"America's Money"

[tuixiu]

Phoenix: wildfire risk

Negative.

Serious wildfires require a lot more fuel than the relatively spread out saguaro, ironwood, palo verde, and creosotes can provide to be any serious threat to Phoenix.

We have the occasional brush fire in town like anywhere else, but the big fires you read about in Arizona are generally North of Phoenix where the rapid elevation change has allowed lovely pine forests, or farther SE in the mountains near Tuscon.

I've lived here 12 years and have yet to see the city threatened by some wildfire hopping across prickly pears to consume Phoenix.

 

[Art G]

I'm not sure how serious to take your post. I'm looking at a satellite view of Phoenix, and I'm having trouble finding many trees at all. How is "wildfire" a risk for a city in the middle of the desert?



Again, it's surrounded by dust and sand. How is it at risk of "fires?" As for tornadoes, apparently Vegas has been "hit" by just 11 tornadoes since 1950. I put "hit" in quotation marks because "No deaths or injuries were reported." The strongest was an F1 (the second-weakest possible).

Texas, on the other hand, has 110 tornadoes per year. That's literally 50,000% more.

That makes Las Vegas extremely low risk for tornadoes. If you live in Las Vegas, you can rest assured you're probably never going to be at risk of getting hit by a tornado. If you live in Los Angeles, on the other hand, you're pretty much guaranteed that someday you'll be affected by an earthquake.



"Snow"? OK, now you're just reaching. This is getting ridiculous.

All I am saying is that certain locations are at much, much higher risk of certain catastrophes than other areas. Some areas are well-known to be at high risk for particular disasters. People who live there, don't prepare, and then suffer from said disaster, and then act surprised, are idiots.

I would think that Phoenix one day may suffer from the greatest natural disaster of all. Water shortage. I realize there is an aquaduct, but if there is a water shortage, I'd bet you can be sure supplies would be cut back.

 

[tuixiu]

They have a lot of sources: underground watershed, local surface water from runoff, and remote lresevoirs like Mead that supply rivers.

Mead is still low and I believe the groundwater is also weak although improved lately, although ironically after the wet winter the surface water is overflowing from the runoff.

It's weird in that there are few if any water restrictions in town. Golf courses still lush green, public fountains, no pool covers, people put in lawns and water the hell out of them, no time usage restrictions, etc. This makes me believe that despite the heavy positive interstate migration rates there is a lot of wriggle room with water usage around here.

Regardless isn't as much a natural disaster as it was hundreds of years ago where limited supply lines meant no water = no crops = starve. Water might get more expensive and we might not be able to have lawns in front etc. but it's not really comparable to a sudden catastrophic event where your life is all jacked overnight.

 

[tuixiu]

related on the current drought conditions: SRP reservoirs at 93 percent capacity and rising | State News | eastvalleytribune.com

SRP reservoirs at 93 percent capacity and rising

Stored behind Salt River Project's six dams is the water that quenches our thirst, irrigates our crops and lights up our homes. This also is the water squandered by leaky faucets and air conditioners running full blast when no one is home.

In times of drought, such as the one parching the state since the mid-1990s, SRP relies on these reservoirs, located to the Valley's northeast, to meet demand.


And during wet winters, such as this one, the utility rejoices as rain and melted snow fill those lakes: Roosevelt, Apache, Canyon and Saguaro on the Salt River; Horseshoe and Bartlett on the Verde River.


Whether this winter will be an end to the drought or an aberration won't be known for at least another year.


SRP recently gave the Tribune a helicopter tour of the reservoir system, and from the air evidence of the recent rains is everywhere.


Months ago, on the morning of Nov. 30, the system was less than half-full - at 49 percent capacity. But after a series of well-timed storms, SRP now boasts of 93 percent capacity and rising.

 

[rs0460a]

Having no children I don't get the private schools thing. I have coworkers who pay outrageous amounts to send their children to private schools. Are they really that much better? I went to public only so I don't really know.

Often the word "private" is used for a religion-based institution, such as a Catholic (or Jewish, Hindu, etc. school) which the student is taught in a manner that also "teaches" in the religion or method of the selected practice of the parent(s).

I went to both Catholic and public schools. Each have their own advantages and disadvantages. Starting in Catholic grade-school (guess what religion my parents were ) I transferred to the local public school in 7th grade.

My son, who is disabled, always went to public school. They had much more "resources" to meet his "challange". Not saying one "type" of school is better, just to show that sometimes a "private" school cannot meet the needs of a public education. Private does not necessarily mean "better".

- Ron

 

[Milton]

LV: fires, tornados, rampant VD.

Detroit: Riots, fires, snow.

Boston: Major hurricane risk.

Chicago: Fires, flooding (its on the lake), boredom.

Lots of reaching going on here.

 

[brewer12345]

Lots of reaching going on here.

Hey, at least I didn't put the thing about space alien abductions down. That is specifically excluded from New Mexico homeowner's policies, although sometimes you can buy an anal probing expense reimbursement rider.

 

[youbet]

Lots of reaching going on here.

Lots of BS'ing going on, I'd say!

 

[rs0460a]

Hey, at least I didn't put the thing about space alien abductions down.

I believe some of those aliens post here, daily!

- Ron

 

[barbarus]

In particular, I think I'm already in love with miss Denise Janus: 25, mechanical engineer, smart about finances, hard working, nice smile, no husband and no kids. Wow, we may even have gone to the same school so that I can claim some alumni connection.

Kewl. An engineering hottie.
You guys could maybe tear down and rebuild an old big-block engine together and then cuddle up on the couch and solve some partial- derivative diff EQs. If ya really want to get her HOT (and I shouldn't tell you this), read to her out loud from Newton's "Principia Matematica" in the original Latin of course.

To really get her kinky, take turns writing out the Maxwell equations in the tub.

 

[Patrick]

That makes Las Vegas extremely low risk for tornadoes. If you live in Las Vegas, you can rest assured you're probably never going to be at risk of getting hit by a tornado. If you live in Los Angeles, on the other hand, you're pretty much guaranteed that someday you'll be affected by an earthquake.

Actually, the biggest risk in Las Vegas, believe it or not, is flashflooding. They don't get much rain (about 11 inches per year), but sometimes they get a lot of that all at once. A lot of the old arroyos (gulleys) have been built over and the flowing water goes into populated areas. They've been working on a multi-million-dollar containment system for about 25 years and it's still not finished.

I lived there for 40 years and never saw a tornado. We did have many "dust devils," which is a funnel of dust caused by ascending hot air (no puns, please) and look like a mini-tornado, but the most they do is throw your lawn chairs around.

The second biggest risk is gambling away your 401K and then some.

 

[Razor]

Actually, the biggest risk in Las Vegas, believe it or not, is flashflooding. They don't get much rain (about 11 inches per year), but sometimes they get a lot of that all at once. A lot of the old arroyos (gulleys) have been built over and the flowing water goes into populated areas. They've been working on a multi-million-dollar containment system for about 25 years and it's still not finished.

I lived there for 40 years and never saw a tornado. We did have many "dust devils," which is a funnel of dust caused by ascending hot air (no puns, please) and look like a mini-tornado, but the most they do is throw your lawn chairs around.

The second biggest risk is gambling away your 401K and then some.

Yeah, I was there once when there was a downpour causing some minor flooding. Boy was I surprised.

 

[Bestwifeever]

Chicago: Fires, flooding (its on the lake), boredom.

How much boredom insurance should I carry? Is it cheaper to get only liability coverage?

 

[brewer12345]

How much boredom insurance should I carry? Is it cheaper to get only liability coverage?

No such thing as too much boredom insurance for some of us. I'd carry at least $10MM limit if I could find an insurer willing to write that much.

 

[W2R]

Frank is my boredom insurance. Yearly premium costs nothing.

 

[megacorp-firee]

I would think that Phoenix one day may suffer from the greatest natural disaster of all. Water shortage. I realize there is an aquaduct, but if there is a water shortage, I'd bet you can be sure supplies would be cut back.

I believe that LV is already there. Lake Mead was down about 30 or 40 feet last time I was there.

 

[megacorp-firee]

Chicago: Fires, flooding (its on the lake), boredom.

IMO you weaken your arguement when you try and load up on examples that don't make any sense.
Chicago fire threat is no bigger than any other big city. Mrs. O'leary's cow died a long time ago and the city is not longer predominately wooden houses since the Chicago fire.
Flooding is unlikely (unless the whole world floods) as the city is mostly above lake (and sea) level.
boredom ... you are already dead if you can't find something to do (even in the winter) in Chicago ... so it's a moot point

 

[Spanky]

Here is the picture of Lake Mead:

 

[megacorp-firee]

Actually, the biggest risk in Las Vegas, believe it or not, is flashflooding. They don't get much rain (about 11 inches per year), but sometimes they get a lot of that all at once. A lot of the old arroyos (gulleys) have been built over and the flowing water goes into populated areas. They've been working on a multi-million-dollar containment system for about 25 years and it's still not finished.

I lived there for 40 years and never saw a tornado. We did have many "dust devils," which is a funnel of dust caused by ascending hot air (no puns, please) and look like a mini-tornado, but the most they do is throw your lawn chairs around.

The second biggest risk is gambling away your 401K and then some.

I believe you have the order of the 2 risks reversed.

 

[DblDoc]

I don't feel any fury or animosity, but at the risk of sounding insensitive, how could anybody possibly think it's a good idea to live in a city that is below sea level, right next to the ocean?

Are we talking about New Orleans or the vast areas of Holland ?

DD

 

[armor99]

Wow..... gone for just a day and the response to my small posting has been almost overwhelming! It appears that I have struck a serious chord in many here.... some towards the positive, and some more negative. After reading over your comments, and considering really carfully, I think I can boil it all down to the following axiom. "Do not allow your future to be governed by luck or chance."
To put this in more practical terms, consider a roulette wheel in Las Vegas. An equal number of red and black, plus a 0 and 00. That puts the advantage in the houses favor by around 8%. That might not seem like much, but over time, the house will always win out over the player because of it. Remove the 00 from the wheel, and the odds just got a bit better for you over time.
I think this is a very good analogy for what I was trying to point out in the beginning. My goal in life is to remove as many of those undesireable outcomes that I can. Choosing a profession that makes a decent salary was one way, saving 12% in my 401k was another way, making sure I have adequate insurance yet another way of helping to stack those odds in my favor. Undesireable outcomes can NEVER be eliminated, but should be a lifelong attempt to reduce them.
Or..... you can take the opposite approach in life. I have no power to change anything, my future is predetermined why bother to try, at any moment something horrible could happen to me, so I will pretend that tomorrow will never come, and never plan for anything.
Which one sounds like a life worth living? Which one has a higher likely hood of failure? Life is not always fair, or just, but there are an infinate number of things that we can choose to do, to help change the outcome to be in our favor

 

[Ronstar]

IMO you weaken your arguement when you try and load up on examples that don't make any sense.
Chicago fire threat is no bigger than any other big city. Mrs. O'leary's cow died a long time ago and the city is not longer predominately wooden houses since the Chicago fire.
Flooding is unlikely (unless the whole world floods) as the city is mostly above lake (and sea) level.
boredom ... you are already dead if you can't find something to do (even in the winter) in Chicago ... so it's a moot point

Well put!

 

[Spanky]

Or..... you can take the opposite approach in life. I have no power to change anything,

Or we can take a middle-way approach that we have some (but not complete) power to change the course of our lives.

 

[haha]

Or we can take a middle-way approach that we have some (but not complete) power to change the course of our lives.

That would involve way too much common sense.

Ha

 

[Notmuchlonger]

Or we can take a middle-way approach that we have some (but not complete) power to change the course of our lives.

Why? its easier to just throw up your hands and go I have no control over what happens to me.