I agree 100% and also have noticed that severe weather systems tend to more severe in rural areas due to either open spaces (the plains) or trees (forested areas) doing more damage. I can tell you from living the in Midwest that the storms in Iowa and Nebraska are way worse than the ones that hit Chicago. A weather guy I know told me it has something to do with convective heat rising from major cities which is why you rarely see tornados hitting downtown Chicago and New York. I have noticed that for some reason local weather alerts seem to be more reliable than the national level tests on cellular. Don't know if it has to do with shear volume or what. Also, like I said earlier in rural areas you are less likely to run into a bystander that knows what is going on.
Steven Naslund Chicago IL >How quickly we forget. Puerto Rico's catastrophe was only a year ago. >Per capita fatalities in rural areas are usually higher than cities after >a disaster. Telecommunications are even more important in rural areas >because you have fewer disaster response resources than in cities. >Rural areas receive warnings later, have fewer emergency responders, fewer >advanced trauma hospitals. There are more neighbors helping neighbors in >cities, and more potential sources of help in densely populated areas. > >Telecommunication providers are less likely to spend money hardening >infrastructure in rural areas, because there is less business. Its easy >to find alternative telecommunications in New York City. Its hard to find >backup telecommunications in Idaho. > >A nation-wide WEA and EAS system helps warn people in both cities and >rural areas. But they still depend on carriers and broadcasters. If there >are no backup batteries in cell towers, or backup transmitters for >broadcasters, you end up with communication blackouts like in Puerto Rico >for months.
