That was my impression as well. While hurricane prone areas are highlighted well, once you move out of those areas, the map seems to start correlating to population to a large degree. Granted there are some cities missing and and some rural areas as red spots.

Exactly. Property losses correlates with population density. Related XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1138/

If nature happens and nothing gets damaged is it really a "disaster"?

Most of Nevada is downright uninhabitable or very close to uninhabitable and resource poor. It’s mostly owned by the US government and completely barren of water and plant life. Basically, it’s as though the great disaster were an everyday thing-and actually somewhat stable in its constant dry heat. Pretty sure it was largely that way in pre-US times.

Northern New England is in general a pretty safe place to live, as long as you can deal with a little bit of snow or an ice storm once a decade. There's water enough that forest fires are a rarity, tornados are very rare, hurricanes usually have played themselves out by the time they make it this far, and there are no volcanoes. There are earthquakes pretty frequently, but they're such small magnitude that I mistake them for the Amtrak going by[1].

[1] http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-j4EsVRA84Ck/UH7cea8dhOI/AAAAAAAAMx... - I thought this was the dryer walking around when it happened...

Yeah, Oregon hasn't seen a meaningful earthquake in most anyone's memory, so it isn't high on the list to prepare for one that might be coming, or not, in our lifetimes. Definitely want to avoid the area if you're averse to that risk...

Yes, there was one in 1999. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Salt_Lake_City_tornado

Strangely, it seemed to mostly affect the run-down part of town that was due for redevelopment, and completely destroyed the local gay bar (The Sun) which was the last business hold-out resisting the gentrification of the area.

Apparently the weather-modification tests of the '50s and '60s are bearing fruit.