I don't understand your response. When was there ever a tradition where something had to have deaths in order for it to be called a "disaster"? I gave three co

I don't understand your response. When was there ever a tradition where something had to have deaths in order for it to be called a "disaster"? I gave three counter-examples of events which were labeled disasters but which had no fatalities. While what you said is (theoretically) true, all evidence is that it's appropriate to use the term "disaster" for something which 'displaces tens of thousands of people and costs several hundred billion dollars', and there's no need to distinguish between 'traditional' and 'modern' definitions. How does your comment fit into that context?