'Death Map' Shows Where Americans Most Likely to Die

[GrnMarvl14]

Source with map.

A new map plotting deaths resulting from forces of nature reveals where Mother Nature is most likely to kill you.

People living in the South along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts have a higher likelihood of dying from a natural hazard compared to residents of the Great Lakes area and urbanized Northeast.

And while intense hurricanes and tornadoes steal headlines for their intense winds and overall destruction, the new map shows what other previous studies have found, that everyday hazards, such as severe winter and summer weather, and heat account for the majority of natural hazard deaths in the United States.

"This work will enable research and emergency management practitioners to examine hazard deaths through a geographic lens," said researcher Susan Cutter of the University of South Carolina, Columbia. "Using this as a tool to identify areas with higher than average hazard deaths can justify allocation of resources to these areas with the goal of reducing loss of life."

Cutter and Kevin Borden, also of the University of South Carolina, Columbia, analyzed nationwide data from 1970 to 2004.

In addition to the South having high mortality from natural hazards, other risky areas included the northern Great Plains region where heat and drought were the biggest killers and the Rocky Mountain region (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah and New Mexico) with winter weather and floods as top killers.

The south-central United States is also a dangerous area, with floods and tornadoes posing the greatest threats.

Cutter and Borden found that of the natural hazards, some were more deadly than others over the years, including:

"It is the chronic hazards like severe summer weather and severe winter weather and heat that are contributing the majority of the hazard fatalities, not fatalities associated with things like earthquakes or hurricanes," Cutter told LiveScience.

She added that people and officials tend to be more prepared for big hurricanes and tornadoes, which could partly explain the lower mortality from these storms compared with everyday occurrences.

Overall, during the study period, nearly 20,000 people died due to natural hazards. For comparison, here are the top five causes of U.S. deaths in 2005, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

The natural hazards research, which will be detailed in a forthcoming issue of the International Journal of Health Geographics, was supported by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security through the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism.

Fairly interesting map, considering the big red splotch in Arizona, though I guess those deaths are largely heat-related. It's also fascinating to see the dark red and dark blue right next to each other. Seems that the safest place to be is often danger-adjacent.

Little depressing to see only a tiny splotch of light blue in Oklahoma...

 

[Rayne]

Overall, during the study period, nearly 20,000 people died due to natural hazards. For comparison, here are the top five causes of U.S. deaths in 2005, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

The natural hazards research, which will be detailed in a forthcoming issue of the International Journal of Health Geographics, was supported by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security through the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism.

I think the editor missed something.

I also find it interesting that mostly urban environments are considered less susceptible by that map. Really, residents in urban areas shouldn't be any less spared by natural disasters than those living in the boonies, though to the city's credit, most do have preventative resources for serious natural disasters which may account for the lower mortality rates.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

There's a link in the link I provided that has an abstract of the original report (though it requires you to click ANOTHER link to get the full report).

I also find it interesting that mostly urban environments are considered less susceptible by that map. Really, residents in urban areas shouldn't be any less spared by natural disasters than those living in the boonies, though to the city's credit, most do have preventative resources for serious natural disasters which may account for the lower mortality rates.

And, because it's only deaths that recorded, you have to keep in mind that it's easier to get help in general if you're in an urban area, as opposed to in the middle of the country. Hospitals, ambulances, fire, police (though I would think they're help, in a natural disaster scenario would be fairly limited), etc. are going to be easier to get to/easier to get them to you. Your odds of surviving, say, heat stroke are greatly increased if someone's around and an ambulance can reach you in time. And getting aid after, say, a tornado, hurricane, or forest fire, your odds are higher if you're in a populated area, partially because help's just closer and partially because they usually help the well-populated areas first.

 

[Rayne]

There's a link in the link I provided that has an abstract of the original report (though it requires you to click ANOTHER link to get the full report).

True I looked before. There is a link provided, but not to the CDC report, at least nothing too obvious from what I can tell, not that I'm too concerned about that comparison. In any natural disaster/ severe weather event, the severity and impact is often limited to specific regions so such a comparison wouldn't do any proper justice for finding out what your region is more at risk for.

The actual study is probably a better read.
Perhaps a clearer interpretation of the 'mortality map' from the study:

 

[Axle Helios]

I also find it interesting that mostly urban environments are considered less susceptible by that map. Really, residents in urban areas shouldn't be any less spared by natural disasters than those living in the boonies, though to the city's credit, most do have preventative resources for serious natural disasters which may account for the lower mortality rates.

But, there's also that the map only shows natural disasters, large cities would have a higher murder rate, which wasn't factored in.

 

[Barb]

But, there's also that the map only shows natural disasters, large cities would have a higher murder rate, which wasn't factored in.

Well, the map with the abstract that Grn originally posted did say it was death due to 'forces of nature'.

 

[ialreadypassed]

Yay! My area is dark blue!

 

[Zephy]

I'd like to see one of these for Canada..
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Amewsment]

I would like to see one with murder rates and other violent crime factored in.

 

[Jeff]

Exactly, all this proves is that people in urban areas are less likely to die of natural disasters, because they are more likely to die from human disasters.

 

[Barb]

Red Torterra and Jeff: The point of this death map is to show deaths resulting from natural disasters (which I already posted about), not deaths in general from other causes (including homicide).

 

[GrnMarvl14]

I think the FBI might have a map for deaths in general (or at least crime-related), at least for America. They certainly have the charts and data.

 

[Jeff]

Red Torterra and Jeff: The point of this death map is to show deaths resulting from natural disasters (which I already posted about), not deaths in general from other causes (including homicide).

I realize that, but what I'm saying is that the factor contributing to the figures in urban areas is that other causes of death are likely to get to people before a natural disaster will.

 

[GuitarHero]

Well I guess its not surprising to see all the Red here in Az considering all the illegals trying to cross that sadly end up dying from dehydration.

 

[AJW12777]

Ohio FTW I guess.