[jandrewrogers]

Looking at only the last 7 years is a poor standard, and Oklahoma is a known active seismic zone with dedicated USGS risk models. Severe earthquakes occur much less frequently, often less than once per century. US Geological Survey seismic risk maps paint a different picture of actual risk than you are presenting.

For example, you've deemed the New Madrid seismic zone[0] as "safe", despite multiple M7-8+ earthquakes in the 19th century. The Cascadia subduction zone hasn't had a major event in 300+ years but no one considers that seismically safe.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Madrid_seismic_zone

[camgunz]

(Sorry on phone) California famously also has earthquakes. You can't look at the USGS risk map and seriously say the risk between living in Missouri/Oklahoma and California is equivalent. Also I didn't include PNW states in the safe list. Also the NMSZ had only one >= 5.0 earthquake (5.4) in the entire 20th century. Also earthquake deaths are only around half wildfire deaths, and I'd guess the distance between them will only increase as wildfires are only gonna get worse.

https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/hazard-map-2023-50-state-u...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disasters_by_cost

[jandrewrogers]

Pacific Northwest earthquake codes are based on earthquakes that last happened more than 300 years ago. The New Madrid Seismic Zone has had multiple earthquakes more powerful than any in the Pacific Northwest during those intervening centuries.

Missouri could realistically experience a M8.0 earthquake tomorrow, just like Washington. That the NMSZ was relatively quiescent during the 20th century tells you little about the seismic risk. Geological risk isn't determined by what happened last week.

Mount Rainier has not been active since the 19th century either. Nonetheless, it is a Decade Volcano[0], one of the highest risk volcanoes in the world.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decade_Volcanoes

[camgunz]

OK, I think I know what happened here. I was trying to say, "hey, earthquakes aren't great, but it's not like they happen every year (multiple times a year even!), unlike wildfires." Then it seemed like I was cherry picking lists and not using a wide enough window. I understand that; definitely not trying to do that. Great, let's continue.

I feel like everything you've brought up has to be factored into the USGS seismic risk map. But in case it's not, I searched the USGS earthquake database. Of the 1425 >= 5.0 earthquakes in the coterminous US since 1700, 12 of them occurred in the NMSZ (only 7 of which were >= 6.0). In the same amount of time, hundreds occurred in California (the USGS search is rectangular and I can't be arsed to separate out Nevada). There simply is no equivalence. If earthquakes are really a concern, definitely don't live in California! And if wildfires are a concern, also definitely don't live in California!

California/Nevada earthquakes: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/?extent=28.32372...

NMSZ earthquakes: https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/?extent=28.26568...