A M 7 earhquake in California is bearly newsworthy and far from a significant threat. A low to mid 8 would cause significant property dammamge but few deaths. Even a 9 would only cause local problems. The Yellowstone Calder on the other hand would easily kill 50+% of everyone in the US with a low end eruption. Or put another way it's a significant threat to people livening in India.
PS: A great way of comparing threats is to multiply risk times death totals over a decade. On that scale terrorists and eathquakes are a joke.
Death's != property damage. Even the 10th most expensive hurricane to hit the US did 10billion in property damage with Katrina hitting 108 billion.
Consider the 9.0 that hit japan in 2011. Despite 129,225 buildings totally collapsed, with a further 254,204 buildings 'half collapsed', and another 691,766 buildings partially damaged it killed under 20,000 people.
That said, we have invested a lot to drive the death totals down in large part because earthquakes and hurricanes are fairly common. In comparison we are spending far to much on terrorism and far to little on the rare but civilization ending mega disasters.
> The Yellowstone Calder on the other hand would easily kill 50+% of everyone in the US with a low end eruption.
This stat is crazy. A low-end eruption (by far the most typical kind) at Yellowstone would kill few people in the U.S. The eruptions aren't that big and the Yellowstone downwind area is one of the least populated areas of the country.
PS: A great way of comparing threats is to multiply risk times death totals over a decade. On that scale terrorists and eathquakes are a joke.