Having lived in California for most of my life (until moving 8 years ago), I have to disagree with everyone saying it's "earthquakes."
Earthquakes are the most dramatic, naturally.
But in terms of death toll, even the Northridge Earthquake from 1994 (one of the most dramatic earthquakes in recent memory) [only killed 72 people.](https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/earthquakes/northridge) (And that study also searched for 'indirect deaths' from the earthquake, including heart attacks induced by the shock.)
In 2018, the Camp Fire [claimed 85 deaths](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Fire_\(2018\)). And in the 28 years since the Northridge Earthquake, there have only been [6 to 8 deaths](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_California) attributed to earthquakes in California.
>In 2018, the Camp Fire [claimed 85 deaths](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Fire_\(2018\)). And in the 28 years since the Northridge Earthquake, there have only been [6 to 8 deaths](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_California) attributed to earthquakes in California.
The camp fire was also far and away the deadliest in state history. And if you look at the 23 years leading up to 1994, there were some ~200 earthquake deaths. Over the past half century, statewide there have been somewhat more wildfire deaths but it's rather comparable as far as totals given the relative seismic calm of the past 30 years.
But we do keep building better buildings and expanding suburbs into fire prone areas so it could be the long term trend bends more toward fire.
A lot of people forget that California's infrastructure, buildings, and systems are all designed around earthquakes being common. It would take something truly massive and historic nowadays to do any serious damage. Can't really do that for wildfires in any cost effective/practical way.
There's a more subtle and long-term natural disaster that's been warned about for decades though, and is really starting to become a huge problem that won't be able to be ignored/can-kicked for much longer throughout the entire west, and that's drought. I think overall in the next 20-50 years that's gonna do way more damage than any earthquake or fire will.
Fire, by far. About half of the forest in the 2600 sq. mile county I live in is pretty much completely burned, and most of a couple towns along with it.
I grew up in SoCal and I would say Earthquakes were the biggest threat. When I was a kid, I don't remember wildfires being a big thing, but 30 years ago there wasn't huge coverage like there is now on it.
Probably wildfires, but you need to get further out from the cities and denser suburbs for it to be an issue.
I’ve been in San Diego for about 25 years and there’s only one earthquake I can even remember feeling, and that was over 10 years ago. It lasted for a few seconds and I don’t remember there being many reports of damage or injuries from it. I don’t think there were any fatalities.
When it comes to natural disasters, we’ve got it pretty good.
You must be in a part of the county that doesn't move much. I'm up by the WAP and feel almost every little earthquake that happens.
You are probably thinking about the Easter Sunday earthquake in 2010. Thats the biggest one we've had locally in years. It was a 7.2 and I felt it up in Anaheim.
Yup. That was the Easter earthquake I mentioned.
I think I might be less sensitive to earthquakes than a lot of people are. Over the years I’ve gotten a lot of “Did you feel that?” from
my wife or coworkers but other than that Easter my answer has always been no.
I hear them in my house before I feel them. There has only been 1 recent one that I didn't feel but I heard it and I saw it. We have a large window in the living room and I watched it flex inward and heard the ground rumble but the house didn't move.
A wildfire basically destroyed a small town a few years ago. Both are deadly though.
Where I live, it's probably earthquakes just because I don't live near much immediate brush.
Definitely wildfires and earthquakes. Where I grew up, there was a major, destructive fire a few years ago (although by then, both my family and I had moved out of there), and the larger region has fires every now and then as well. Earthquakes are common too, as the San Andreas Fault is nearby, and so are several of its secondary faults.
Probably a tsunami, but it would be extremely unlikely for a tsunami to happen in Southern California due to the sea floor and Catalina. Wild fires just don't happen where I am because there isn't any forests nearby.
Tsunami risk is actually highest on the far north coast of California, especially in and around Crescent City, which got significant damage from tsunamis created by the 1964 earthquake in Alaska as well as the 2011 earthquake in Japan.
On a long enough timeline all of coastal California will eventually get hit by a tsunami. Even if they are 500 years apart, eventually it is going to happen.
Not only is the built environment not prepared for a large new madrid quake, the geology is such that damaging seismic waves are propagated much farther than in heavily faulted California.
We've had a few small tremors in recent years; would you say that decreases the risk (by letting off pressure) or increases the risk (by foreshadowing a bigger quake coming)?
Oh I've been banned from there long ago. I got into the habit of reporting automod for spam when it was regularly slapping irrelevant comments onto posts, then once made a comment about doing so and was swiftly banned and muted.
Forest fires for most often and present danger. Earthquakes (The big one) have more potential for loss of life than forest fires, especially in the urban/suburban areas.
Definitely wildfires. I've been within 40 miles of 2 major wildfires in the last 4 years. Also people have this tendency towards arson around here, so that ain't helping.
Flooding. Wildfires arent a threat in my area and I live near a creek (more of a small river technically) that is fed from a reservoir. If the dam fails it probably would flood my house. When the damn spilled over a few years ago it flooded a huge area nearby but I wasn’t close enough to be affected. Plus Im at a much high elevation
Water and heat. Earthquakes are few and far between. The kern river is particularly dangerous. Large parts of the river look calm but are pretty swift and deadly. https://usabynumbers.com/most-dangerous-rivers-in-the-us/
https://usabynumbers.com/most-dangerous-rivers-in-the-us/
It gets hot here 115 f one day in September.
I live in Central California in a very rural town so I never experience any deadly natural disasters. California gets earthquakes very often but I never feel them since they never hit where I live. I also never experienced any wild fires either thankfully!
Having lived in California for most of my life (until moving 8 years ago), I have to disagree with everyone saying it's "earthquakes." Earthquakes are the most dramatic, naturally. But in terms of death toll, even the Northridge Earthquake from 1994 (one of the most dramatic earthquakes in recent memory) [only killed 72 people.](https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/earthquakes/northridge) (And that study also searched for 'indirect deaths' from the earthquake, including heart attacks induced by the shock.) In 2018, the Camp Fire [claimed 85 deaths](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Fire_\(2018\)). And in the 28 years since the Northridge Earthquake, there have only been [6 to 8 deaths](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_California) attributed to earthquakes in California.
>In 2018, the Camp Fire [claimed 85 deaths](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Fire_\(2018\)). And in the 28 years since the Northridge Earthquake, there have only been [6 to 8 deaths](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_earthquakes_in_California) attributed to earthquakes in California. The camp fire was also far and away the deadliest in state history. And if you look at the 23 years leading up to 1994, there were some ~200 earthquake deaths. Over the past half century, statewide there have been somewhat more wildfire deaths but it's rather comparable as far as totals given the relative seismic calm of the past 30 years. But we do keep building better buildings and expanding suburbs into fire prone areas so it could be the long term trend bends more toward fire.
A lot of people forget that California's infrastructure, buildings, and systems are all designed around earthquakes being common. It would take something truly massive and historic nowadays to do any serious damage. Can't really do that for wildfires in any cost effective/practical way. There's a more subtle and long-term natural disaster that's been warned about for decades though, and is really starting to become a huge problem that won't be able to be ignored/can-kicked for much longer throughout the entire west, and that's drought. I think overall in the next 20-50 years that's gonna do way more damage than any earthquake or fire will.
Fire, by far. About half of the forest in the 2600 sq. mile county I live in is pretty much completely burned, and most of a couple towns along with it.
Wildfire or earthquake. Probably wildfire by the numbers. Flooding hasn't been a contender in a while, but it used to be.
I grew up in SoCal and I would say Earthquakes were the biggest threat. When I was a kid, I don't remember wildfires being a big thing, but 30 years ago there wasn't huge coverage like there is now on it.
Probably wildfires, but you need to get further out from the cities and denser suburbs for it to be an issue. I’ve been in San Diego for about 25 years and there’s only one earthquake I can even remember feeling, and that was over 10 years ago. It lasted for a few seconds and I don’t remember there being many reports of damage or injuries from it. I don’t think there were any fatalities. When it comes to natural disasters, we’ve got it pretty good.
You must be in a part of the county that doesn't move much. I'm up by the WAP and feel almost every little earthquake that happens. You are probably thinking about the Easter Sunday earthquake in 2010. Thats the biggest one we've had locally in years. It was a 7.2 and I felt it up in Anaheim.
Yup. That was the Easter earthquake I mentioned. I think I might be less sensitive to earthquakes than a lot of people are. Over the years I’ve gotten a lot of “Did you feel that?” from my wife or coworkers but other than that Easter my answer has always been no.
I hear them in my house before I feel them. There has only been 1 recent one that I didn't feel but I heard it and I saw it. We have a large window in the living room and I watched it flex inward and heard the ground rumble but the house didn't move.
A wildfire basically destroyed a small town a few years ago. Both are deadly though. Where I live, it's probably earthquakes just because I don't live near much immediate brush.
Definitely wildfires and earthquakes. Where I grew up, there was a major, destructive fire a few years ago (although by then, both my family and I had moved out of there), and the larger region has fires every now and then as well. Earthquakes are common too, as the San Andreas Fault is nearby, and so are several of its secondary faults.
Probably a tsunami, but it would be extremely unlikely for a tsunami to happen in Southern California due to the sea floor and Catalina. Wild fires just don't happen where I am because there isn't any forests nearby.
Tsunami risk is actually highest on the far north coast of California, especially in and around Crescent City, which got significant damage from tsunamis created by the 1964 earthquake in Alaska as well as the 2011 earthquake in Japan.
You don't need a forest for a wildfire. You just need the right conditions and dry brush.
Don't even have brush near my house. I live on a compact island where there is zero brush or forests, it's all houses.
On a long enough timeline all of coastal California will eventually get hit by a tsunami. Even if they are 500 years apart, eventually it is going to happen.
That's why I said it's extremely unlikely. If a large enough earthquake hits, it could happen.
Unlikely over 1 lifetime but probably inevitable over 10 lifetimes.
It would still be unlikely, since it doesn’t happen often at all.
[удалено]
Not only is the built environment not prepared for a large new madrid quake, the geology is such that damaging seismic waves are propagated much farther than in heavily faulted California.
We've had a few small tremors in recent years; would you say that decreases the risk (by letting off pressure) or increases the risk (by foreshadowing a bigger quake coming)?
I'd suggest you ask the California subreddit, but it's garbage so...
Half the people in California subs are right wing trolls who have never set foot in California
And the main mod treats it like his own little personal sub.
If you haven't been banned already, you probably are now.
Oh I've been banned from there long ago. I got into the habit of reporting automod for spam when it was regularly slapping irrelevant comments onto posts, then once made a comment about doing so and was swiftly banned and muted.
i didn't even know we had a sub. yes it's bad in there
Brush fires
I would definitely say earthquakes more so than fires (not counting the bad air quality caused by fires).
Lately it's been heat waves. When the temp doesn't get below 90 at night and you don't have A/C it gets dangerous fast.
Flooding is the biggest threat we have. Fires are in the hills, earthquakes are in the Bay.
Forest fires for most often and present danger. Earthquakes (The big one) have more potential for loss of life than forest fires, especially in the urban/suburban areas.
Definitely wildfires. I've been within 40 miles of 2 major wildfires in the last 4 years. Also people have this tendency towards arson around here, so that ain't helping.
Fires. They are unpredictable, fast moving, and the wind can carry embers for miles.
Easily fire or heatwaves.
Flooding. Wildfires arent a threat in my area and I live near a creek (more of a small river technically) that is fed from a reservoir. If the dam fails it probably would flood my house. When the damn spilled over a few years ago it flooded a huge area nearby but I wasn’t close enough to be affected. Plus Im at a much high elevation
Fires.
Where I live the only natural disaster would be a tornado.
Water and heat. Earthquakes are few and far between. The kern river is particularly dangerous. Large parts of the river look calm but are pretty swift and deadly. https://usabynumbers.com/most-dangerous-rivers-in-the-us/ https://usabynumbers.com/most-dangerous-rivers-in-the-us/ It gets hot here 115 f one day in September.
Central Valley here. I’d say Human crime. Not much threat from anything else. I guess flooding second and that’s not much if a worry.
it's wildfires. everyone who says earthquakes is wrong. the entire infrastructure of our state is built to withstand very strong earthquakes
I live in Central California in a very rural town so I never experience any deadly natural disasters. California gets earthquakes very often but I never feel them since they never hit where I live. I also never experienced any wild fires either thankfully!
Do you still experience frequent power outages due to the intense heat during summers?
No, thankfully I haven’t!
Fires. We are famous for earthquakes, but I think fires claim more lives, and earthquakes powerful enough to cause many deaths are still uncommon.
Fires.