Where is the safest place on earth

page: 1
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:35 AM
link   
To have the highest survival probability chances you must be in a safe environment,away from nuclear contamination,pollution and civ itself.I have found only 3 places on earth which are safe
1)the Himalayas
2)Australian outback
30antartica

although if you take global warming into consideration then you might have to remove Antarctica and the outback as all ice would be melting and the outback would be a oven.

so if you live in Australia or north India or south china then you might have good chances of survival provided you have mobility and drinking water facility(though the Himalayas would provide the latter)

[edit on 25-1-2007 by manchurian_candidate]




posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   
safty is a feeling, which can only be found in yourself.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 02:17 PM
link   
This is something I've been thinking about for a while and I'm trying to get my family to leave the UK, to hide somewhere quiet.

I'd forget Antarctica if I were you. Its too cold and too unforgiving. Winds reach 250mph and the temp can drop to as low as -180 farenheit. You'd be safe from global warming however, as Antarctica is a continent so there is solid rock under the ice but I don't know what you'd eat as I'm pretty sure you can't live off penguins and moss.......

The Himalayas aren't much better unless you are a Sherpa....

And the outback aint going to be a walk in the park either. You've seen Mad Max right? No water and gangs of murderous criminals after your girl and your gas. And thats before the Nuclear strike.........


I reckon the best place to be would be the remotest island you can find with enough animals and edible plants to sustain you. A Pacific Atol maybe? (ironic since they did alot of thermo-nuclear testing there)

Problem is, you wouldn't know when to go (although the clever money says 2011). Best bet is to find somewhere and move there NOW and get ready because they won't give us any notice.

People may call this paranoid fantasy, but i'd rather be alive and paranoid than dead and skeptical.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   
Yeah, I'd say an island. But one that has a source of fresh water and foods, and not any big predators that would eat you. If it was a remote island it probably wouldn't get blown up or anything like that. Plus you could see people coming your way.

The only problem is if you run out of food or water, your pretty screwed.

And like IntoTheVoid (Get your name from the song?) said, I don't think you would last long in Antarctica or the Himalayas.

[edit on 25/1/2007 by enjoies05]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by enjoies05
And like IntoTheVoid (Get your name from the song?) said, I don't think you would last long in Antarctica or the Himalayas.
[edit on 25/1/2007 by enjoies05]


Yeah, NiN rule!



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 05:06 PM
link   
It has to be in the Southern Hemisphere as the Lion Share of Nuclear targets are in the Norhtern Hemisphere and the winds from both only mix a little at the equator on a regular basis.

New Zealand is the place to go, its void of any population because they all moved to Australia and there is plenty of food in the form of Lamb and Eels. Bring your warm gear as its cold as Antarctica and your climbing gear as its as rocky and Hilly.

As for Australia we have the "Full Up" sign at the moment while we are trying to sort out these Lebanese Criminals who think they have taken the country over and instilled their version of Mob Rule to try and get the place more like Lebanon.....rubble.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   


posted by manchurian_candidate

To have the highest probability of survival you must be in a safe environment, away from nuclear contamination, pollution and civilization itself. I have found only 3 places on earth which are safe
1) the Himalayas
2) Australian outback
3) Antarctica

“ . . if you take global warming into consideration . . “ [Edited by Don W]



Actually, there would be no safe place on earth if we had a nuclear exchange and maybe1,000 up to 10,000 atomic bombs were hurled back and fourth around the world. The prevailing winds in the Northern Hemisphere blow west to east. I suppose the opposite is true in the Southern Hemisphere, blowing east to west. This scenario is made even worse to contemplate when we recall it is impossible to predict the various radioactive by-products from any particular nuclear bomb. Each isotope created in the blast has its own half life and some are into the 10s of 1000s of years and longer.

Back in the good old days of President Eisenhower, America had a Civil Defense program which was famous for its fallout shelters. The US Government provided food and water for the rated number of occupants for 14 days. Bedding, sanitation equipment, decontamination facilities and Geiger counters were provided in the larger shelters. It went unspoken that deadly force would be used to keep out late comers who exceeded the rated capacity or people who had been contaminated by radioactive by-products.

It was absolutely impossible to tell whether14 days of supplies would be enough. So you’d face yet another problem of short food supplies. More use of deadly force. That is why most people resigned themselves to dying if a nuclear exchange came, and almost as many decided to die in the daylight and not cowering in some hole in the ground waiting to die.

Nairobi, Kenya, Quito, Equador and somewhere on Mindanao, sound best to me. Quito for its altitude, Nairobi for its location near the equator and on the downwind side of Africa putting life-saving distance between it and the continental US which would be the major target. The equatorial regions would be the last to be contaminated by fallout.

This untoward event - the near extinction of humanity - has already happened. Toba, a caldera size volcano in the region of Indonesia, blew up about 75,000 years ago and 95% of humans then alive died. I believe DNA indicates only 10,000 to 25,000 humans survived. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory

Which brings me to the Dooms Day Bomb. Or a Get Even Bomb. Any country could take a few hydrogen bombs, wrap them in large quantities of cobalt, and set them off inside their own country. The resulting radioactive contamination would gradually encircle the earth, likely killing not only all humans but perhaps all life, including lowly bacteria and so on. This is the kind of thing Kim Jong Il could do and no one could stop him. Like Jim Jones, “Take a drink of my Kool-Aid.”


[edit on 1/25/2007 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 07:07 PM
link   
The Great Lakes is full of farms, fresh water, fish and game, coal, trees, etc. Just my humble opinion!



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 07:16 PM
link   
I prefer my country, Hungary as the safest one. She is at the middle of Europe, surrounded by large and tall mountains. It has two great rivers, Danube and Tisza. Hungary also have excellent lands for farming and mining (Hungary is a small country, but it's leading in many export stuffs.). This country is also the only one, which wasn't reached by that Hurricane, what was last week and we're also skipping that great snow storm, which hit 3/4 of Europe. The greatest earthquake was around 4.3 only, which is not a great one (We're far away from the earthquake zones.). Oceans are also not a threat for us, after they're far-far away.

Oh. And it's not really advertised, but the mythological heart of mother Earth also can be found here, known as Dobogókő (Beating Stone in Hungarian).

So, if everything goes wrong, I believe Hungary have a great chance to survive.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by Dark Crystalline]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by manchurian_candidate
To have the highest survival probability chances you must be in a safe environment,away from nuclear contamination,pollution and civ itself.I have found only 3 places on earth which are safe
1)the Himalayas
2)Australian outback
30antartica
[edit on 25-1-2007 by manchurian_candidate]


1) Has Yetis, which are known to attack humans randomly and savagely.
2)The Australian outback is known for rabid kangaroos, dingos and native Aborigines, fact.
3) Did you know that there are more whale and walrus attackcs in Antarctica than anywhere else in the world?

The safest place to live is Somalia, think about it.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xeros

Originally posted by manchurian_candidate
To have the highest survival probability chances you must be in a safe environment,away from nuclear contamination,pollution and civ itself.I have found only 3 places on earth which are safe
1)the Himalayas
2)Australian outback
30antartica
[edit on 25-1-2007 by manchurian_candidate]


1) Has Yetis, which are known to attack humans randomly and savagely.
2)The Australian outback is known for rabid kangaroos, dingos and native Aborigines, fact.
3) Did you know that there are more whale and walrus attackcs in Antarctica than anywhere else in the world?

The safest place to live is Somalia, think about it.


Somalia is an excellent choice as its well know there isn't any food there, so there wont be any fights or queue's to join for food. The Warlords will leave you alone as being white they will worship you as some kind of prophetic god come to save them.

I still like New Zealand though as the Local Maori Indiginous to the Islands could be used as a warrior class to help elevate you to being a King-God once all the Fall-Out dissapates and the vacuum for leadership is wide open
.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 07:34 PM
link   


posted by Dark Crystalline

I prefer Hungary as the safest one . . the middle of Europe, surrounded by large and tall mountains . . two great rivers, Danube and Tisza. Hungary have excellent lands for farming and mining . . it's not really advertised, but the mythological heart of mother Earth can be found here, known as Dobogóko" (Beating Stone in Hungarian). So, if everything goes wrong, I believe Hungary have a great chance to survive. [Edited by Don W]



Yes, Mr D/C, I can see your point. And nothing beats being in the center, because from there, you can see the best way to go, if it comes to that. I recall one famous Hungarian over here, Edward Teller (1908-2003) who was a nuclear physicist and is credited with developing the Hydrogen Bomb.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Somalia? Isn't there a abundancy of disease there? Including AIDS, and Malaria? I wouldn't want to live there and base my survival around that area.

I agree with the Hungary theory. From what I got that seems like a feasible place. Environmental fears would be far ...but there is always a chance of war.

I would goto Fiji...furthest place on Earth without coming around, small and overlooked. Just the ocean would scare me. Otherwise I'd go with Fiji or Hungary.

Human life could sustain in an event of Nuclear War unless we blow up the planet. Underground survival would prevail (i.e. learning how to live underground. An asteroid would be the ultimate killer no ifs, ands, or buts about it.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   
Well, in the event of anything happening, I hope the east coast of Australia fares well.

I'm not going to worry, or change my life in preperation for events that may or may not happen, and that I can't do anything about anyway,



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 08:00 PM
link   
i would have to say the farther away from the mess the better. an island, somewhere in a cave with good air and water lots of food and fruit.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Mogadishu is currently at war with militant muslims with the aid of US allies Ethiopia. Somalia is a country where pirating is one of the better opportunities.

Isn't there a bit of the sense that globally we'll be affected now anyway. It's not like a hundred years ago when 5000 miles was another time and place. Everyone knows its a global village and a week for the right bug, or less, to wipe out more than most.

What about a continental shift or the dwindling magnetic shield. Never mind the carbon based global warming ideologies. I think our identity as creatures on a planet and not just citizens of a nation has made the old prophesy one will be left and one will be taken all the more poetic.


kix

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   
The north Yukon,plenty of water, no humans, plenty of game, good timber and isolated as hell also the whole place is not a target...



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 08:37 PM
link   
NZ.
Nz would be the perfect place, because who would want to invade/occupy?
we have nothing, and we are so far away from anywhere feasable.

plus, us kiwis are choice eh bro, yes im JAFA



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 08:50 PM
link   
I'm not sure if you'd really be safe anywhere these days.

The 3 choices offered up in the original post: Australian Outback(been there, very hard to survive...and hot as hell)

Himalayas.sp? ( not sure about the food supply up there, and oxygen could be a problem too)

Antarctica: (again...what would you eat, apart from fish and you'd freeze)

If I had to pick anywhere though, I'd probably go for New Zealand, I've been there a couple of times and it was a nice place.
Still if Australia was nuked, I'm not sure that NZ would be a safe place either.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 09:11 PM
link   
It all depends on the "end" scenario? Are we talking nuclear destruction or the wrath of God? If we all believe it's going to be nuclear destruction, then the earth is ruined for good. Radiation everywhere...how would man survive? We'd all eventually die.

God is in control of His creation.
This world, and human life with it, is not going to vaporize into the cosmos. Man will not blow himself up in a nuclear war and create a "nuclear winter" unsuitable for any life-form. It will not "end" at all. It will be restored to the form and shape that God intended. But it needs to change; be reborn.

Much of what Biblical prophecy discusses is what man brings upon himself. And when God acts to intervene in human affairs, it is only after much warning that something must change. When God punishes, there is always a light at the end of the tunnel. He always holds out hope. This is true of even the most terrifying prophecies of the Bible.

Personally, I think it's going to be the wrath of God...........fire, but not nuclear. Why? Because man is supposed to survive and the earth renewed? So, the best way to "cleanse" the planet is to burn it up like a toasted marshmallow.....consume it into a furnace like fire, to melt rocks, melt skyscrapers into ash, turn whole cities into toasted dirt....so that when it's done not a trace of our current world exists....yet I believe somehow man will not be extinguished. He will start over in a beautiful new world.

Ever see how beautiful a newly growing forest looks years after a major forest fire?

Whatever happens, and how it happens will be of supernatural proportions. What if a star swings by us (Planet X scenario)? We don't know everything. What if the sun solar flares out and coats our planet. Puff! It's gonna be fire, but not nuclear.....this would ruin the planet. What if we get bombarded by flaming gigantic meteors?

As far as a good place to hide?
There is none.

"The kings of the earth, the nobles, the military officers, the rich, the powerful, and every slave and free person hid themselves in caves and among mountain crags. They cried out to the mountains and the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the face of the one who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb, because the great day of their wrath has come and who can withstand it?"

[edit on 25-1-2007 by rocknroll]





new topics
top topics
 
12
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join