You are right that there is some randomness but they're not that random. There are warnings about hurricanes. Floods hit low-lying areas. Earthquake risk varies a lot based on region, soil structure, and so on. Some structures are relatively safe and others aren't.

But I think they're a good example of things that we can't always prepare for as individuals - it requires a group effort and that involves politics. There is a lot of resistance against, for example, attempts to stop rebuilding in known flood zones.

I would say that plane crashes are a good example. We can talk about the odds of being in a plane crash but they're not really random - there are always reasons. Also, there is a reason why commercial flights are considerably safer than driving. It's not because flying is inherently safer, but because as a society we put a lot of effort into making them that way.

Planning and preparing won't guarantee your survival, but it will sure do a lot to increase your odds. If person A spends hours meticulously testing his building's structural integrity and invests money to reinforce relevant safety mechanisms, while person B does not, is it person B's fault if their house falls down while person A's does not? No, it's not really, but they could have done more.

There aren't ANY guarantees in life (except maybe this one), but I think the point of the article is to try to show the benefits of an internal locus of control. There will probably be things in everyone's life that they have little power over, but that does not mean they are completely helpless. Rare is a situation where any action on someone's part has a 0% chance of changing the outcome.