The Oklahoma tornado disaster- mixed emotions

    The Oklahoma tornado disaster- mixed emotions

    post #1 of 10
    Thread Starter 

    I wonder if anyone else feels as I do about this- much sadness for the victims, including the many children who died, as well as serious anger at the risk adults put their kids through by living there. If an adult wants to live in a high risk area ("tornado alley", nuclear plant, flood zone etc.) that is their business. But exposing kids to these high risks is just, well, very questionable at best and stupid at worst. Yes, I am sure some have previously owned family homes and/or businesses that keep them there. But any chance to leave or any voluntary decision to move there with kids is just crazy. Thoughts?

    post #2 of 10

    Agree and very sad for all of them.

    Here, the worst places for children are probably some inner cities and it is usually the poorest in Social Housing who are most affected.

    The areas near some nuclear plants have had problems, but the risks were not generally understood until it was too late for many of those affected and economics/family ties have kept people in those places.

    When looking for a place to raise a child away from the cities, I took care to find one away from flood plains and coastal erosion, but our weather is less extreme here.

    post #3 of 10

    My prayers go out to them.

    post #4 of 10

    Just a very sad situation.

    post #5 of 10
    One could ask....are those living in California "exposing" their kids to excessive and needless danger because of the potential for devastating earthquakes? Are Floridians "stupid" for living there because of all the hurricanes?

    If someone was going to choose not to live somewhere because of potentially dangerous weather, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanos, heat, cold, etc., that would leave out most of the country.....and a lot of the world, for that matter.
    post #6 of 10

    Agree. Besides, even if some areas were considered tame when considering natural dangers there are always the human ones to contend with.

    post #7 of 10
    Thread Starter 

    No, it would not leave out most of the country. The US is not known for tsunamis, volcanoes (some, not deadly in the northwest), or earthquakes (although California on a dangerous fault ljne) per se. "Tornado alley", however, gets up to 1,000 tornadoes per year and within this area there are the highest risk zip codes. The only reason tornadoes do not kill more people in the US is that they generally occur in less populated areas. If they occurred in areas where hurricanes generally hit they would kill more people. So those living in "tornado alley" are subjecting their families to the most deadly natural disasters. Those living below sea level in New Orleans are also at considerable risk, as was shown by Hurricane Katrina.

    post #8 of 10
    I don't think it makes any rational sense at all to live your life based on weather patterns or relative safety based on the weather. And if you use such criteria for choosing where to raise your kids, where does that criteria stop? Where is someone most likely to die for no good reason.....Chicago, along the border, or Oklahoma City? I'll take Oklahoma City any day.

    Number of U.S. tornadoes per state (from Wikipedia)

    These figures, reported by the National Climatic Data Center for the period between January 1, 1950 and July 31, 2009, show the ten most affected states. As reports are taken from individual counties within States, sometimes the same tornado can be reported more than once as it crosses county lines.

    Texas: 8,049
    Kansas: 3,809
    Oklahoma: 3,442
    Florida: 3,032
    Nebraska: 2,595
    Iowa: 2,368
    Illinois: 2,207
    Missouri: 2,119
    Mississippi: 1,972
    Alabama: 1,844

    So looking at the data above, are you actually "safer" in Oklahoma than in Kansas? Of course not....it's the weather. You never know what might happen. One of the worst tornadoes in recent memory was in Joplin, but they are pretty far down the list. Should NOBODY live in any of these states because of what "might" happen? Just because a devastating event happens doesn't mean it's a "good" chance of it happening. Bad weather and other events can strike anywhere, anytime.

    If someone's looking for a reason not to live somewhere, I believe something like extremely high state income taxes would be more rational than moving because of potentially bad weather.
    post #9 of 10

    Apart from California (it's gonna happen)- have you noticed that most victims ofrecurring weather disasters are piss poor? The Bangladesh delta, New Orleans, trailer parks in Miami, tsunami in Sri Lanka, etc. You gotta live somewhere -- property is relatively cheap around these areas . The risk is worth taking for them.

    post #10 of 10
    Over here, flooding is now affecting people from most income brackets in parts of the country, although we were building new homes on floodplains until very recently.
    The problem is increasing with recent alterations in our weather pattern, but we are still far more fortunate than most.
    class="

    5/21/13 at 9:13am

    stuigi said:



    I wonder if anyone else feels as I do about this- much sadness for the victims, including the many children who died, as well as serious anger at the risk adults put their kids through by living there. If an adult wants to live in a high risk area ("tornado alley", nuclear plant, flood zone etc.) that is their business. But exposing kids to these high risks is just, well, very questionable at best and stupid at worst. Yes, I am sure some have previously owned family homes and/or businesses that keep them there. But any chance to leave or any voluntary decision to move there with kids is just crazy. Thoughts?

    5/21/13 at 9:33am

    lpp said:



    Agree and very sad for all of them.

    Here, the worst places for children are probably some inner cities and it is usually the poorest in Social Housing who are most affected.

    The areas near some nuclear plants have had problems, but the risks were not generally understood until it was too late for many of those affected and economics/family ties have kept people in those places.

    When looking for a place to raise a child away from the cities, I took care to find one away from flood plains and coastal erosion, but our weather is less extreme here.

    5/21/13 at 10:07am

    sjg3839 said:



    My prayers go out to them.

    5/21/13 at 10:37am

    hednic said:



    Just a very sad situation.

    5/21/13 at 11:45am

    RedRaider430 said:



    One could ask....are those living in California "exposing" their kids to excessive and needless danger because of the potential for devastating earthquakes? Are Floridians "stupid" for living there because of all the hurricanes?

    If someone was going to choose not to live somewhere because of potentially dangerous weather, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanos, heat, cold, etc., that would leave out most of the country.....and a lot of the world, for that matter.

    5/21/13 at 11:50am

    hednic said:



    Agree. Besides, even if some areas were considered tame when considering natural dangers there are always the human ones to contend with.

    5/21/13 at 12:13pm

    stuigi said:



    No, it would not leave out most of the country. The US is not known for tsunamis, volcanoes (some, not deadly in the northwest), or earthquakes (although California on a dangerous fault ljne) per se. "Tornado alley", however, gets up to 1,000 tornadoes per year and within this area there are the highest risk zip codes. The only reason tornadoes do not kill more people in the US is that they generally occur in less populated areas. If they occurred in areas where hurricanes generally hit they would kill more people. So those living in "tornado alley" are subjecting their families to the most deadly natural disasters. Those living below sea level in New Orleans are also at considerable risk, as was shown by Hurricane Katrina.

    5/21/13 at 1:56pm

    RedRaider430 said:



    I don't think it makes any rational sense at all to live your life based on weather patterns or relative safety based on the weather. And if you use such criteria for choosing where to raise your kids, where does that criteria stop? Where is someone most likely to die for no good reason.....Chicago, along the border, or Oklahoma City? I'll take Oklahoma City any day.

    Number of U.S. tornadoes per state (from Wikipedia)

    These figures, reported by the National Climatic Data Center for the period between January 1, 1950 and July 31, 2009, show the ten most affected states. As reports are taken from individual counties within States, sometimes the same tornado can be reported more than once as it crosses county lines.

    Texas: 8,049
    Kansas: 3,809
    Oklahoma: 3,442
    Florida: 3,032
    Nebraska: 2,595
    Iowa: 2,368
    Illinois: 2,207
    Missouri: 2,119
    Mississippi: 1,972
    Alabama: 1,844

    So looking at the data above, are you actually "safer" in Oklahoma than in Kansas? Of course not....it's the weather. You never know what might happen. One of the worst tornadoes in recent memory was in Joplin, but they are pretty far down the list. Should NOBODY live in any of these states because of what "might" happen? Just because a devastating event happens doesn't mean it's a "good" chance of it happening. Bad weather and other events can strike anywhere, anytime.

    If someone's looking for a reason not to live somewhere, I believe something like extremely high state income taxes would be more rational than moving because of potentially bad weather.

    5/23/13 at 6:27am

    Kaern said:



    Apart from California (it's gonna happen)- have you noticed that most victims ofrecurring weather disasters are piss poor? The Bangladesh delta, New Orleans, trailer parks in Miami, tsunami in Sri Lanka, etc. You gotta live somewhere -- property is relatively cheap around these areas . The risk is worth taking for them.

    5/23/13 at 7:08am

    lpp said:



    Over here, flooding is now affecting people from most income brackets in parts of the country, although we were building new homes on floodplains until very recently.
    The problem is increasing with recent alterations in our weather pattern, but we are still far more fortunate than most.





Loving perfume on the Internet since 2000