Detroit named safest city from natural disasters?

[313WX]

San Francisco is still perpetually at high risk for a debilitating natural disaster, which is why placing it so high seems to detract from the credibility of the list.

An earthquake is only one out of several types of natural disasters.

And how often does a debilitating Earthquake happen in San Francisco? Once every 80 years?

Another way to look at it: How is Chicago so much different from Detroit that they shouldn't rank very close in the level of danger?

1. They have a much higher frequency of major blizzards/snowstorms [[once every 15 years or so) than Detroit does, partially because of enhancement from Lake Michigan, and partially because they're further away from the effects of the Appalachian Mountains [[a storm track that would bring these same major snowstorms to Detroit more frequently are harder to get because it involves low pressure centers tracking up the spine of the Appalachian Mountains)

2. Being west of Lake Michigan, severe t'storms in the Summer tend to have an easier time of maintaining their strength into Chicago, as the airmass is not modified by the cooler lake waters. As a result, they tend to see a lot more tornadic/damaging wind storms more frequently than we do in Detroit.

3. Chicago's western/northern/southern suburbs are much lower in elevation than Detroit's. As a result, the city doesn't benefit as much from the downsloping winds like Detroit does [[storms need strong lift to maintain themselves as well), and is also why Oakland/Livingston/Washtenaw County tends to see severe weather more frequently than Detroit proper.

[rb336]

I would add to that that Chicago does get the full effect of storms building across the plains, and Michigan's weather is mediated to a far greater extent by the Great Lakes. Illinois averages twice as many - and stronger - tornadoes every year compared to Michigan