What about the supervolcano[1] risk around Yellowstone, or the megatsunami[2] risk from intraoceanic volcanic islands on either cost or near Lituya Bay in Alaska[3], or meteors? Where do you go to avoid meteors?
Considering that the ash bed from the last Yellowstone super-volcano eruption extends southwest almost to Los Angeles, south to Mexico, southeast to the Gulf, east almost to the Great Lakes, and northeast to Canada, "risk around Yellowstone" is a massive understatement.
Super-volcanos are amazing in how widespread their destruction is.
The lowest risk cities in western Oregon or Washington are extremely questionable. The Cascadia Subduction Zone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia_subduction_zone) could easily produce magnitude 9.0+ earthquakes, and the next rupture there could be devastating for the Pacific Northwest.
Don't forget that half of downtown Seattle will sink into Puget Sound!
I think the West Coast ranks so highly only because earthquakes are so rare. Unlike hurricanes and tornadoes, which seem to claim lives every year in the US.
Agreed, especially since there was a red patch in the Missouri for earthquakes because of New Madrid, a similar low-frequency devastating quake generator.
The Northeast has a decent balance. Our natural disaster is the winter storm, which are harmless in comparison and, at least, pretty afterward.
I think the tornado danger is exaggerated. In the Nebraska and Iowa areas, at least, there are good warnings systems and if you have a basement you'll fine even if a big one wrecks your house. Whenever you hear this sound [1] just grab your family and a beer and chill out in the basement for a bit!
The danger is if you live in a trailer park without shelter, on land that has a history of tornadoes... The actual danger seems to be a problem of poverty. :(
I've heard that sound two times in my life (in Georgia). Only one was a tornado anywhere near structures and people. We get thunderstorm and tornado watches every time a storm moves in.
The odds of a tornado occurring are slim already, and the odds of being impacted by it even slimmer. I think it helps being right at the edge of the tornado risk map where storms are already weak.
Now do this for the whole world, and multiply these stats by the arability of the land and the necessity of climactic intermediation (i.e. thick clothes/central heating/air conditioning) and you get a map of "where everyone would immediately get up and move to, if they were rational agents and there were no political considerations."
Aside: I've had a hypothesis for quite a while that the land most fought-over in land wars (or holy wars) has extremely low value on such a map. I'd love to see the data to confirm/refute that.
Caused the eastern front of WWII. The Ukraine and Kazakhstan have extremely fertile soil. Holy wars are maybe fought over useless land, but the deadliest military campaign ever was fought in large parts because of good soil.
That's funny - I saw the link in HN and before clicking on it I thought to myself "simple, Corvallis Oregon, where I live." And sure enough, I was right.
When we moved here from California I was struck about how much people in the Willamette Valley love to talk about how the "Big One" will come and how there's going to be a big Tsunami. Well, maybe, but in the meantime it's been the most temperate climate you can imagine. The worst thing we get is the occasional ice storm but nothing like our neighbors in Portland.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervolcano
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatsunami
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Lituya_Bay_megatsunami