What is the safest place to live in America?
By Lance
Winslow
First looking at weather patterns, it appears that
if there is nuclear fallout, where could you want to
be? Remember weather patterns start in the West or North
West and move across the country and change throughout
the year, but always for the most part blow from East
to West. So if you live East of the West Coast you could
be in trouble if a Western city gets nuked. Then there
are the East Winds in CA, which are called the Santa
Ana Winds which are hot, fast moving and dry, the worst
possible conditions for fires. As we see every few years
in the Southern CA mountains.
So then perhaps you might wish to live on the West
Coast, fairly good weather all year and the wind blows
the other way. But you would want to live far from any
major city on the West Coast. Not in LA, Not near the
Nuclear Power plants, Not near the Military bases of
Pt Mugu, Camp Pendleton or Vandenburg AFB. So where?
Probably on the coast between Humbolt, CA and mid state
OR. But alas there are huge faults along the West Coast
and the OR Coastline is riddled with issues from liquefaction
to offshore Tsunami generating Earthquake faults.
San Francisco gets huge Earthquakes as we know and
LA is not immune either and neither is the central valley
of CA with it’s issues after proof in the Coalinga Fault.
Living between the Russian River and OR Coastline near
the coast would be okay even with these issues. Also
you would not be down wind from any fallout and you
are not a target. Safe in that you have fish for food
and lumber for heat and no need for much of anything
like power, surrounded by capable woods people.
You would have lots of rain and no water that would
be polluted running off from areas of fallout. Of course
from an attack by sea from the Pacific side in the case
of invasion, you would not be in the best spot, we are
not expecting any wars, yet 20 years from now will China
be our biggest trading partner or will 2 billion of
them like this piece of real estate? If we were attacked
for some reason you would have air support from all
the Navy and Air guard Bases along the Pacific Coast.
Where are other good spots? If Seattle was not hit by
a weapon of mass destruction then you still have Earthquakes
and remember MT. Saint Helen. There are some cities
inland on the I-5 freeway surrounded by mountains, but
they are close to volcanoes too?
Where else would be good? Well not Phoenix, not Las
Vegas and Reno is over the hill from CA and gets all
it’s left over weather. Boise has issues too. Although
there are other cities in ID worthy of mention. Salt
Lake is on a huge Earthquake fault. How about Helena
MT, drought plagued and fire issues. Kellogg ID, superfund
area. Billings out of water, Bozeman? Well too close
to the State Park and there are issues with the volcanoes
there too. Butte, MT also too close. Casper WY out of
water and down wind in case of Volcanic Activity from
Yellow Stone. Also think if Portland, SF or LA are not
hit with nukes then we like, Four Corners, Elko NV,
Battle MT (armpit) are doable with large underground
water supply but it has arsenic in it. Winnamucka NV
many not be safe either, but has thermal activity for
power. ND and SD seem safe too, but winter weather is
tough. Ogalla underground aquifer is being drained fast
and could cause Earthquake from collapse. Western NE,
not good, Denver either in case of water supply issues
in future or fallout from volcano in Yellow Stone. How
about in the Northern Section of AZ? Flagstaff has harsh
weather, fire season. Winslow AZ is okay, with rail
and FWY, but isolated. Of course these are only a few
western states really and well we have identified several
great locations with everything you need to survive.
Having studied the FEMA reports and the regional issues
of each area and state and the disaster plans, we are
well served by such data, but it falls short and a comprehensive
plan of attack needs to be considered, because many
people living in a region will need supplies, such as
we see after major Hurricanes. Which by the way leaves
us to wonder if there are in fact any safe cities on
the entire Eastern Seaboard, Gulf Coast or West FL coastlines.
As we saw in the black out of 2003, the Hurricanes and
loss of power, the many fires in drought areas of CA,
AZ, NV, MT, ID, OR, NM these are all big issues.
When multiple disasters hit, and transportation is
down, power is out, water turned off, dams broken, bridges
out, etc. Then what? Well, for some it will be their
demise, others have adequately planned. Some of the
safest cities are sitting near large underground water
supplies and generate their own power or have co-generation
plants, which are co-ops near by. Those mid western
cities near large rivers are not safe due to the issues
with flooding, as we have seen and continue to see every
three to five years some town gets it. The water is
fresh and clean in those areas and very soft, but when
it floods, it is a disaster and very dangerous too.
Some would say it is probably unnecessary to have a
major disaster plan, however it is a good exercise anyway,
in planning. Things of importance are fresh water supply
uncontaminated, food supply, encapsulated market, not
over populated, no problems with contaminated air from
normal weather patterns know and comparable to the last
200 years, out side of a fire zone and a defendable
location. Also of secondary importance out side the
risk of major seismic activity, travel from major highways
causing and influx of others trying to get away thus
bringing in diseases or viruses or using up local natural
resources. Worst places to be D.C., state capital cities
with lots of military bases close by, cities on major
freeways with bridges and no other ways around for over
40 miles or passes on mountain ranges.
The cities which do not make the safest cities are
Denver, Dallas, Mobile, Biloxi, Seattle, Chicago, NYC,
Orlando, Tampa, Las Vegas, Salt Lake, LA, etc. Cities
with no way to get out the population quickly are of
problem, for instance DC with it’s daily grid lock or
Los Angeles, Atlanta, SF, etc. Cities, which rely on
outside sources to get in important stuff are bad. Not
to mention you are more likely to die from an auto wreck,
although on the plus side they have the cleanest and
best filtrated water supplies. That of course a trade
off from the polluted air around you which could also
kill you before your average life expectancy figure.
Port cities and cities with big major airports, which
are hubs for major airlines are bad too. Cities that
are big but do not have fed banks are one click down
on the list too. Think of the logistics by train too.
Cities which are down river close to major railroad
bridges, which handle lots of interstate trains are
bad too. Port cities get an extra bad deal. Cities which
are close to port cities which are over 2 million population
are dangerous too. Large cities near borders of Mexico
are dangerous if they have over 2 million populations.
San Diego County, San Antonio, Phoenix, Austin TX,
Houston, even throw in Tucson, El Paso, Yuma all bad.
Already at a fresh water problem time due to droughts
and over populations. Santa Monica is bad and LAX is
a bad area to be near. A problem at the sewer treatment
plant near LAX could be devastating with chlorine gas
and weather patterns, with a weapon of mass destruction.
Worrisome also to our scenario of possibilities is the
major computer brain areas. Like Silicon Valley, Seattle,
VA and other Internet hubs, which would also include
Boston.
I would like to see a comprehensive plan to save American
lives if an attack or Mother Nature event occurs, one
which encompasses the entire country. Perhaps this is
a good job for our war planners at the Pentagon, to
try a reverse order plan, it would help them learn where
best to minimize vulnerabilities and an action plan
against International Terrorists or Catastrophic Mother
Nature Events.
I have been to every city in the United States over
10,000 population. Where have you lived? Have you lived
thru a natural disaster? Many of us have. The Hurricanes
alone last year alone added 40 more million people to
that list, it was a costly year for FEMA, but we made
it through and showed resilience. So where are you safe?
The answer might be nowhere or everywhere and preparation
and quality of first reponders may hold that key. What
were your concerns, and immediate needs during that
period in your life when you faced such uncertainty?
What would you tell others who plan to protect the property
and lives of America, too the first responders, planners
and those entrusted to protect humanity in the times
of need?
"Lance Winslow" - Online Think
Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts
and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/wttbbs/
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Lance_Winslow
|
