5 Countries With The Lowest Risk Of Disaster

URUGUAY does look like it might be ok. The 2-3% illiterate rate seems high considering what they say. It's interesting how many governments seem to have a structure somewhat similar to the US.

Frankly though, unless you are ethnic ARAB and muslim, I don't think the UAE would be a good place to go. They even imply that the uruguay government has that kind of problem, but doesn't have enough resources to really do anything.

Steve

Canada has to be on this list.....

Alex, do you really believe it (the guide you mentioned)? What about Switzerland, Austria, Canada, for example?
Because you speak English, Canada seems to be a choice.

Yeah, I don't know about canada. And part of the deal was frees.rom wars, nuclear power, and economic disasters.

Switzerland probably would be on the list except it is had to immigrate, and is surrounded. They've been safe before, but who knows? And germany and france, and probably italy, have nuclear reactors.

Austria, as I recall, has no real currency, and probably has nuclear reactors, etc... as well.

BUT, who knows? I have seen cities make bad and good lists for the SAME things. Sometimes criteria are messed up. The UAE? SURE, if the world keeps using gas, they are economically secure but MILITARILY? SOCIALLY? Probably NOT. If I were an ethnicc arab that were muslim, I would probably LOVE the place, and go there. Otherwise? NO THANKS!

Steve

Why do want to move? Colombia is beautiful. Better weather than Uruguay. Is it just Paypal? Then Uruguay is probably the best choice with kids. Less corruption than Argentina, and good banking system.

Norway, Iceland, Denmark and Switzerland are the best countries to live in.

New Zealand recent earth quake make me rethink about putting it on the list.

There are many type of disaster like nature disaster, human disaster and so on. I think the lowest risk of disaster are:

1) Uruguay.
2) Poland.
3) Singapore.
4) Estonia.
5) United Arab Emirates.

What about Ireland?

Reasons:

1. Hasn't experienced a natural disaster in living memory (far longer than that, actually). No hurricanes, flooding, big earthquakes, volcanic activity, etc. Despite being on a similar latitude to Hudson Bay in Canada, it rarely snows here; in fact, it hardly ever drops below freezing (you could probably count the number of nights it does per annum on your fingers). The average temperature in the middle of winter is about 9 degrees C.

2. No nuclear power plants.

3. No national enemies: only ever officially at war once, and that was nearly a hundred years ago (and with a country with whom it now has it's closest political, economic, and cultural links); militarily neutral; has a distinguished international peacekeeping record. And, despite common perceptions outside of Ireland and Britain, the Republic had no involvement in the Troubles in Northern Ireland; it simply patrolled the border to prevent overspill; has only had one significant terrorist event, and that was nearly 40 years ago, and happened in circumstances that are impossible to repeat anyway; is located at the western-most part of western Europe, with no current or potential geo-political factors likely to crop up in relation to national security; anyone coming to "get" Ireland would have to go through most of NATO, including two of the world's largest nuclear powers, to reach it, assuming there was any reason they might want to in the first place (I can't think of any).

4. Politically stable: there hasn't been any significant challenge to the State since the Civil War immediately after the War of Independence nearly a century ago; it remains in the lowest 5 countries on the "Failed States Index", meaning it's considered one of the MOST stable and sustainable states in the world (alongside Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Switzerland).

5. Social stability; has an extremely strong national identity with an enthically, linguistically, and religiously homogenous population. Also, the immigrant population in Ireland is almost entirely from other European countries with the same or similar racial, linguistic, and religious characteristics (the single largest immigrant group are the British, believe it or not), so it has avoided the kind of cultural clashes that have produced race riots in places like Britain and France in recent years.

6. Freedom of speech: Virtually no restrictions of press freedom. The Press Freedom Index compiled by Reporters Without Borders put it at number 9 globally in 2010. (To compare, the US was at number 20.)

6. Sound economy: Yes, really. Despite the bad press internationally, and the VERY real negative effect of euro membership (which, incidentally, has also NOT produced any of the kind of civil unrest seen in other similarly affected countries), Ireland has a thriving and rapidly growing export economy. For comparison, despite several years of recession, the Irish economy is still larger than the COMBINED economies of Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, despite having a fraction of their combined populations, even if you add in the the amount the English taxpayer forks out to subsidise all three. And the so-called "Economic Freedom of the World" index places it at number 7 globally, in terms of economic freedom (again, for comparison, 2 places ahead of the United States).

7. Very strict immigration policies (including bilateral agreements with the UK that include MUTUAL deportation from both jurisdictions), so that's probably a down-side for many but, that said, immigration policies are moving towards something similar to the "Right of Return" system in Israel (except they're for people of Irish descent instead of Jews). Presently, immigration is relatively simple right down to the third and, in some cases, fourth generation of descendants of Irish immigrants to other countries. It's even possible into the fifth generation, and more, in special cases. Ireland is still very underpopulated for it's size more than 150 years after significant depopulation events, and makes little secret of the fact that it prefers Irish "returnees" above everyone else. That makes things much easier for at least 80 million people of Irish descent in other countries (nearly half of whom are Americans).

7. Makes the best Guinness in the world. Everything else is pigswill in comparison. (And Irish barmen know how to actually pull a pint of it correctly!).

8. And, above all else, because I said so.

I have heard good things about Ecuador. My wife is Ecuadorian and we plan to live there in the next 3 years.

Since you said only Spanish speaking countries, I would only recommend Spain and Portugal. I know that Portugal is Portuguese, but the languages are very close and easy to learn if you already know Spanish. It's just the pronunciations that are different with Portuguese sounding like a mixture of French, Italian, and Spanish. I'm not quite sure on the Western Hemisphere since many are poor and/or filled with crime.

Whistler, BC

i live in Argentina near to the mountains and this place is safe as heaven but i want to move to buenos aires

that's pretty cool. i can see why you'd want to move, with all the natural disasters that are currently going about, being so unpredictable. earthquakes, hurricanes, and you having kids.

i've always wanted to visit poland, i'd probably choose that if i was moving.

"Colombia is beautiful, very much so, but it is also one of the most dangerous places on Earth!"

Nonsense. The US is "dangerous" also, depending entirely on where you live. Colombia is developing rapidly, and is by no means in the same league as the truly dangerous places of the world. Medellin is now considered an excellent place to live, for instance. Only certain areas, rather remote, are troublesome in Colombia.

Europe is having problems just now, and is quite expensive. Portugal is very peaceful, but not for child-raising, more for retirement. And you have to learn Portuguese.

Uruguay may be your best bet, but it is more expensive than Colombia; the same holds true for Chile. For children I would probably pick Uruguay, or in second place, Chile, also for internet marketing. Having children is difficult today. Drug culture and stupid pop culture is everywhere. One could also consider a peaceful Ecuadorian city like Cuenca, which is inexpensive, but has culture and is beautiful. It uses the dollar, so Paypal is no problem. And it would be by far the easiest move. Check out the internet for blogs and expat forums. Best of luck!

Being a SE Asian, I can confirm that Singapore is a lovely place to live in. But, you need to love tropical (and humid) weather.

-Andrew

Being quite the misanthrope, I would say that the countries with the lowest risk of disaster would be those most sparsely inhabited.

Just ask yourself what is the initiator and/or perpetuator of most disaster and suffering in this world? I think you'll find it isn't tornadoes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, hurricanes or any of that stuff. It's other people. People and their apparent innate tendency to quarrel and fight, wage war, use, conduct genocide, oppress, rape, bully and ridicule, molest, murder, torture, lie, steal, enslave, and the list goes on.

Yup, human beings are what you need to be afraid of - not any sort of natural disaster. In fact, you might say that natural disasters, in the process of eliminating large quantities of people, make the world a slightly safer place.

When other people are concerned, there's no such thing as universal safety. It's pretty subjective, isn't it? What is safe and comfortable for you may be a hotbed of pain and suffering for someone else, depending on who they are, where they're from, what they're like, and what they believe and do.

I'm pretty confident of my being able to take a stroll comfortably and safely through the nearly deserted city centre streets of Hull in the early hours of the morning. But don't bother if you're black, an attractive and scarcely-clad female, a Whitehall politician, Liverpool FC supporter, or maybe even Tom Cruise: you just won't make it back alive.

Each of these people will be "safer" and more admired in the "appropriate place". The appropriate place being where they're surrounded by like-minded people from similar backgrounds, with similar ideologies, who look similar, and so on. But since you're a human being with a whole array of interests, and a diverse range of thoughts and feelings, good luck finding anywhere where you can fit in 100%.

England, where I'm from, is largely free of large-scale, significant natural disasters. Our weather varies, but rarely is it that extreme. Active volcanoes? Get outta here. Earthquakes detectable without a seismograph are practically unheard of.

Point being, you'd think we're ideally situated and constituted. A perfect nation on an island of bliss whose inhabitants practice and preach freedom, compassion, sympathy, love and tolerance. Nope. We're intolerant, oppressive, forceful, sadistic and insidious. And depending on who you are, where you're from, what you believe and what you do, coming here (the island, the country, the county, the city or the "district") just may well be the death of you - physically and/or mentally.

That'd be a disaster to you and your loved ones, wouldn't it?

Same goes for anyone and everyone, anywhere and everywhere. Different places, similarly natured people, just tolerant/intolerant of slightly different stuff to varying degrees.

You have to weigh up whether discriminatory, human-inflicted disaster is preferential or less of a threat to you than the nondiscriminatory disaster you might experience at the hands of mother nature in any given place.

Hey Alex...

One thing to keep in mind is that larger countries like the US and Austrailia and "continental" countries. This means not only are they big, but they have a variety of potential weather and natural dissasters.

But this is misleading due to their size. Just because the S and SE USA get's hurricanes, doesn't mean those of us in Colorado have to worry about them.

Here, I can get a blizzard, but those in the Southern USA don't have to worry about blizzards.

So stats like "safest countries" can be a little misleading when comparing large countries with small countries.

Uruguay is wonderful!!

The trouble with the Anglo-Saxon countries, IMHO, is just this "kick butt" mentality. They are very aggressive countries, and violence is always just beneath the surface, and is always considered a solution or an indication of superiority. They also have very positive qualities as well, of course, such as a strong civic sense, which is something you'll miss in the Latin countries.

Nice information that you have shared with us...interesting it is...to know about these types of places that are having lowest risk of disaster.Thank you very much..

In terms of financial independence, with the current economic climate, no where is really safe