Devastating earthquakes are not a once-per-decade event in California (more like once in a century). Devastating hurricanes in certain areas, on the other hand, kind of are.

No, the same thing can't be said about earthquakes. People have been predicting that we'd have a huge quake in the Northern California ever since the one in '89. But we've lived for more than a quarter century without one. We had a 68 year quiet period before that. They may be devastating when they happen, but the serious ones are rare. So rare, that we've spent the past 25 years upgrading our construction to anticipate a serious earthquake and we've yet to see that preparation tested.

Hurricanes, on the other hand, are so much more common. They happen every year and even have a season when you can expect them. It seems unfair to conflate a natural disaster that people may only experience once or twice in their lifetime to one that you can basically plan an annual vacation around.

I'd have more agreement if you talked about the kind of fires we saw in the North Bay recently. In addition to the earthquake in '89, I also remember the Oakland Hills firestorm in '91. Forrest fires are a natural part of the ecosystem in California and we do a lot to try to prevent them happening on a small scale. So when they do happen, they happen a lot larger than they normally would. And when they happen in populated areas, a lot of people get hurt. They're much more an expected part of life here than earthquakes are.

You're sort of right, I suppose, but I'm not trying to make comparisons. I don't live in California but from what I understand there are building regulations to ensure new buildings are likely to survive an earthquake.

But if that's not true and the same could be said about California then I'd say it too. It's just that this article happens to be about Florida.