Quote:
Originally Posted by anthrovolution
There is no place that is 'safe', depending on the type and intensity of whichever calamity you are analyzing. Using polluted cities, such as Phoenix, Los Angeles, and others as a proxy for the contamination that might occur due to some sort of global conflict, two cities have been identified that appear safer than most. Using prevailing wind patterns and other climatological and meteorological data, along with air quality reports, those two cities are Salem Oregon, and Flagstaff Arizona. There are doubtless many more, but those are the two identified so far. This is not a highly scientific analysis, but is based on general data that can be gleaned from various websites on the Internet.
|
Unfortunately, if you check the 1990 FEMA "Potential Nuclear Attack Sites" (
http://www.ki4u.com/webpal/d_resources/list.htm), Salem is a prime target (along with the Portland area).
Southern Oregon is actually, based on local lore and the same FEMA "Potential Fallout Maps", a very good area for missing wind-driven fallout. In previous years, a number of well-known celebrities bought land in the Applegate because of this factor.
An interesting experiment is to take the 2 FEMA maps (Potential Nuclear Targets and Potential Fallout Zones) and overlay them with one or more of the "Future Earth Changes" maps and you will find out just how small the areas of the US are that are NOT going to get nuked, fallout'd, or drastically earth-changed.