Places with the least natural disasters

Al Dente wrote:

BUt let's get real. There are things that scare people and things that
kill people. The two are usually not the same. People fear planes, mad
cow, natural disasters, but they die in cars, from butulism and obesity.

Butulism? Is that another name for obesity, centered in the but?

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 21:14:59 GMT, Brian K
wrote:


Let's not forget that after the NYC blackout, 9 months later there was a
baby boom. ;-)

Urban legend: http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/blackout.htm


************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:46:37 -0500, me wrote:

Stefan Patric wrote:

The last time that happened was 1918. History records it as the worst
epidemic the US and the world have ever experienced. 675,000 dead in the
US. 25 million worldwide. Both "conservative" stats.

What worries me abt that flu in 1919 was that people were MUCH farther
apart on a daily basis. Most people lived on farms. No?

Now days the world population is so much higher and people so closer in
contact

It is believed that the rapid spread around the world from the
disease's Center of Origin, that many profess to be Fort Riley, Kansas,
was due to army personnel being shipped by ship (no airliners back then)
to Europe to fight in World War I. This infected the sailors on those
ships, both military and civilian, which further spread the illness around
the world. Even remote islands were not secure. 90% (IIRC) of the
population of Samoa died. Many starved to death being too weak to even
feed themselves. Now, that's some nasty bug.

If this were to have happen today, with today's population and density,
but with 1918 medical technology, I read the death toll in the US would be
around 1.5 million. Worldwide about 75 to 100 million. Now that would be
the natural disaster to end all natural disasters. Except, maybe, if the
Earth were struck by a meteor or comet the size of the one that wiped out
the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. Scientists hypothesize that the dust
alone thrown up into the atmosphere block the sun almost totally for 3
years! Would humanity be able to survive that? Of course, I've always
preferred night baseball. ;-)

Stefan

On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 01:28:18 GMT, sechumlib
wrote:

Al Dente wrote:

BUt let's get real. There are things that scare people and things that
kill people. The two are usually not the same. People fear planes, mad
cow, natural disasters, but they die in cars, from butulism and obesity.

Butulism? Is that another name for obesity, centered in the but?

But, but, just one little cake (every half-hour) won't kill
me.

But, but, I really thought green meat would be OK - after
all it's March 17th.

But, but, if I exercise I might strain a muscle, or get run
over or....

Cheers, Alan, Australia

Where would you live in the US if your only concern was natural
disasters?

Storrs, Connecticut.

Source:
http://www.slate.com/?id=2126321&nav=tap1/

Cheers,
Geoff Glave
Vancouver, Canada

"Stefan Patric" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:46:37 -0500, me wrote:



If this were to have happen today, with today's population and density,
but with 1918 medical technology, I read the death toll in the US would be
around 1.5 million. Worldwide about 75 to 100 million. Now that would be
the natural disaster to end all natural disasters.

On the scale of epidemic diseases it would be WAY down the list of
historic killers. The black death wiped out over 1/3 of the population
of Europe in the 14th century.

1.5 million represents only 3-5% of the population of the USA.
As little as 100 years ago similar percentages of the population died
from common diseases such as polio, scarlet fever, diptheria etc
with little notice being taken.

Most of Napoeon's Grand Armee of 1812 were not killed in battle
nor did they die of exposure on the steppes of Russia. They
perished from a typhus epidemic that ravaged his army. Contemporary
records show 80,000 casualties in the first month of the campaign
before a single action had been fought. By 25 August Napoleon had lost
105,000 of his central army of 265,000, only 6,000 of those were
battle casualties.

Take a walk through any Victorian graveyard, around 50% of children
dies before reaching puberty even in 'normal' times.

Keith

Keith W wrote:

Take a walk through any Victorian graveyard, around 50% of children
dies before reaching puberty even in 'normal' times.

This in fact is the main reason behind our supposed increased life
span. Twins are born. One dies the next day, the other lives to 80.
Their life expectancy? (80 + 0)/2 = 40. People have this impression
that people were dying off around age 40 or so a century or two ago.
Nonsense. Look around that same graveyard and you'll see lots of stones
for people that lived into their 70s and 80s. Jesus was crucified at
age 33, which would have made Mary around 50. There's no indication in
the Bible that she was seen as exceptionally old.

Yes, we are living longer. But the main contributor to the much
increased life expectancy at birth statistic has been the enormous
decline in infant mortality.

"Al Dente" wrote in message
...
Keith W wrote:

Take a walk through any Victorian graveyard, around 50% of children
dies before reaching puberty even in 'normal' times.

This in fact is the main reason behind our supposed increased life
span. Twins are born. One dies the next day, the other lives to 80.
Their life expectancy? (80 + 0)/2 = 40. People have this impression
that people were dying off around age 40 or so a century or two ago.
Nonsense. Look around that same graveyard and you'll see lots of stones
for people that lived into their 70s and 80s. Jesus was crucified at
age 33, which would have made Mary around 50. There's no indication in
the Bible that she was seen as exceptionally old.


The typical life span once puberty was reached was stated
in the bible to be 70 (three score years and ten)

Keith




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 22:42:07 +0100, Keith W wrote:


"Stefan Patric" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 10:46:37 -0500, me wrote:



If this were to have happen today, with today's population and density,
but with 1918 medical technology, I read the death toll in the US would
be around 1.5 million. Worldwide about 75 to 100 million. Now that
would be the natural disaster to end all natural disasters.

On the scale of epidemic diseases it would be WAY down the list of
historic killers. The black death wiped out over 1/3 of the population of
Europe in the 14th century.

That would be 20 million over the 4 years of the epidemic, 1347 - 1351.
The Influenza of 1918 killed at least 25 million (some estimates are as
high as 40 million) worldwide in just 1 year. Plus, The Bubonic Plague
never spread much out of Europe and middle east. So, it wasn't a
pandemic like the influenza.

1.5 million represents only 3-5% of the population of the USA. As little
as 100 years ago similar percentages of the population died from common
diseases such as polio, scarlet fever, diptheria etc with little notice
being taken.

True, more may have died (I didn't check) from each or all of those
diseases, but how many years of deaths are we talking about. All of
recorded history? Per year? If what you say is true, then why is the
Influenza of 1918 cited by historians as the most devastating disease the
world has ever known?

I guess it all depends on your defining criteria.

Stefan