It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Positive Lessons After Sandy... Where NOT to live. (Add your contribution here).

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Sandy was a monstrous storm. I'm sorry for everyone who sustained losses to their homes, cars, and personal belongings.

I'm thinking that at this point, there are: Lessons Learned. Or are there? People move to flood-prone areas, then are surprised when a flood inundates their house.
Maybe they didn't know at the time... when they moved in? Maybe the high insurance rates (owner and renter insurance) they incurred was not a strong hint of a problem? Anyways, now we know. We all know. This is the 21st century.... I believe we're smart enough to learn from our, or other people's mistakes at this point. I hope so, anyways. One can always hope.


The point of this thread is to walk away with something positive out of the latest attack from nature. You know the saying.. "when life gives you lemons..." Places that are the most vulnerable to nature's future attacks can be listed here.

I'll add one.. any town near the shore in New Jersey.

I know, that's an easy one. It wasn't so obvious in the past. Sea levels are rising, and areas that were considered good, like the shores of NJ... should be thought about again IMHO. The NJ shore should be clear at this point to all concerned... I'll leave it at that.

It's been historically true that the NE has been one of the safest places to live in the country.... at least when it comes to weather outbreaks. Maybe that's changing now. What do you think?
edit on 31/10/2012 by MarkJS because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
Its kind of hard to locate the safe zones if EA*RTH is going thru cycle changes again. for areas far in land if this is the situation would eventually become water covered and water covered areas can become land. The best plan I can offer is for any living in any areas to assess the area and the fastest escape routs and food/hospital/pharmacy locations. Design your plan of respond and remain hopeful that you are not in harms way. But again if EA*RTH is experiencing cycle changes then its not easy to locate safe zones.




posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 



then its not easy to locate safe zones.

Any suggested locations you may find 'safe' are welcome...



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by MarkJS
 


Oh this is an easy one!

Where NOT to live?
Anywhere that a large number of other people live!


Seriously. Sandy would not be a problem if it struck Montana or North Dakota or the rural areas of Arizona or New Mexico or Kansas or Texas or plenty of other spots. It is only a problem when it destroys the anthill-like cities where people live on top of one another and resources are limited and escape is impossible.

The problem isn't the storm, the problem is the people. The storm waters have already receded. The storm is over. The looting is just now beginning, and the helpless people that didn't prepare are just now suffering.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Well,
If we go by a standard of basing where we live by what disaster might happen then the entire eastern seaboard, west coast and gulf coast would need to pack up and move to western Kansas.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
So name one spot in the country that isn't affected by a natural disaster of some type.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by badgerprints
 


Nope, blizzards, droughts, tornadoes, dust bowls, Meth, and Nuclear Missile Silos. Western Kansas isn't safe enough either. If someone wants to be safe, they need to go ahead and check themselves into a padded room establishment and take their appropriate meds, and all the fears will just melt away.
edit on 31-10-2012 by darkhorserider because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by MarkJS
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13
 



then its not easy to locate safe zones.

Any suggested locations you may find 'safe' are welcome...


That is just it I dont want to have some going there and some lake or river instead of opening and draining over flows from underground pressure elsewhere. That is why I said in my post try and survey your current surroundings and try and prepare based off of that location. You may live near a hot air balloon park you know or a dock airport ect... I wish I could provide better data but just from personal knowledge if there are areas currently below water that once were not then 1 must consider how that happens and how to potentially prepare if that cycles again.. Good thread overall and 1 will observe for anything helpful.


NAMASTE*******



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by MarkJS
 


The cemetery. I would recommend you die first, though. I haven't seen any dead people complaining that it was too cold or too windy, or that the water level was too high.

You know, just saying.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
So name one spot in the country that isn't affected by a natural disaster of some type.


Nothing comes to mind at the moment. Perhaps if we list all the places that are affected, by process of deduction, we will figure out some good places.

Here's some help of where not to move to...
FEMA Flood map



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by MarkJS
 


Being real with you don't you think those with higher data of present and ancient past have already taking interest in those locations?

Potential locations

Oil rigs
large sea vessels that can hold meds and food and even modified technology
blimps if you can get one ff the ground
a submarine would be great!
locate an advanced bunker or D.U.M.B and hope they allow access
waaaaaayyyyy outta box you find a fleet of black craft that are neuro responsive and off world capable
and get going..

edit on 10/31/12 by Ophiuchus 13 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   

edit on 31-10-2012 by dayve because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by MarkJS
 


The cemetery. I would recommend you die first, though. I haven't seen any dead people complaining that it was too cold or too windy, or that the water level was too high.

You know, just saying.


They might not complain, but their relatives might.




posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
WAIT! EUREKA, I've got it!

Stonehenge. Move to Stonehenge, it is still surviving!

Or the pyramids, or Easter Island. Or maybe the SouthWestern US where those fragile rock formations are still surviving. If nothing has knocked over or flooded away those ancient relics, then it must be a pretty safe place to stay.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:30 PM
link   
I can't grasp the logic of this kind of thinking. I guess the OP, and others, are suggesting, 'Live where there is no risk!" WTH? Life is risk, period. I have seen documentation that shows that Michigan is the only state in the US that isn't subject to some kind of unpredictable disaster. So it stands to reason by the "no risk" people's logic that a government controlled rubber room in Michigan is the best place to be free - they broadcast daily updates about how safe it is, "day 256 of perfect safety, soup time!". How come no one is clamoring for it?

Life is risk, jump out of plane with a parachute, eat shellfish, date someone who's unknown, what has gotten into the American populace where safety is job one? When did living become replaced with "is it safe?" When did adventure in life become replaced flu shots and DHS, and staying away from pickles in summer? Is this really how far we have fallen, to the point where every storm, or quake, or tornado has us reevaluating the safety of the big scary world. *(&^% happens, deal with it, or get off the planet!!!



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by MarkJS
 


So then you will move all Americans from ports, railways, waterways,farms, dairys, cattle farms, chicken farms,airports, stores, malls, colleges, universities, and have 350 million Americans congregate and live in one corner of the one state that may not be affected by a natural disaster.

See the flaw to your logic now?



People live where they live becase the geography is ideal. People have to live by water. Accept that fact.

Sometimes disaster happens, and being the good Americans we are, we support those who provide to our infrastructure, whether it is the corn and wheat growers getting struck by tornadoes in the midwest or the fisherman in the gulf getting struck by a cane or the orchard farmers in California getting a quake.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by crankyoldman
 

You're right... Life has risks. It would be good to consider different possibilities of danger, than to rush headlong into a dubious area. If possible... Minimizing risk, esp. unnecessary risk is a good thing.



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:38 PM
link   
So Cal.... beautiful, I hear... but possibly not the best, safest place to move to.

NJ- Garden State? Maybe they should rename their slogan... "Ocean State" (already taken??) is more appropriate nowdays.
edit on 31/10/2012 by MarkJS because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by MarkJS
 


There are reports saying this is the worst thing to happen to NY's subway system in 108 years. Humans don't live 108 years normally, so if you moved there right now, there is a very high chance you'd never see anything like this again.

The homes destroyed in Joplin, MO from the tornado were mostly decades old, some of them more than a century old. So, if you moved there right now, there is a high likelihood you'd never see another tornado the rest of your life.

The hurricane that struck Galveston in 1908 hasn't re-occured. Yellowstone hasn't exploded, New Madrid hasn't shaken, and Chicago hasn't burned down again, San Francisco has only quaked devastatingly one time in my life.

Yet, 70,000 people die every year from medical mistakes in the US alone. You are 1400 times more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist, and 10,000 more times to be killed in a car than an airplane, and more likely to die from Coronary Disease or Cancer than any of the above.

So, what is an unnecessary risk? What is worse a move to Kansas or drinking a Diet Coke? What is worse, a trip to your doctor, or a trip to the beach during a thunderstorm?



posted on Oct, 31 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   
No such thing as a safe place. There are places less likely to have catastrophic disaster, but they still have problems. I grew up along the spine of the Appalachian mountains. Never had "monumental disaster" but we had floods, blizzards, severe thunderstorms, etc. If you are feeling scared, the Appalachians go across states from southern PA down into the Carolina's...not much for opulence, but a pretty safe place.

I live in north western Virginia now and we had some worrisome times Monday night, but all in all we did much better than others.




top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join