Often times the same things that make an area hazardous also make it a natural place for building a city. New Orleans is a perfect example. It rew up on the spot where the largest river in North America, a virtual water highway, empties into the Gulf of Mexico an arm of the Atlantic making it the ideal setting for a major seaport and it has been one for over 300 years. But its proximity to the gulf puts in at risk for hurricanes and being a delta region at or even below sea level in places means a major storm can be devastating. This is what happened with Hurricane Katrina. In some cases cities may grow up in times past when people may have been unaware of the dangers (I'm sure that when San Francisco grew up around its natural harbor during the 1848 gold rush that people were unaware of the San Andreas fault that caused the devastating earthquake and subsequent fire of 1906). But in the case of New Orleans, its location ensures that there will always be a major port there and we can only hope that the levees will be bigger and better the next time a hurricane comes their way.
   I'm sure that you know the geography of your native land better than I do, but are there any habitable areas of Iceland that are not near volcanoes or faults. Is not Reykjavik located on the most ideal harbor for a seaport? Would your ancestors of over a thousand years ago have been aware of the faults when they first settled there?
   All interesting questions for a geographic historian.
                                              Neil