4 ms·

Does anyone do this? SoCal, NorCal, Seattle - Earthquakes SoCal, NorCal - Fires Midwestern States - Tornadoes North Easy - Blizzards South Easy - Hurricane

by nox101 2y ago

Does anyone do this? SoCal, NorCal, Seattle - Earthquakes SoCal, NorCal - Fires Midwestern States - Tornadoes North Easy - Blizzards South Easy - Hurricanes Which part do you suggest everyone move to?

jcranmer 2y ago
Northeast. Structural modifications for heavy snow are light (make sure the house is well-insulated, get yourself a nice heater, don't put any pipes in the exterior walls, and have sloped roofs rather than flat roofs), and they're not particularly dangerous if you're prepared to be cooped up in a house for a day or two (and you're not in the main lake effect snow belt, where snow can be rather constant).
- elevatedastalt 2y ago
  So the proposal is for 350 Million people to move to New England?
  - camgunz 2y ago
    Well, in good faith, if everyone in "dangerous" areas of the US moved to less dangerous areas, the resulting population density would still be less than Ohio's (~242/mi2, also LA's population density is ~8,000/mi2--well below places like Pittsburgh and Buffalo even--so keep that in mind), and I left Alaska out of both safe and dangerous lists because it's a cheat. And it's very OK there! Winter is fine. I grew up and lived in the Midwest for years; tornadoes, etc. are bad but they're not wildfires and hurricanes. Is this a serious "proposal"? Definitely not. But a lot of people in this thread are acting like moving away from literal hellfire is impossible, and I respectfully submit that living in the interior is better than having everything you own burn down. "Dangerous": California, Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, South Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, Oregon, Utah, Puerto Rico, Nevada, Mississippi, New Mexico, Idaho, Hawaii, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa "Safe": New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Tennessee, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Missouri, West Virginia, Minnesota, Vermont, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Iowa, Maine, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming
    - jandrewrogers 2y ago
      Several of your "safe" States are prone to extremely strong earthquakes.
      - camgunz 2y ago
        In the last ~7 years only Oklahoma has had a >= 5.0 earthquake (three of them). But even if you move it, you're still under Ohio. https://earthquakelist.org/usa/#latest-earthquakes-mag-5-distance-100 https://earthquakelist.org/usa/#latest-earthquakes-mag-5-dis...
        jandrewrogers 2y ago
        Looking at only the last 7 years is a poor standard, and Oklahoma is a known active seismic zone with dedicated USGS risk models. Severe earthquakes occur much less frequently, often less than once per century. US Geological Survey seismic risk maps paint a different picture of actual risk than you are presenting. For example, you've deemed the New Madrid seismic zone[0] as "safe", despite multiple M7-8+ earthquakes in the 19th century. The Cascadia subduction zone hasn't had a major event in 300+ years but no one considers that seismically safe. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Madrid_seismic_zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Madrid_seismic_zone
        camgunz 2y ago
        (Sorry on phone) California famously also has earthquakes. You can't look at the USGS risk map and seriously say the risk between living in Missouri/Oklahoma and California is equivalent. Also I didn't include PNW states in the safe list. Also the NMSZ had only one >= 5.0 earthquake (5.4) in the entire 20th century. Also earthquake deaths are only around half wildfire deaths, and I'd guess the distance between them will only increase as wildfires are only gonna get worse. https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/hazard-map-2023-50-state-update-national-seismic-hazard-model-project https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/hazard-map-2023-50-state-u... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disasters_by_cost https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disasters_by_cost
steveoscaro 2y ago
New Mexico is pretty relaxed
block_dagger 2y ago
I tend to think many of humanity’s - and, by extension, the entire ecosystem’s - problems arise from overpopulation of homo sapiens. Perhaps the human race should depopulate entirely. Sadly, this won’t happen of its own volition.

by nox101 2y ago

jcranmer 2y ago

Northeast. Structural modifications for heavy snow are light (make sure the house is well-insulated, get yourself a nice heater, don't put any pipes in the exterior walls, and have sloped roofs rather than flat roofs), and they're not particularly dangerous if you're prepared to be cooped up in a house for a day or two (and you're not in the main lake effect snow belt, where snow can be rather constant).

elevatedastalt 2y ago
So the proposal is for 350 Million people to move to New England?
- camgunz 2y ago
  Well, in good faith, if everyone in "dangerous" areas of the US moved to less dangerous areas, the resulting population density would still be less than Ohio's (~242/mi2, also LA's population density is ~8,000/mi2--well below places like Pittsburgh and Buffalo even--so keep that in mind), and I left Alaska out of both safe and dangerous lists because it's a cheat. And it's very OK there! Winter is fine. I grew up and lived in the Midwest for years; tornadoes, etc. are bad but they're not wildfires and hurricanes. Is this a serious "proposal"? Definitely not. But a lot of people in this thread are acting like moving away from literal hellfire is impossible, and I respectfully submit that living in the interior is better than having everything you own burn down. "Dangerous": California, Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Washington, Arizona, Colorado, South Carolina, Alabama, Louisiana, Oregon, Utah, Puerto Rico, Nevada, Mississippi, New Mexico, Idaho, Hawaii, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa "Safe": New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Tennessee, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Missouri, West Virginia, Minnesota, Vermont, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Iowa, Maine, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming
  - jandrewrogers 2y ago
    Several of your "safe" States are prone to extremely strong earthquakes.
    - camgunz 2y ago
      In the last ~7 years only Oklahoma has had a >= 5.0 earthquake (three of them). But even if you move it, you're still under Ohio. https://earthquakelist.org/usa/#latest-earthquakes-mag-5-distance-100 https://earthquakelist.org/usa/#latest-earthquakes-mag-5-dis...
      - jandrewrogers 2y ago
        Looking at only the last 7 years is a poor standard, and Oklahoma is a known active seismic zone with dedicated USGS risk models. Severe earthquakes occur much less frequently, often less than once per century. US Geological Survey seismic risk maps paint a different picture of actual risk than you are presenting. For example, you've deemed the New Madrid seismic zone[0] as "safe", despite multiple M7-8+ earthquakes in the 19th century. The Cascadia subduction zone hasn't had a major event in 300+ years but no one considers that seismically safe. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Madrid_seismic_zone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Madrid_seismic_zone
        camgunz 2y ago
        (Sorry on phone) California famously also has earthquakes. You can't look at the USGS risk map and seriously say the risk between living in Missouri/Oklahoma and California is equivalent. Also I didn't include PNW states in the safe list. Also the NMSZ had only one >= 5.0 earthquake (5.4) in the entire 20th century. Also earthquake deaths are only around half wildfire deaths, and I'd guess the distance between them will only increase as wildfires are only gonna get worse. https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/hazard-map-2023-50-state-update-national-seismic-hazard-model-project https://www.usgs.gov/media/images/hazard-map-2023-50-state-u... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disasters_by_cost https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disasters_by_cost

steveoscaro 2y ago

New Mexico is pretty relaxed

block_dagger 2y ago

I tend to think many of humanity’s - and, by extension, the entire ecosystem’s - problems arise from overpopulation of homo sapiens. Perhaps the human race should depopulate entirely. Sadly, this won’t happen of its own volition.