Tornado Myths

Myth #1 .... The southwest corner of a basement is the safest location during passage of a tornado.

The truth is that the part of the home towards the approaching tornado (often, but not always, the southwest) is the least safe part of the basement, not the safest. This is also true of the above-ground portion of the house. In most tornadoes, many more homes will be shifted than will be blown completely free of a foundation. Homes that are attacked from the southwest tend to shift to the northeast. The unsupported part of the house may then collapse into the basement or pull over part of the foundation, or both. Historically, the few deaths in basements have been caused by collapsed basement walls, houses, and chimneys, rather than by debris that was thrown into the basement from the outside.

For nearly a century, the published conventional wisdom was that the southwest corner of a building, both above and below ground, afforded the best protection. This misconception probably originated from someone's reasoning, rather than from actual observations. They probably assumed that deadly debris would be propelled over the southwest corner and land in the northeast corner.

The idea that it was safe to seek shelter on the side of a house facing the oncoming tornado dates back to at least the first book on tornadoes, the 1887 comprehensive text Tornadoes, by John Park Finley. He placed in italic for emphasis the following remark: "Under no circumstances, whether in a building or in a cellar, ever take a position in a northeast room, in a northeast corner, or an east room, or against an east wall." He also recommended removing the furniture from the west-facing room and closing all windows in the house. This is all incorrect, deadly, and time-wasting advice. It is quite possible that someone has died following it. While relatively few people probably read the book when it was available, the advice was quoted in many newspapers. It is possible that in the limited number of damage surveys that Finley conducted personally, he came upon a grisly scene involving the northeast portion of a poorly constructed house that had fallen over, and it strongly influenced his thinking. These assumptions went essentially unchallenged until 1966, when Professor Joseph Eagleman of the University of Kansas undertook a survey of destroyed produced by after the Topeka tornado of June 8th. Professor Eagleman's objective study showed that the south side and southwest corners, the direction of approach for the Topeka tornado, were the least safe areas, and the north side of homes were the safest .... both on the first floor and in the basement. He repeated the study after the Lubbock, Texas tornado of May 11, 1970, and the results were even more striking. The southwest portion of the houses were unsafe in 75% of the damaged homes .... double the percentage of unsafe areas in the northeast part of homes. As a general rule, people in basements will escape injury despite the extreme devastation above them. Being under a stairwell, heavy table, or work bench will afford even more protection.

Ignorance of this conventional wisdom, combined with common sense, has saved lives in the past. At the Pacolet Mills near Gainesville, Georgia on June 1, 1903, 550 people ran to the northeast corner of the building as the tornado approached from the southwest. That northeast corner was the only part of the building not destroyed. At least fifty people died in other Gainesville fabric mills on that day, and more than 40 more died in homes near the mills.



Myth #2 .... Some towns are "protected!"

Various Native American tribes perceived tornadoes in different ways. Some saw them as a cleansing agent, sweeping away the ragged and negative things of life. Others saw them as a form of revenge for dishonoring the Great Spirit. Today, only the myths about the protection of towns by rivers and hills linger in modern American culture.

The Osage Indians, native to Kansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri passed on tornado legends to the early settlers. One such legend has it that tornadoes will not strike between two rivers, near the point where the rivers join. In the past 150 years, this idea may have given a false sense of security to some people who thereby failed to take shelter. They may not have lived to help debunk the myth. One by one, the myths that particular towns are protected have fallen by the wayside.

Emporia, Kansas, for instance, had sat "protected" between the Cottonwood and Neosho Rivers, in native Osage territory, for over a century. Emporia was free of damaging tornadoes until June 8, 1974 when a tornado killed six people and destroyed $20,000,000 worth of property on the northwest side of town. Another tornado did $6,000,000 in damage along the west side of Emporia on June 7, 1990. Part of the path of the 1974 tornado was also the site of a deadly twister on September 29, 1881, but the area was farmland then.

The idea that one's town is "protected" is a combination of wishful thinking, short memory, the rarity of tornadoes, and a distorted sense of "here" and "there." Proof of protection has been offered by a very simple statement of fact. The town has never been hit by a tornado, but 10 tornadoes have touched down "outside" of town in the past 30 years. The occurrence information may be fact, but the conclusion that the town must be "protected" does not logically follow.

That logic disregards some very basic ideas. It ignores the likely possibility that rivers, ridges, and valleys have little or no effect on mature tornadoes. Tornadoes have passed seemingly unaffected over mountain ridges 3,000 feet high. Dozens have crossed the Mississippi River, from Minnesota to Louisiana. Both sides of the river, at the confluence of the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, near St. Louis, have seen devastating tornadoes.

Topography may have some influence, but protection is not one of them. Weak tornadoes may damage hilltops. But well-formed, mature tornadoes may actually stretch themselves into valleys and intensify. During this vortex stretching, the funnel diameter may shrink in diameter and the tornado will spin even more rapidly. This is hardly what one would call protection for buildings in a valley.

The belief that tornadoes don't hit "here," but always seem to hit "north of town" or "south of the river" ignores some very simple mathematics. "Here" may be a small town with an area of one square mile. Just "outside of town" or "there" or "to the north" may be anywhere within visual sighting from the water tower, perhaps 10 miles in all directions. Therefore, if the town has an area of one square mile, then "outside of town" has an area of over 300 square miles. A tornado touchdown is 300 times more likely "outside" of town than in-town. The "protection" of the town does not come from hills, or a mound, or the joining of two rivers. Tornado protection comes from the same source as our protection from falling comets or other heavenly visitors .... that afforded by the laws of probability .... the very low probability of rare events such as tornadoes.












This page is maintained by Dickie Gipson, for comments or questions e-mail The Brain.



This page hosted by Get your own Free Home Page


Web Designs supplied by



Graphic Design supplied by

1