Does the government (or a private organization) investigate or track the causes of deaths due to severe weather ... kind of like the FAA tracks the causes of airplane accidents?

I'm wondering what the leading causes of that kind of death are ... and I'm not talking about the kind of weather ... I'm talking about what they might have done - or not done - or what conditions other weather might have existed - or not existed - to put them at risk.

Watching the news regarding Joplin, Missouri (SAD!!!) I wonder how many deaths are related to ....

--failure to seek shelter (sirens not soon enough?, sirens ignored?)
--failure to have an adequate shelter (maybe the areas are not suitable to basements?, maybe buildings are not strong enough, ...)
--on the road and not seeking shelter
(I'm sure there are others)

To be clear: I'm not putting it all on the poor folks who have been hurt or worse. I'm more looking for lessons learned for those of us lucky enough not to have been impacted by such severe weather .... so far.

Historically, the number one cause of weather-related deaths in the US, by far, is excessive heat. But there are all kinds of mitigating circumstances surrounding why people succumb to the heat, so it's hard to say what people should or shouldn't have done.

Although it really wasn't that big a news story in the US as far as I can remember, don't forget that close to 50,000 deaths are attributed to the heat wave that hit Europe in 2003.

Heat takes a toll on the very young, the old, and the infirm. It is mainly a killer in areas usually cool enough that they don't have AC or know how to keep cool. But there are exceptions. People with AC may be reluctant to use it if they are in dire financial straits. Elderly and living off SSI can mean choosing between eating, buying heart medication, and staying cool.

I've also seen a couple of elderly people in perceived high crime areas so frightened that they refuse to open the windows ... in Florida ... in summer ... in a poorly insulated house with a metal roof and no shade. I say perceived because in more than one case the neighborhood was actually very safe according to neighbors and police with no significant break-ins or violence in twenty years. Here again it is common for the elderly and isolated to feel vulnerable and to be frightened. Hard to say how much of this is misconception and how much is left over shadows from previous places and times.

Flooding is the the next big thing. River flooding, levee breaks, hurricanes with storm surge kill. My opinion, hard nosed and unpopular, is that most of that is avoidable and largely inexcusable. We know where the flood plains are. We know where the storm surge goes. And yet, for various reasons, we haven't gotten around to simply telling people not to build there. Or, telling people that if they do build there they need to do it in a way that is flood resistant.

I know, nobody likes to be told what hey can and can't do. But, at the same time, it is hard to tell people they can't rebuild and that henceforth if the house gets washed up the taxpayers won't finance rebuilding. Flood insurance is kept artificially cheap by congress for political reasons.

At the same time I used to watch the 'beach replenishment follies' every year in Virginia. Every year the storms come and wash away the sand. And every year the US taxpayers pay millions of dollars for more sand to be pumped onto the beaches. Hotels, and homes built near the beach are owned by very wealthy people. So it is hard to say no beach replenishment and state subsidized rebuilding after a hurricane.

In a few spots, mostly well away from where the high-rise hotels and the big houses are, Florida and Virgina, both states I follow, have told people that there will be no rebuilding some distance back from the high water mark. Results have shown that a thousand feet of dunes and beach grass means beaches hold up better and homes are better protected. But it is an uphill fight and a palatial beach house is a status symbol.

In Cape Hatteras they used to have tiny beach cottages on wooden skids. They would store them all winter behind the dunes and drag them out in summer. If a hurricane threatened they would drag them back to safety. Sounded like a smart idea.

Wind storms are deadly. I'm not sure I would advocate a mandate for a storm room or reinforced central bathroom in all new construction but it probably would pay for itself in the long run. In a new home a storm room adds a few thousand to the price. Reinforcing a bathroom when it is first built would be a fraction of that. Here again it sound smart but people don't like mandates.

Back in the 90s I used to post on a builder's forum and an engineer/builder said the difference between a house that loses a roof at 75 mph winds and one that holds out to 150 mph was all of $600 in steel strapping and labor.

Even at that small price about 75% of the people who worked construction balked. One guy in the upper mid-west claimed wind was never a problem and then, a few months later, several of the homes he had built had their roofs blown off. He had been building for thirty years and toe-nailing rafters was all he had ever done. He was honest enough to admit the loss and several Florida boys were glad to point him to resources where he could learn about rafter-ties and hurricane straps.

I understand that code requirement and steel strapping is code in a lot more places than it used to be but looking at recent tornado pictures I don't see much reinforcement. Hard to harden a home enough to survive a direct hit from a major tornado but tighter codes would cut catastrophic losses along the edges. Even if the house is a complete loss if more of the major pieces stay attached people inside are going to have a better chance at survival, and fewer pieces coming off and ramming other homes is all to the good.

Florida went that way and we now have fairly tight building codes for wind resistance. Builders fought tooth and nail to stop them but, after the fact, and after a few hurricanes, most people admit that codes have clearly saved lives, and money. Even the builders say they aren't going back and the extra steel is no big deal. Minimum requirement varies from 90mph to 150 mph with the low end being in the the very center of the state.

Some builders build all their homes to the 150+ mph standard and claim it is cheaper to do it even if the local code would allow less. Building it all to 150 mph means you can have one set of plans, common punch lists, one training standard, and one price in every county. It means you can sell quality, the inspectors are always impressed and on your side, and all the crews can build anywhere.

Some of those same builders are pushing for a statewide 150 mph standard. One engineer I talked to said reinforcement to 175 or 200 mph would be cost effective to homeowners in reduced insurance costs and cut losses to hurricanes in half. The state planners admit that populations are so high and storms so wide that evacuation may not be wise, or even possible. Stronger building make shelter-in-place strategies possible.

http://emergency.cdc.gov/disasters/surveillance/

Flash flooding labeled leading cause of weather-related deaths in the United States, accounting for approximately 200 deaths per year.

Then in another area of CDC,

"Heat waves are already the most deadly weather-related exposure in the U.S., and account for more deaths annually than hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and earthquakes combined."

It's common to see different lists of weather-related deaths and injuries. It is actually a very difficult question to answer.

For one thing, there isn't much good data out there. Weather is not usually noted on death certificates or medical records at all. How you define "weather-related" also plays a big role. For example, weather can affect people after the actual weather event is over--does that still count? I read a research paper one time that showed that the effect of unusual cold often continues for days after the temperature has normalized, while the risk from unusual heat tends to decrease as soon as the temperature drops.

And who is asking the question makes a big difference, too. Someone in public health versus a meteorologist vs someone in the insurance industry vs emergency response policy wonks will tend to come up with different lists because of their differing priorities and biases.

Until we have a better data gathering system, I suspect that a lot/most of the advice that we are given is based more on anecdotal accounts of specific people or specific events, and based less on these broad, overall views of weather-related data. E.g. it's common to hear the advice to NOT seek shelter in a freeway overpass nowadays based solely on this one famous video. There may still be people recommending that folks do this when a tornado is approaching even now.

Why bother? Studies like that cost money, and the results wouldn't change anything. And if some industry wanted to know (like insurance companies), they would want the taxpayers to pay for it.

People still wouldn't build tornado shelters, they wouldn't move out of the flood plain, they wouldn't stop building on the sides of hills, they wouldn't evacuate out of the path of a firestorm. They go skiing/snowboarding in avalanche conditions, head into a blizzard with no preps or suitable clothing, go jogging at noon in heat waves, and hurry down to the beach to watch the incoming tsunami.

Things like air accidents are relatively confined, weather-related deaths aren't; did this person die from the tornado because he was caught out in the open? Was he brained by a 2x4 going 200 mph that came through his bedroom wall? Was he out in the front yard getting a video of the storm?

And how on earth would you factor in the Darwin Award nominees???

Sue

Sue, you are just a bit pessimistic. You are correct that some people wouldn't respond to new information and change their behavior with respect to tornado shelters, etc, but the battle would be won or lost in terms of the proportions of the population that changed their behavior for the better.

After all, fewer people are smoking these days, and more are wearing seat belts compared to, say, thirty years ago. The population as a whole is healthier for it.

Of course, some us still live in earthquake country........