Moment magnitude scale). The earthquake lasted for 15 seconds. Its epicenter was at geographical coordinates 37.04° N 121.88° W near Loma Prieta Peak in the Santa Cruz Mountains, about ten miles (16 km) northeast of the city of Santa Cruz, California, in the Forest of Nisene Marks State Park. The focus point was at a depth of 16.79 km, or 10 miles.

Portion of the collapsed Cypress Street Viaduct, Interstate 880, in Oakland.This was a major earthquake which caused severe damage as far as 70 miles (110 km) away; most notably in San Francisco, Oakland, the San Francisco Peninsula, and in areas closer to the epicenter in the communities of Santa Cruz, the Monterey Bay, Watsonville, and Los Gatos. Most of the major property damage in the more distant areas resulted from liquefaction of soil used over the years to fill in the waterfront and then built upon.

The San Francisco earthquake of 1906 was a major earthquake that struck San Francisco, California on the early morning of Wednesday, April 18, 1906. It has been estimated at approximately 7.8 on the Richter Scale [1]. Foreshocks and the main quake occurred at about 5:12am along the San Andreas Fault, with an epicenter close to the city. Tremors were felt from Oregon to Los Angeles, and inland as far as central Nevada. The earthquake and subsequent fire would go down as one of the worst natural disasters to hit a major city in the history of the United States (see also the Galveston Hurricane, and Hurricane Katrina).

[AussieMark]

Earthquakes don't count as a natural disaster?

The San Francisco earthquake of 1906 definitely has to be considered. It destroyed the most prominent city on the entire West Coast at the time.

A repeat today would dwarf the damage and devestation of Katrina by a large margin.

I doubt that seriously. The 1906 quake was a 7.8, and the same area got hit by a 7.1 in October 1989--and yes, it was bad, but not a patch on the Katrina damage--not within light years, in fact. There was no such code in 1906, the buildings were extremely poorly constructed, with a vast section of the city actually built over sunken ship harbors. MOST of the devastation and death toll was consequent to the fires due to a lot of underground networks that have long since been replaced. There is no doubt a 7.8 in the SF-Oakland Bay area would have devastating consequences, and I would be the first to say I hope it never happens (although we all know that in time it will)... claiming its damage (a 7.8) would "dwarf" the 90,000 sq. miles of devastation Katrina left in her wake, goes beyond hyperbole.

Yes, it is a "natural disaster" and I suppose if you think it was the worst, then "other" would be the choice to make. It is not weather related, however. There is little doubt that the worst "natural" disasters of record probably are massive earthquakes, and tsunamis, especially hitting third-world nations and areas with poorly constructed buildings. But I suppose that is a topic for a different thread.

A2K

I 100% agree with you here. The code in SF is much different today and it would take a lot more than a 7.8 magnitude quake to destroy the city.

I have read that the Bay area will be in trouble tho as it is situated on top of a landfill from the 1906 san francisco quake. which would cause more extreme vibrations.

[Audrey2Katrina]

the 1989 quake was not situted under San Francisco

Granted--neither was the 1906 Earthquake--its epicenter is listed as "near" San Fransisco. Although that is relatively not significant as the worse damage (caused by the L-waves) is more often than not NOT closest to the epicenter:

"There is a common myth that most damage will occur near the epicenter of the earthquake, or that the epicenter is synonymous with "ground zero." However, the earthquake epicenter is typically not the point at which most damage occurs. The fault rupture can be tens of miles long and waves are generated along the entire length of the fault."

Not trying to trivialize what was unquestionably a calamity of gigantic proportions; but to present a balanced viewpoint. I still say that this (a 7.8), while a seriously dangerous scenario, would not remotely equal the devastation Katrina caused. JMHO, FWIW

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

I have read that the Bay area will be in trouble tho as it is situated on top of a landfill from the 1906 san francisco quake. which would cause more extreme vibrations.

That is beyond dispute... won't be pretty. Let's hope it's a LOOOONG way off.

A2K

[Aslkahuna]

The 100th Anniversary of the 1906 Earthquake will be on next Tuesday. According to the information on the USGS site, a new reanalysis of seismic records yield a Moment Magnitude of 7.9 for that tremor. The MM 6.9 Loma Prieta was centered 60 miles south of SFO the epicenter of 1906 is placed about 6 miles offshore near the Golden Gate. However, the long duration of the shock due to the amount of fault rupture has a major factor in the destruction. Latest figures have the damage to SFO alone at 350 million 1906 dollars (a sizeable chunk of the US economy which led to a Depression in 1907) with 250,000 homeless out of a population of 400000 and a death toll of 3-5000 according to the latest best estimates. At the present time, the earthquake probabilities for the Bay Area, place about equal 33% probabilities of a 7.0-7.5 shock on either the Hayward or Rodgers Creek Faults in the east and north Bay respectively and a 33% on the San Andreas in the Peninsula which could be bad for SFO thus a 66% probability of a strong shock in the Bay Area over the next 30 years. Somewhat lesser probabilities exist for the Calaveras and other faults further east. The probability of a 1906 repeat over the next 30 years is placed at 2%. Long period waves and poor soil are a lethal combination-the horrendous death toll in Mexico City in 1985 came as a consequence of the damage wreaked by long period waves from the subduction zone shock of MM8.1 centered some 200 or so miles away.

Steve

[Audrey2Katrina]

Thanks for the added info, Steve. I have friends here with family that have moved to Frisco--and I imagine they'll be taking note of that commemoration. I've told them many times of the potential for the "Big One"... glad to see the stats put it at 98% unlikely over 30 years... which will undoubtedly drop with every passing year.

As I've stated, no way to trivialize what happened there but you bring up a very good point referencing the '85 quake in Mexico City, which was even of a greater magnitude than that which struck SF in 1906. Yes, it was centered between 150-200 miles away, and as shown the worst more often than not hits areas other than the epicenter. The MMI for the SF quake was varied from VII to IX up to 50 miles inland. Mexico City is also a city with many times the population of SF, and the damage done then was approx. $4 Billion in USD. This in no way accounts for the human tragedy as it affected some 20 million people, leaving between 9500 to as much as 30,000 dead from all areas affected and the MMI's according to the USGS were, in fact in Mexico City itself, at IX.

A2K

[Audrey2Katrina]

Interesting two articles I've found, one is a study by Stanford that estimates an 8.3 quake in the SF area could cause from 2,000-6,000 deaths and over $115 Billion in damages... pretty frightening--I don't know a whole lot about how much of the city is STILL built over the old bay-fills that the previous city had been built over, but I know I wouldn't be living over one.

Also the III (Insurance Information Institute) has an interesting article on the SF Earthquake and Fire--the latter being by far the greatest cause of damage) including an adjustment for inflation to 2005 USD damage.

http://www.iii.org/media/hottopics/insurance/earthquake/

I dunno... I've often told friends of mine who live in Cali... as bad as they are, I'll still take living near hurricane areas, if for no better reason then that you get a much better chance to get "out of the way".

A2K

[Aslkahuna]

A couple of points-yes the fire did do the most damage but there was a distinct coverup of just how much damage the quake itself did so as to minimze the quake effects because the Insurance covered fire damage and not earthquake damage. However, without the earthquake there would have been no fire. The coverup even went so far as to retouch photos take of the city during the fire to eliminate as much visible quake damage as possible (also the Death Toll was minimized as well with estimates then running about 300 in SFO or about 10% of what is now believed to be the actual toll). Current estimates are that about 30% of the damage was caused by the shock with the heaviest of course being down in the landfill areas. In actuality, the two towns hit hardest by the shock were Santa Rosa to the north which was leveled and then destroyed by fire and San Jose which was heaviliy damaged but the fire there was contained. The nearby Agnews State Asylum (built on bad ground) was totally destroyed with 117 inmates killed and the rest escaping. The story of the 1906 even is fascinating and gives an insight as to just how wild a city SFO was (and still is).

One last thing-should you have the opportunity to visit SFO, while there do
NOT ever called it Frisco because you will be mercilessly flamed if you do. It's either San Francisco or "The City" (City by the Bay or Baghdad of the West are acceptable). For those interested in the Geology, there are a few places where one can actually visit the San Andreas Fault in and around SFO and still see effects of 1906 (as well as 1989 in the Santa Cruz Mountains) the easiest being the self guided Nature Walk at the headquarters of the Point Reyes National Seashore.

Steve

[Audrey2Katrina]

while there do NOT ever called it Frisco

LOL, good to know. Never been there myself but I can understand locals who get a tad irritated with nicks and mispronunciations. Down here a tourist can be pegged the minute they open their mouths to say New Orleeeeens. Every native knows it's pronounced New Awlins. (accent on the AW not the lins). The fast talkers even shorten it to N'Awlins. Also, I was aware of the attempted coverup by local authorities worried about the city's comeback by giving highly understated figures on fatalities and damage.

I saw on FOX bits of a National Geographic special about the SF quake, I'll be checkin' to see when they air it--probably the 18th.

A2K

[Jim Cantore]

I just got a thought, what if a cold wave and storm like the blizzard of 1899 hit today, it would be far worse then 1993 or 1996

[Ixolib]

while there do NOT ever called it Frisco

LOL, good to know. Never been there myself but I can understand locals who get a tad irritated with nicks and mispronunciations. Down here a tourist can be pegged the minute they open their mouths to say New Orleeeeens. Every native knows it's pronounced New Awlins. (accent on the AW not the lins). The fast talkers even shorten it to N'Awlins. Also, I was aware of the attempted coverup by local authorities worried about the city's comeback by giving highly understated figures on fatalities and damage.

I saw on FOX bits of a National Geographic special about the SF quake, I'll be checkin' to see when they air it--probably the 18th.

A2K

Interestingly, and as a direct result of the publicity with Katrina, folks around the country are "finally" referring to Biloxi with its proper pronunciation. Used to drive me crazy when the media - and others - would call it BA-LOCKS-SEE...

[Audrey2Katrina]

Interestingly, and as a direct result of the publicity with Katrina, folks around the country are "finally" referring to Biloxi with its proper pronunciation. Used to drive me crazy when the media - and others - would call it BA-LOCKS-SEE...

Boy I hear ya' on that one! Being from the area all my life, I cringe when commentators try to pronounce the names of a LOT of burgs and burbs in the vicinity. Ever hear how they mangle Metairie...hearing mu TAIR eee is like fingernails on a chalboard! Then there's Thibodaux, and Ponchatoula... won't even try street names like Tchoupitoulas...

A2K

[Derek Ortt]

the damage to SF from a quake depends if it is deep (like Seattle, 2000) or Shallow (like LA, 2004)

A shallow quake is far worse than a deep one (unless of ocurse, it is of the same magnitude of the fairbanks quake)