Obviously, this is a schlocky, poorly designed, and poorly researched article. First, it ranks cities from one to ten, but each one is selected based on one criterion. There's really no control or context, just an arbitrarily organized list. Second, it makes some really irresponsible claims and generalizations, i.e. "some places just don't function as cities in the modern world".

And most importantly, it's credibility is completely undone with the inclusion of Oklahoma City on many levels. Not only did it grossly exaggerate the effects of the May 3rd tornado specifically, but also made an unexplainable judgment by including it based on the relative risk of "Natural Disasters" in Oklahoma City. (To be fair, though, OKC’s weathermen have been working hard to get it included on such a list for this very reason )

In just a few minutes one can easily look at both the probability of and the damaged caused by common natural disasters in the Unite States and quickly come to the conclusion that Oklahoma may not even rank as high as 5 in it's own country based on risk due to natural disaster alone (see below).

I certainly wouldn't be surprised if Oklahoma (the entire state) was a top place in the world for severe weather. And if this was a list about weather, I probably would have no problem with it as long as it was more accurate in reporting the actual risk to property and person the weather presents. However, this is a list of "Hell's on Earth", or bad places to visit due to extreme forces that present a risk to life in those places and Oklahoma City was selected at number 5, seemingly because it is the worst place for "natural disasters" in the world. That's just ridiculous, really, especially when you consider the following:


Wikipedia stats to compare OKC's “big one” specifically referenced in the article to that of other major natural disasters in the US:

May 3 tornado: 48 Dead $1.1 Billion in damages

Hurricane katrina: 1,836 Dead $81.2 Billion Dollars

Loma Prieta Earthquake: 67 Dead $6 Billion in damages

Northridge Earthquake: 57 Dead $12.5 Damages

Some general probabilities related to the type of events above:

Chances of being hit by tornado at any given point over a period of 50 years in Midwest region of US: 1% (News from University of Missouri Extension)

Chance of magnitude 7 quake (Loma Prieta was 6.9, Northridge was 6.7) within 150 miles of San Francisco in the nest 20 years: 25% (BAY AREA / Computer puts big quake odds at 25% within 20 years)

Average probability of experiencing hurricane force winds (74 mph and above, which equals F1 tornado and higher) during a hurricane season dating back 155 years for selected cities (http://www.hgtvpro.com/hpro/nws_dstr...9604,00.html):

New Orleans 12.74 %
Jacksonville 6.88 %
Miami 15.77 %
New York 4.36 %
West Palm Beach 15.87 %

----

So, it's easy to see that Oklahoma City is at least no worse at risk from natural disaster than many major population centers in the United States, let alone the world. Frequency and scope must be considered, but there is nothing to support that Oklahoma City's natural disaster risk is the worst in the world, let alone that the risk that does exist makes it more dangerous or a worse place to visit than Baghdad, Dhaka, Yakutsk, Mogadishu, and Chernobyl.

The inclusion of Oklahoma City in the context of this list based on the criteria presented was clearly not based on any kind of objective reasoning or extensive research. It may be that the author or authors have an irrational fear of inclement weather that created a bias against the consideration other natural disasters or simply didn't state their criteria correctly or accurately. Either way, the result is bizarre at best and completely irresponsible at worst.