Earthquakes over Hurricanes! I was in the Northridge quake as a teenager and it was terrifying and the 5 freeway fell and we were essentially cut off from LA as we lived in the SCV. School was closed for what seemed like forever and our house was badly damaged. FEMA paid for our repairs but I doubt that would happen now. We had no earthquake insurance. The aftershocks lasted for months and I slept with my parents some nights because I was terrified. We lived on a hill and I have no idea why we didn’t slide right off. I lived in Miami later in life and remembered college days having hurricane parties. I didn’t own property though so naturally that was more fun!

Anonymous wrote:Trumfpy country was earthquake and hurricane together. I prefer Canada.

OMG, you are so funny! Hilarious!!! How do people not just guffaw around your every word?!?!

Of course Hurricane. You know when it’s coming.

Anonymous wrote:Hurricane. Not even a question. You know for absolute certainty that for at least 6 months a year it’s not even a concern.

The other 6 months, it’s still just a remote possibility. And you’ll have plenty of warning.


Contrast that to earthquakes. No warning whatsoever, meaning you have to be prepared literally ALL THE TIME, and wildfires, which, even with warning, can move so fast they literally incinerate vehicles trying to drive away from them as they’re happening.

No thanks. I’ll take the hurricane.

I prefer earthquakes, than hurricanes, then wildfires last. Hurricanes but I had to evacuate be a plane or boat would probably be after wildfires. In theory I wouldn’t want to live in a tsunami zone but I actually did for eight years and it was fine... But one unlucky day, it may not be

Been always prepared for an earthquake is really trivial. You make an emergency kit and check it over every couple years. You’ll probably never use it.

OP here. I love that this question elicited so many responses. I think I'm still leaning towards hurricane country, because yes, CA had wildfires as well.

That all said, this is still a hypothetical, and these hazards are just a few of very many factors which will contribute to our decision. I posted mostly because I was surprised about how differently my DH and I felt about the topics.

He has always felt strongly that living anywhere with any high natural disaster risk is crazy. I've never been overly concerned.

Trumfpy country was earthquake and hurricane together. I prefer Canada.

Hurricane. At least I could arrange to be with my family. With an earthquake, you could be apart from your spouse and kids.

Hurricane. Not even a question. You know for absolute certainty that for at least 6 months a year it’s not even a concern.

The other 6 months, it’s still just a remote possibility. And you’ll have plenty of warning.


Contrast that to earthquakes. No warning whatsoever, meaning you have to be prepared literally ALL THE TIME, and wildfires, which, even with warning, can move so fast they literally incinerate vehicles trying to drive away from them as they’re happening.

No thanks. I’ll take the hurricane.

Anonymous wrote:I've lived in Florida and California. Earthquakes. So much less drama about them. They take up so much less time and thought.

I've lived in both states as well, and I absolutely agree.

Read Kathryn Shultz New Yorker Article “The Really Big One” if you are considering CA/the Pacific Northwest

I would worry more about fires than earthquakes. At least hurricanes have warning and you know where to go. With fires, you don't know where the wind is going to blow the fire next or where new fires might pop up.