posted on Mar, 1 2010 @ 01:39 PM
Well, I read the linked article and immediately felt uneasy at the 'holes' in their assessment of what may be. Especially in the risk assessments
about where may be 'safe' or 'unsafe' which make no mention whatsoever of some hazards which may be caused in the wake of the global
electromagnetic, seismic, and oceanic turmoil which they alude to.
For example, with such massive global flood, earthquake or storm traumas, often expected in previously placid or stable areas, one would expect
multiple nuclear reactor power station failures, due to controls/structural failure, water inundation, etc...
Just imagine multiplying Chernobyl in various locations all over the place, possibly simultaneously and then over an extended period, and not
necessarily being able to do any of the kind of 'clean-up' which was at least attempted at Chernobyl. We're still monitoring the 'fall-out' from
that in the UK and in Russia it remains an ongoing tragedy. Add onto that all the other radiological and chemical spills this would trigger...I'd
guess our water/food cycle globally wouldn't exactly emerge in rude health.
Also, it appears there'd be a lot of (cold) water pouring, sorry 'sloshing' onto/into BIG openings in the earths crust, i.e. exposed deep molten
lava, and faults around volcanoes, I'm sure that, from the Yellowstone thread I've read, this is a very bad combination, unless you like
cataclysmic world-ending explosions, just another thought...
I think the amount of volcanic activity this would trigger would wipe out (via ash clouds, etc...) the climate for vegetation/farming wherever you end
up for years, and could magnify cooling.
If this happened, I'm with those who say it would be either totally unsurvivable, or deeply unpleasant wherever you end up.