The four corners

anthrovolution · 09-07-2008, 08:36 PM

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.

seircram · 09-08-2008, 06:00 AM

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.

anthrovolution · 09-08-2008, 07:03 AM

FEMA pretty much just listed all the major cities, especially if they were a State capitol. It's not the FEMA maps that are important, though. It's the maps used by the strategic targeting authorities in whatever country may be attacking the USA that is important. Those, I doubt, are on the internet.

If every potential target on the FEMA maps are hit in a massive strike, then the event is simply not survivable, no matter where you go. The targeting strategists (who visit the same internet sites we do) are smart enough to follow the American elite down to South America too, so that isn't safe either. The FEMA fallout map also assumes that the USA is a flat plane. It does not take into account the topology of the various areas. If you do analyse using a worst case scenario of either nuclear war, or catastrophic earth changes, the results are always the same - nobody lives. I would rather use a more practical approach, and make an assessment based on the probabilities of surviving a survivable event.

The center of large cities should be avoided, for a lot of reasons, even in peace time. The areas surrounding those cities may be relatively safe as long as you are outside the potential blast zones and away from the chaos, riots, and whatever civil unrest may occur. It still looks to me that Oregon and Northen Arizona are relatively safe compared to other areas of the country. I doubt either of those areas would be a high priority for the strategic targeting guys. You never know though. It's all a roll of the dice.

09-07-2008, 08:36 PM	#1
anthrovolution Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: az Posts: 36	Re: The four corners 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.

09-08-2008, 07:03 AM	#3
anthrovolution Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: az Posts: 36	Re: The four corners FEMA pretty much just listed all the major cities, especially if they were a State capitol. It's not the FEMA maps that are important, though. It's the maps used by the strategic targeting authorities in whatever country may be attacking the USA that is important. Those, I doubt, are on the internet. If every potential target on the FEMA maps are hit in a massive strike, then the event is simply not survivable, no matter where you go. The targeting strategists (who visit the same internet sites we do) are smart enough to follow the American elite down to South America too, so that isn't safe either. The FEMA fallout map also assumes that the USA is a flat plane. It does not take into account the topology of the various areas. If you do analyse using a worst case scenario of either nuclear war, or catastrophic earth changes, the results are always the same - nobody lives. I would rather use a more practical approach, and make an assessment based on the probabilities of surviving a survivable event. The center of large cities should be avoided, for a lot of reasons, even in peace time. The areas surrounding those cities may be relatively safe as long as you are outside the potential blast zones and away from the chaos, riots, and whatever civil unrest may occur. It still looks to me that Oregon and Northen Arizona are relatively safe compared to other areas of the country. I doubt either of those areas would be a high priority for the strategic targeting guys. You never know though. It's all a roll of the dice. Last edited by anthrovolution; 09-08-2008 at 07:05 AM.