Social Question

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

You are going to lose your home, which would be more devastating, to lose it by fire, flood, avalanche, or mudslide?

Asked by Hypocrisy_Central (26879points) February 12th, 2017

Your house is about to be lost, lost in this case, to be on the same page, is more than 80% and the structure is left uninhabitable, which would be a more devastating way to lose it?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

14 Answers

Patty_Melt's avatar

If I were still inside, that would be the worst.

zenvelo's avatar

Most houses have fire insurance, and many have flood insurance. But mudslide insurance is rare, a family in San Rafael lost their house to mudslide last week with no way to salvage anything.

A snow avalanche will at eleast leave the property to build upon in the summer. Mudslide leaves nothing except an expensive mess.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

^ Mudslide leaves nothing except an expensive mess.
Insurance notwithstanding, why would you believe that better than fire, or do you?

MrGrimm888's avatar

I used to think fire. But having had my house flooded twice in about a year, I say flood is the worst. Water just destroys everything and leaves what’s left unusable.

At least a fire destroys everything completely. Walking through your house and seeing everything floating around, or underwater and having to throw it all away is pretty demoralizing. I had to get two other people to help drag my soaked mattress out. It must have weighed 400 lbs with all the water. I haven’t had a good night’s sleep since I threw it away almost a year ago.

I’ve known lots of people who lost their houses to hurricanes, due to storm surge. Some people’s houses simply washed away,or where left buried under sand and debris.

At this point, I have almost no belongings left, so I guess it’s a moot point…

johnpowell's avatar

To be honest I would be kinda stoked for any since I rent and have tons of renters insurance.

All my photos and shit have been scanned are sitting on a few cloud servers. The only thing which would concern me is if I lost the goldfish in my tank. I don’t really care about anything else. It can all be replaced with better stuff with the sweet insurance money..

stanleybmanly's avatar

The loss of the structure and its contents is the great tragedy. The method of or reason given for destruction is irrelevant.

ARE_you_kidding_me's avatar

Mudslide hands down.

SergeantQueen's avatar

I would go with flood also.
My family has had multiple floods in our basement. Ruined my mother’s scrapbook things and it also ruined childhood photos of myself and my siblings. They were the only copies and we can’t replace them.

AshlynM's avatar

Flood. We’ve had our basement flooded before. Wasn’t too fun to clean up. Luckily we didn’t have too much stuff down there at the time.

ragingloli's avatar

Being caught in a nuclear blast.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

[Flood people] If a basement flood is bad, how bad would it be if it flooded chest deep in your home?

^ Er….I have not heard of anyone being caught in a nuclear blast less 80 +/- years ago when Uncle Sam used to Japanese cities as an experiment for his new atomic toy. Having it happen unintended and clearly by nature…..highly unlikely.

kritiper's avatar

Fire because that is something I might have the most control over, or most preventive measures taken to avoid.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Sink hole in the middle of the night when your family is sleeping.

YARNLADY's avatar

I would rather lose my house to a fire, because my insurance will provide for the replacement of the house and everything in it. A house on my block burned to the ground a few years ago, and the owner got a brand new house.
p.s. most of my documents and photos over the past dozen years are currently in the “cloud” and could easily be recovered.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther