Where to move?

[Anonymous No.317122]

It seems the quality of life where I live is about to take a very serious turn for the worse due to a major gas well boom in the entire area. After researching all the other places in the USA that have had the exact same booms I've come to the decision it is time to get the fuck out of dodge.

I'm innawoods right now, in an area where the population density is around 2 people per square mile. It was once a really nice place here. you could fish, hunt, and farm. Now you can't even eat fish out of the streams and most of the deer are really sick with something that makes their hair fall out; some peoples' pets and farm animals have the same problems. There's already 10,000s of wells around here and I don't know a single person that doesn't have one either on their land or can't find one after a 5 minute walk from their house. All of those are shallow wells. The deep wells are now starting to go in and there's several thousand of them slated to be drilled. A recent one took all the water out of the local city's water supply lake and left it almost bone dry.

I want to move someplace that doesn't have a lot of hot natural resources, there's a low population, the weather is temperate to tropical, and there's lush vegetation. I want to be able to drink the ground water and breath the air without worrying about endangering my immediate health. Here's some maps I've compiled together. I'm trying to get a sense of the healthiest locations in the USA.

Any tips, /diy/?

[Anonymous No.317128]

>>317122
>not a lot of hot natural resources (no idea what exactly this means, but assume it refers to thegas faggotry)
>low population
>temperate to tropical
>lush vegetation
>able to drink teh ground water
>breathe healthy air

Texas hill country. You have described the Texas hill country. This are includes Austin and San Antonio, but outside those two cities is a shitload of low populated land with rivers running through and shit.

[Anonymous No.317131]

>>317122
Come to the Pacific NW. If you want to live in a city, that's cool, we got those. Wanna suburb it up, we got those too. Wanna get a cabin on the sound with nobody around for a mile or two? 's cool we got that too. Want rain? Fuck you, you get rain.

[Anonymous No.317154]

bump for similar interests. Me and the Mrs. have been throwing around the idea of visiting, with the intention to feel out for relocation, the Pac NW. The only thing I can think of that is better in Chicago are lack of earthquakes. I could probably get over it.

[Anonymous No.317155]

>>317131
>Wanna get a cabin on the sound with nobody around for a mile or two? 's cool we got that too.
Yeah, if you can afford to drop half a million dollars or more on a parcel of land. Land prices in the PNW are fucking shameful.

[Anonymous No.317162]

detroit

[Anonymous No.317170]

why limit yourself to 'Murrika?
i hear New Zealand is quite decent. so is Australia. or what about so tropic British Isle?
or you could study a new language and scout out southern Europe.
>rural france
>rural Spain
>etc

[Anonymous No.317178]

i wana move from ohio to northern canada. dobody will bother you can get lost for miles inna woods

[Anonymous No.317185]

>>317170
Europe is the US resource and space issues but tenfold. Trust me, I must know, I'm European. Some places are fucking CRAMPED. The only option is the Scandinavian wilderness or the vast lands of Mother Russia, but you really wouldn't wanna live in the latter.

[Anonymous No.317187]

>>317170
You cant legally move to Europe without a work visa, for which you need a guaranteed job offer from a government approved employer. That's the simplest way to put it, there are a few other regulations depending on the country.

[Anonymous No.317190]

>>317122

erm, the type of place you describe is EXACTLY where high populations tend to form precisely because of those conditions.

[Anonymous No.317207]

>>317155
Yeah, it is. I'm partial to the more inland areas. But my SHTF innawoods plan involves finding an estuary on the sound.

[Anonymous No.317208]

San Luis Obispo, CA

It's the happiest city in the United States.

[Anonymous No.317210]

>>317128
I've been to the Big Bend area many years ago. It was the more desert-like section of Texas obviously. I have a friend that lives in Texas now.

>>317131
lol I have a good friend who's son lives in that area. It does sound pretty good actually and she may be moving there herself.

>>317170
>why limit yourself to 'Murrika?

I'm certainly not. Though, starting research and asking questions more locally helps the flow without being overwhelmed with information. Similar maps as the OP maps for the South of France look promising. The problem is that France is battening down the hatches it seems in regards to foreigners moving in.

>>317190
Historically, populations follow resources.

[Bob No.317267]

i dont think it matters. wherever you live will soon be suburbs. and you will just be one of those guys moving into the country and developing it.

[Anonymous No.317283]

North canada, avoiding the energy sites which are not into.
There is lots of fucking room out there, 10s of miles from anybody.

[Anonymous No.317293]

>>317210
Well, if you were to consider Australia, it meets all of your requirements.

Speaking of my state (Victoria) specifically:
We don't have very many gas fields. Most of the natural gas is harvested further north (NSW and Queensland).

The population density in Australia as a whole is nothing compared to the US. You could go to other states that have less dense population, but you'll likely see nothing but red sand for kilometres.

Earthquakes are a non-issue. To the point that we joke about it. We had one in Victoria earlier on in the year that was the biggest one in ages. The carnage that was left was pretty much some shit getting knocked off supermarket shelves.

There are no nuclear power plants in Australia (which I think is pretty shit, personally).

Coal is big in Victoria. But all the plants are in Gippsland. So don't go to Gippsland and you'll be right.

Air quality is quite good in rural Victoria. Not the best in the country, but a long shot better than most of the US.

Australia, on a global scale, has tiny co2 emissions. Despite that, the government still introduces hard line policies to further reduce it. So I wouldn't worry about emissions.

Given your criteria, I'd suggest the Murray Outback region of Victoria (North-west Victoria).

[Anonymous No.317307]

>>317293
You forgot the spiders, the snakes, the cane toads, the killer sea life, aaaaaaand the Hot, Arid, killer and unforgiving climate. Enjoy your skin cancer.

[Anonymous No.317315]

>>317307
...So it's Texas with a slightly bigger salt-lake?

[Anonymous No.317319]

>>317122
Happen to live in NEPA?

[Anonymous No.317321]

>>317307
The only spider that will fuck you up in Victoria is the funnel web. They are starting to come down from NSW. Not too many of them around... yet. Red back bites suck major arse, but probably won't kill you. Same with white tails. Those big arse spiders you've seen pictures of on the internet are non-venemous and uncommon to see in that size. No cane toads in Victoria. No killer see life. It's not too hot in Victoria. Around 30-35 degrees C in summer. Around 10 in winter (colder if you're out in the bush). Snakes? Eh. I've only seen maybe a half dozen in my lifetime. All the real bad ones are further north, anyway.

Everything you think you've learned about the country was likely fed to you by a pack of city boys trying to talk up their country to make it seem like they're bad arses for having to endure the million dollar eastern Melbourne suburbs with their parents.

If you really wanted to make a detracting statement about the place, you would have been better off mentioning the bush fires. They're a real problem, OP. Keep a radio handy.

[Anonymous No.317330]

http://www.survivalblog.com/retreatareas.html

[Anonymous No.317338]

So hello to your new neighbors

[Anonymous No.317348]

>>317338
I could handle that.

[Anonymous No.317415]

If you can take the cold then upper peninsula of Michigan

[Anonymous No.317420]

>>317415
I can't. Winters are long enough where I live. Only now instead of 2 feet of snow each winter we get tons of rain and mud with maybe 2 inches of snow for a couple weeks. It is like winter died. Hell we used to get snow by the first of October, yet today it has been in the 70F-75F range all day long.

[Anonymous No.317436]

Seems to me northern Arizona would be a good place for you to check out. Miles of ponderosa pine forests, clean dry air, etc. etc. I'd move up there in an instant if it wasn't for lack of employment opportunities.

[Anonymous No.317450]

>>317330
>http://www.survivalblog.com/retreatareas.html
>As a Christian
stopped reading there.

[Anonymous No.317464]

>>317128
I live in the hill country, the best thing about the area in my opinion is the wonderful spring and fall wildflower blooms.

[Anonymous No.317475]

I honestly never even noticed that little religious commentary in there. I nonetheless found the info useful, despite that brief interjection in the beginning by the author.

[Anonymous No.317534]

OP, im not american but going off your map, that state seems best off. Good air, no earthquakes, no gas fields, low population density, 1 nuke plant, no coal plant, low co2 emissions.

[Anonymous No.317547]

>>317534
>South Dakota

Nothing on the http://alerts.skytruth.org/ map either for that state.

The only down side seems to be weather. The land reminds me a lot of the land in TESIV:Skyrim. lol

[Anonymous No.317548]

>>317534
South Dakota sucks. It's half rocky, barren, incredibly dry wasteland and half prairie/farmland. If you really, really, really want to live in the middle of nowhere in the US in a state that's not Alaska then South Dakota is a good bet, but you should be sure to first look into why, exactly, thousands upon thousands of pioneers came to the state, said "nope, we're not fucking living here" and kept going.

[Anonymous No.317551]

>>317548
There's some really nice parkland there. Mount Rushmoore and that giant statue of Crazy Horse that is under construction is there. If they ever complete it, I think it'll be the biggest statue ever created.

[Anonymous No.317560]

>I want to be able to drink the ground water and breath the air without worrying about endangering my immediate health.
>disregard pollution
>acquire parasites

[Anonymous No.317565]

>>317450

Wow, that's actually a really informative page. It's too bad your bigotry doesn't allow you to view it. I bet you're a real hit at parties!

[Anonymous No.317566]

>>317128

San Marcos, Texasfag reporting in

I agree, OP. You want to move to the Texas Hill Country. Anywhere west of Interstate 35 and north of Interstate 10 will do for you. There's a gigantic fucking aquifer right under my feet, there's no oil/gold/ore in these here hills, and the only real export is granite, and cattle.

This is really the only area in the country that's temperate and has no fucking resources. If you don't mind colder weather, Colorado, Utah, and Arizona?New Mexico (mountainous forrested parts) might be for you.

[Anonymous No.317571]

>>317547

>OMG YOU'RE RIGHT

Well fucking hell! I'm moving to South Dakota

[Anonymous No.317574]

Californian here.
I wouldn't really worry about earthquakes anywhere.You're only going to get a big on about every 15-20 years. Even then, if your house is up to modern safety codes, you're not going to have too serious of damage unless an insanely powerful one hits right under you.
As far as I'm concerned a moderate earthquake every few years sure as hell beats tornadoes or hurricanes every year.

[Anonymous No.317590]

>>317574

It's funny how a certain part of /diy/ constantly worries about very unlikely or even impossible things like societal collapse, end of the world and zombies. And then we have guys like you who says that a very real risk of losing your house and even life is nothing to worry about.

[Anonymous No.317592]

>>317560
Parasites are easily filtered out. Pollution you get from gas wells can't be filtered out and can kill you in short order.

Check this out,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01EK76Sy4A

That is what happens from local gas well drilling. That video comes from the documentary, "Gasland".

Another,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6G6Ap-mF0k

Lighting the water on fire is the least of the problems. It's the stuff you can't see, smell, or taste that causes permanent damage toy our nervous system and brain.

>Fracking Hell: The Untold Story
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEB_Wwe-uBM

[Anonymous No.317594]

>>317122

If you're willing to give up the "temperate climate" part, northern New Hampshire is a great choice.

[Anonymous No.317595]

>>317128
>>317566
You two completely ignore those maps didn't you? What isn't covered by one map is covered by another. Drilling there is really bad too.

[Anonymous No.317611]

>>317590
>a very real risk of losing your house and even life is nothing to worry about

It's nothing to worry about because you have a better chance at wining the lottery twice than dieing in an earthquake. As long as you're in a well made building and aren't an idiot.
Of course there's always a chance the big one is going to hit and level your town, but there's also a chance a meteorite can hit your house.

There's a chance of natural disaster anywhere.
Earthquakes hit relatively infrequently and most of the time do minor damage.
The last big earthquake here took a total of 60 lives and that was 18 years ago. I was roughly 20 miles away from the epicenter and all I had to deal with was a jar of pennies that fell of a night stand.

[Anonymous No.317614]

>>317611
>and aren't an idiot
>Earthquake

I'm sure Mother Nature will be convenient enough to wait for you to get yourself situated and ready before shaking things up.

See, you are actually being an idiot and not realizing it.

[Anonymous No.317812]

>>317590
My family has lived on the west coast for over 100 years and not a single one of them died to or lost their homes due to an earthquake. On the otherhand, we have lost property due to real problems like flooding, yet you dont seem to have any problem what so ever wanting to live near a body of water.

Earthquakes happen, they are easy to prepare/protect against and they arent nearly as noticeable as tv and movies make them out to be. It's more dangerous to live near a river than to live directly on a fault line.

[Anonymous No.317819]

>>317812
>>317590
>>317574
OP here.

The reason I had an earthquake map wasn't to avoid earthquakes. It was to avoid areas where there are nuclear reactors that are in earthquake zones.

[Anonymous No.317824]

Pffft. If we had more nuclear reactors, we wouldn't need all these gas wells.

[Anonymous No.317826]

>>317819
Washington only has a few reactors. Wish it was more but what can ya do.
I'm pretty sure we're mostly hydroelectric, or at least parts of Washington is.
And the theory is that having two land plates instead of one actually reduces our earthquake risk.

[Anonymous No.317827]

>>317824
Not really true at all.

Regardless, the main trouble is the way we use energies in the first place. All industry is built around growth as the business model. Growth needs to stop.

[Anonymous No.317836]

>>317827
Nonsense. The cheap natural gas from this drilling boom is being used to generate lots of electricity. A lot of coal-fired plants have been shut down in favor of the cleaner natural gas turbine plants, and the low gas prices have even claimed their first nuclear plant victim, as the Kewaunee nuclear plant in Wisconsin will be shut down because that small plant is no longer competitive.

[Anonymous No.317837]

>>317836
I-ARG. How do they not see that fission power is still more environmentally friendly than gas or coal?

[Anonymous No.317855]

>>317827

>growth needs to stop

OH THANK YOU! i rant at this all the time and people look at me like i'm nuts. expecially 'growth' within the corporate paradigm, it's insane, plainly insane and untenable.

'growth' in a larger sense is often fine; 'growth' in a looser (or more local) sense is really a shift of focus, energy, or market. The world is now a closed system to a large extent.

[Anonymous No.317866]

>>317592
Did you know that such phenomena are naturally occurring and not related to gas drilling? There is a steam near where I live. It is call oil creek. Before they started drilling for oil in the 1860's, oil would seep out of the ground and flow into the stream. Nothing lived in it, and today it would be a superfund cleanup site. Once they sucked all the oil out of the ground the seeps stopped and the steam cleared up.

Don't take gasland as your sole source of information on the gas industry. At the same time don't listen what the company spokesperson has to say. Drunk Texans driving big trucks on winding PA roads, and dumping on untreated frac water are much bigger concerns than polluted aquifers. If aquifers got polluted as often as people think, no one in PA or Texas could drink well water.

>>317855
We have a choice to make. We can either stop placing growth over everything else, or we can expand into space which will allow for easy access to rare resources while pushing technology forward.

[Anonymous No.317878]

>>317836
>>317824
You don't get it.

Nuclear is not the fucking answer. It is part of the problem. Coal, Nuclear, Natural Gas, and even active solar are real problems. It is because of growth and what we already use and how we use it that is the biggest problem.

We need to stop using so much power for every damn thing. There's so much waste, not just in actual personal electrical use, but in all forms of resources and waste. We don't know how to stop it seems.

In 1950, the world's population was 2,557,628,654 people. I'm over 30 years old. 30 years ago in 1982, the world's population was 4,613,830,568 people. Now the population is now over 7 billion people. Hell, it has gone up an entire billion since 2000. It'll go up at least another 2 billion in my life time.

We don't need more energy, we need less energy, and less growth.

Humans are a god damn disaster happening before our very own eyes.

[Anonymous No.317881]

>>317866
I fucking live right in the middle of the redzone you fucking moron. I've seen this shit happen to my neighbors, family, and friends' lands and well water. I'm in the hot zone. This shit is real and happening really fucking fast now.

My own well water is now starting to smell and taste "funny". I've stopped drinking it. I still shower in it, but I'm going to stop doing that too. I'm already hauling in all my drinking water.

[Anonymous No.317903]

Protip: Nuclear power is way safer than the media and your grandma have led you to believe.

The meltdown in Fujushima was a show of just how safe it is.
There was a 10 foot wall of concrete between those Japanese people and anything that could've hurt them.

[Anonymous No.317906]

>>317903
You know what? I'd rather use passive solar energy generation.

[Anonymous No.317908]

>>317906
Me too, but we have to use all our options

[Anonymous No.317925]

South dakota's about as innawoods as you can get OP. Also a good thing to note, its far enough inland to not be underwater an the coming decades like a majority of coastal cities.

[Anonymous No.317937]

>>317908
No we don't.

[Anonymous No.317940]

OP here.

In the mail yesterday I got a notice from some gas alliance about the Q&A session at one of the town halls. Funny thing is I only got it 1 hour before the event was over. I had not planned to go because I knew about it in advance, but the fact they sent them out so late is laughable.

Also, when I got home today there was a message on the voice mail from EQT about leasing my property. Also, a few miles from here one of my relative's neighbors just sold out and a well is going in about 1200 feet from her house.

This shit just started like wild fire this year. Fuck.

[Anonymous No.317948]

>>317122
>I want to move someplace that doesn't have a lot of hot natural resources, there's a low population, the weather is temperate to tropical, and there's lush vegetation. I want to be able to drink the ground water and breath the air without worrying about endangering my immediate health.
Apart from the "tropical" bit, Idaho or Oregon would fit what you're looking for nicely.

[Anonymous No.317954]

>>317595

No no, they Texas Hill country is south and west of that

[Anonymous No.317956]

>>317614
Not being an idiot has more to do with strapping down large objects to the wall and not having heavy pictures or glass above your bed.
During the Northridge quake I had a friends parents that were luckily out of town when it hit. They had a big piece of decorative etched glass right above their bed. It broke into a few large piece and impaled the bed right where they would of been sleeping.

>>317819
Nuclear reactors are pretty much just as safe as anything else in an earthquake. The Fukushima disaster was caused mostly by the tsunami. Although I'll admit I wouldn't want to be near a reactor if one hit.

[Anonymous No.317959]

>>317906
Nuclear, Solar, and Algae based oil are the answer.

Anyone who says Nuclear is bad (The exception being >>317878 types, whose problem isn't "hurr nukes r bad iran gonna do anudder holocaust", but "humans suck") is completely retarded.

[Anonymous No.317987]

>>317903
This. Scare tactics are always used against nuclear power.

On another note, why the fuck isn't anyone using geothermal?

[Anonymous No.317990]

>>317878

Retards like you are the problem.

We aren't even a proper level 1 civilization on the Kardashev scale yet. In a few hundred years people will look back on Luddite retards who preached that we should scale back our energy use and laugh.

We need to use more energy and we will develop it. The road might get a little bumpy, but soon enough we'll master fusion and leave fission, fossil fuels and this silly solar and wind power fad behind.

As for growth. We haven't even gotten our civilization off this one starter planet yet. We have an entire universe to grow in. All we need is more energy and better technology to get there.

If we had space travel on par with modern air travel, you could see millions of people emigrating off world every year.

More people, more energy, larger resource base to draw on, faster expansion and acceleration of technological advances. But I guess hurr durr too many people, they all be breathing mah air is easier for retards to understand.

[Anonymous No.317993]

>>317987

There are a lot of limits to geothermal power. Mainly it's only good for certain sites, and many of those sites are not geologically stable.

[Anonymous No.318015]

>>317993
Ah, I see. I remember hearing a little about it and then nothing else.

[Anonymous No.318019]

>>317959
Everyone who works at a nuclear power plant in the United States are Homer Simpsons.

[Anonymous No.318027]

>>317959
>>317987
Nuclear is bad because it creates too much waste.

>>317990
>We aren't even a proper level 1 civilization on the Kardashev scale yet.

There's a big difference between expanding into outer space and completely destroying Earth's environment. Growth is only good if you have a place to grow. Space is the only answer for humanity in respect to continual growth. Growth on Earth however is finite. Only a fool or a strawman would think otherwise.

We need to stop growing on Earth, reach an equilibrium, AND grow into space. Not completely max out the planet and be FORCED into space; which is what a child would do.

[Anonymous No.318031]

>>317906
I agree. Solar, wind and hydroelectric energy are all that we need. Nuclear energy should only be used as a last resort if the other three fail to meet their demand.

[Anonymous No.318032]

>>317987
>>317993
Geothermal is passive and quite fine. There's more to it than hot stuff coming out of the ground. You can use geothermal just about anywhere you can dig in the ground. It doesn't need to be an geothermal active site.

[Anonymous No.318036]

>>317987
I forgot to mention geothermal in this post:
>>318031

[Anonymous No.318042]

>>1
I just divided by zero.

[Anonymous No.318057]

>>318031
So long as it is passive solar it is good. Active solar with PV cells is a real environmental mess. This is due to the materials that go into making the PV cells and the mining required to get them.

Essentially they are part of the blood minerals group. Passive solar at least doesn't need those sorts of materials.

[Anonymous No.318058]

>>318027
>too much waste
If you had two power plants, one nuclear and one coal, and they produced the same amount of power, the coal power plant would use a train-car full of coal a day. The nuclear plant would use a train-car full of fuel a year.
Also, nuclear pollution is a lot easier to deal with than global warming.

[Anonymous No.318077]

>>317881
If you feel you have a problem get it tested then. There is close to 8000 feet of solid rock between your well and the frac zone. The only possible spot for frac water to leak into the aquifer is if 2 layers of cement happened to have an 8000 foot vertical crack.

The only time the aquifer is exposed is during the first phase of drilling and cementing. No drilling mud is used in this phase because of the risk of contamination. They use compressed air to remove the rock chippings until they drill past the aquifer and cement that stage of the well.

These wells are drilled horizontally starting at 6000 feet. A well pad has 8 to 12 wells within a 25x25 foot box. Any leaks through the cement is going to be limited to the nearby aquifer

>>317878
We have made great strides in energy efficiency in the last 30 years. Cars go twice as far on a gallon of gas. Computer power consumption peaked in 2004 and has been declining ever since. LED light bulbs use 1/10th the power of incandescent bulbs.

Nuclear power can be safer if passively safe designs(AP1000, LFTR, ect.) are used and old reactors are decommissioned. The waste can be taken care of if we re-process spent fuel. The current fuel cycle in the US is like taking 3 bites out of hamburger and throwing it out while still being hungry.

[Anonymous No.318088]

>>318058
>Only a fool or a strawman would think otherwise.

So, you chose the strawman argument. Anon, stop that. The point is not to use such polluting power plants in the first place. Don't use coal and don't use nuclear. Fuck both of them.

[Anonymous No.318090]

>>318058
>A typical nuclear power plant in a year generates 20 metric tons of used nuclear fuel.

http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/nuclearwasteamountsandonsitestorage/

Just don't use either one.

[Anonymous No.318100]

Even counting events like Chernobyl and the modest amount of waste that is produced, nuclear power is still the safest form of power we have. Based on death rates, it's even safer than wind, solar and hydro.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

[Anonymous No.318104]

This thread sure took a turn.

[Anonymous No.318196]

>>318077
>description how the well is done

Ha, if it only worked as well as all that. The track record is abysmal.

[Anonymous No.318200]

>>318100
>deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source

More strawman arguments? How about not using strawman arguments, anon? You aren't talking to children here.

[Anonymous No.318213]

>>318200
How the fuck is that a strawman you fucking retard?

>>318090
>one shipping container a year
>problematic quantity of waste
GO HOME MARXIST PIGU!

[Anonymous No.318225]

>>318213
An now ad hominems. Stop posting in this thread.

[Anonymous No.318230]

>>318225
... that wasn't me. Although I do endorse his POV.
Anyways, nuclear waste is a lot less environmentally damaging, in the short term. And it makes as much energy as we'd want it to. And it doesn't require fucking up the environment on the level of coal mining or fracking.

[Anonymous No.318263]

>>317571
Hi, I was born and raised in South Dakota and I just want to tell you something. Don't fucking move to South Dakota.

There are two nice parts of South Dakota, the Black Hills and the Missouri River Valley. This is also where most of the population is centered. The rest of the South Dakota is dry grassland and scrub desert.

Don't like cold winters? Don't move to South Dakota. When I was atalented /diy/erthey regularly called off school because skin would freeze on contact with the air. You get the short end of the stick in the summer as well, 100+ summers, droughts and wildfires. And let's not forget tornado season. South Dakota is Mother Nature's weather proving ground.

The reason South Dakota is so sparsely populated is because most of the state is fucking inhospitable.

Mining companies have been tearing up the Black Hills for most of the last two centuries (that's where I grew up) and the river valley is slowly being taken over by suburban "bedroom community" sprawl.

There aren't very many good paying jobs because the mines are starting to be tapped out, there's a little industrial production, small farmers have been forced out by Agribusiness and every year the state's income relies more and more on tourism. The only reason South Dakota weathered the banking collapse so well is because their economy was already dead to begin with.

Don't move to South Dakota....it's an AWFUL FUCKING PLACE.

I say Texas hill country or the PNW, but just please....not South Dakota.

[Anonymous No.318275]

>>317170
Southern New Zealand is awesome, all kinds of crazy natural beauty, sparsely populated but good intercity buses if you need to travel, people are friendly as fuck.

Problem is that it's really fucking hard for American's to get a resident visa these days. The best most could do is a three month tourist visa. You could stretch that to six to nine months if you stayed under the radar working the wine country (a lot of students do this) but they will eventually catch up to you and ask you to leave.

If you don't have a "valuable professional skill" your best bet is some kind of outdoor guide skill. When I was in Franz Josef I met a guy from Delaware who had been there for a few years taking tourists up the glacier. FJ is a pretty remote little town, but there's a constant stream of tourists through it.

[Cheshire Cat !!GnpRNMAnL6W No.318276]

>>317464
>>317566
Damn, more hill country bros than I'd expect.
>tfw 10+ acres, and still less than an hour from Austin

God I love central Texas

[Anonymous No.318295]

Back to OPs question. Can't help with murrika because I don't know enough. As an ausfag, if money isn't tight then south west australia is good. Mainly moderate climate, sparse population but prices are high. North Island New Zealand is better but probably best of all is rural france but towards the south. Moderate climate, plenty of forests and rivers, ample fishing, wild boars and deer to hunt, low land prices and many cheap buildings (eg barns) to convert.

[Anonymous No.318322]

>>318200

You do know that deaths per terawatt hour is statistical data, not a straw man argument, right?

Pic related.

[Anonymous No.318328]

according to Sperling's Best Places. The five safest cities in the U.S. as far as natural disasters are:

Honolulu, Hawaii
Boise City, Idaho
Sante Fe, New Mexico
Yakima, Washington
Spokane, Washington

Although I certainly wouldnt recommend Santa Fe or Yakima, unless you like gang violence. But as far as Natural Disasters, no hurricanes, no earthquakes, no tornadoes, no serious thunderstorm/fire dangers....the most you have to worry about really is the occasional blizzard (or tsunami for hawaii)...and the very very very rare volcanic explosion.

[Anonymous No.318359]

>>318276
>10+ acres

You say that like it's something to be proud of.

[Anonymous No.318417]

>>318322
It is strawman because the point is not to use nuclear, coal, natural gas, active solar, etc.

You seem to forget that you need big mining operations for the fuel for nuclear and for the quartz to make silicon for solar PV.

[sage No.318423]

>>318200
I don't think you know what a strawman is.

[Anonymous No.318430]

>>318423
I don't think you how sage works.

A strawman is using a point of argument that has nothing at all to do with the original argument point in order to discredit the original argument. It is a logical fallacy.

Your post is an ad hominem and adds nothing at all to the discussion.

[Anonymous No.318457]

>>318430
"You're wrong because you're a retard" <-- ad hominem
"You're a retard because you're wrong" <-- NOT A FUCKING AN AD HOMINEM, YOU RETARDED FUCKING CUNT

[Anonymous No.318458]

>>317122
>It seems the quality of life where I live is about to take a very serious turn for the worse due to a major gas well boom in the entire area.
you're an idiot op. quit acting like a hippie, quit smoking pot, go down to one of the oil companies making millions in the boom, tell them you want to be a roustabout, enjoy not being a worthless piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.318461]

>>318430
And you arguing by pointing out just the logical fallacies adds nothing to the discussion either. Also, what he is saying DOES add to the argument that "nuclear is safe and/or better for the environment" by showing that the plant itself is safer than a similar coal-fired plant. Combine this with the fact that nuclear uses less rocks to produce the same amount of energy than coal, and we can find those rocks all over the US, meaning that mining for fuel for the reactor is easier than and less environmentally damaging than coal mining.

Nuclear also damages the environment in a way that is a lot easier to deal with than fossil fuels. I can leave radioactive shit alone for a while and the problem solves itself.

It's not perfect, but it produces a lot of power for relatively low cost.

[Anonymous No.318528]

>>318461
OP here.

Get the fuck out of this thread with this shit.

[Anonymous No.318888]

>>317187
Are you fucking serious? I'm trapped here?

[Radiofag No.318896]

>>318200
>claim an energy source is unsafe
>statistics show the energy source has the lowest death rate in the world by many times
>strawman
wat.

>>318032
Geothermal is one of the worst emitters of hydrogen sulfide (roughly as deadly as cyanide) and radioactive radon in the world.

>>318077
Your analogy is a little overgenerous.

Current generation light water reactors are less than 1% efficient...even with that in mind, it is still one of the cheapest power sources in the world.

Also, for recycling, approximately 92% to 97% of waste can be recycled back into commercial fuel. The other 2% to 7% can be utilized for other industrial / medical purposes, with less than 1% truly being "waste".

And the "waste" isn't always a bad thing. At the end of the actinide cycle road, all elements will reach stability in the form of lead. So in short, some of what you may be removing from the spent fuel is actually harmless Pb (lead).

[Radiofag No.318897]

>>318896
The 92% to 97% statistic by the way is from COGEMA (now AREVA), the French energy conglomerate who owns the La Hague reprocessing facility in Normandie. It is one of the largest commercial energy reprocessing facilities in the world.

[Anonymous No.318921]

here's your answer OP

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSt0NEESrUA

[Anonymous No.318948]

>>318896
Fuck you, Radiofag.

>wat.

Listing bullshit statistics about generalized energy sources when talking about environmental impact in order to show nuclear is better is strawmanning. You see, in-situ leach mining, will be safer since no one goes underground to mine, but its impact on the local environment is terrible.

I'm not taking a trip ITT but it seems I should have. I advocate passive solar, passive geothermal, wind power, and only certain types of hydro power (ocean wave, Run-of-the-river hydroelectricity, small and micro hydro). These are the least polluting, least environmentally invasive methods of energy generation. They require the least amount of mining too.

Not all Solar, hydro, geothermal, and wind methods are the same at all.

Nuclear requires invasive mining such as open pit, tunnel mining, and in-situ leach mining. In-situ leach mining, if you don't already know, is a type of hydrofracking similar to oil and gas hydrofracking.

>Geothermal is one of the worst emitters of hydrogen sulfide (roughly as deadly as cyanide) and radioactive radon in the world.

Not passive geothermal. It has nothing to do with open vents or anything coming out of the ground in any capacity that you describe,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heat_pump

>The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has called ground source heat pumps the most energy-efficient, environmentally clean, and cost-effective space conditioning systems available.[27]

>spent fuel is actually harmless Pb (lead).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead#Health_effects
>Lead is a highly poisonous metal (regardless if inhaled or swallowed), affecting almost every organ and system in the body.

So, yeah, fuck you.

>>318921
>Alaska

That, like South Dakota, does not meet my weather standards.

[Anonymous No.318962]

>>318948
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heat_pump

That type of heat pump can be used to supplement--or if you're lucky, replace--a building's climate control system (which is awesome), but it still requires energy to run.

And you will not be generating any electricity with one. I'm not sure why you brought it up as an alternative way to generate power when it is no such thing.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead#Health_effects
>Lead is a highly poisonous metal (regardless if inhaled or swallowed), affecting almost every organ and system in the body.

>So, yeah, fuck you.

Do you honestly think that the miniscule amount of lead produced by nuclear energy would be anywhere close to an environmental hazard? Do you not understand that lead is naturally occurring and quite common pretty much everywhere? And, on top of that, is ridiculously easy to contain?

[Anonymous No.318965]

surprised no ones mentioned South Carolina. Great place

[Anonymous No.318972]

>>318962
>Do you honestly think that the miniscule amount of lead produced by nuclear energy would be anywhere close to an environmental hazard? Do you not understand that lead is naturally occurring and quite common pretty much everywhere? And, on top of that, is ridiculously easy to contain?

This. The steps if you want to contain lead are basically

1) Put it somewhere that isn't a lake or aquifer where drinking water is drawn from.

2) THIS IS IMPORTANT: don't use the lead to make pipes or solder for pipes that will carry drinking water.

That would be if anyone even wanted to contain the lead. It's still used to make tons of stuff or as part of various alloys so I don't see why it would even need to be contained.

[Anonymous No.318974]

>>318965
Hurricanes man, disqualifies.

[Anonymous No.318977]

Why don`t you have a water fliter and purifying system and an enclosed gardening green house so your plants are not affected?

>>317122

[Anonymous No.318986]

>>318962
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heat_pump
>That type of heat pump can be used to supplement--or if you're lucky, replace--a building's climate control system (which is awesome), but it still requires energy to run.
>And you will not be generating any electricity with one. I'm not sure why you brought it up as an alternative way to generate power when it is no such thing.

It's saving massive amounts of energy though, which is functionally equivalent to generating energy. Stop strawmanning my arguments.

[Cheshire Cat !!GnpRNMAnL6W No.318993]

>>318974
Name a state without some type of natural disaster...

Up north has snow and mudslides. Coasts have hurricanes and tidal waves. Most people don't like the deserts of north Texas, AZ, an NM. Faultlines lie across the country.

[Anonymous No.319016]

>>318986
This is my first post in this thread, but can you please stop saying anyone that disagrees with you is making a strawman?

You're going to get it put on the word filter, just like that other guy who was a bit too keen on a certain word.

[Anonymous No.319080]

>>318974
well that may be the case on the coast but look further upstate. lush vegetation, lots of land relatively cheap and no form of natural disaster.

[Anonymous No.319124]

>>319080

Everyplace has something. Floods, extreme winters, tornadoes, earthquakes, plague of hipsters, no place is 100% safe. They idea is to pick the disaster you can live with.

[Anonymous No.319147]

>>318962
>>318972
The lead isn't contained. It gets reused in brass water pipe fittings (via a legal loop hole) in the USA as well as any thing else that lead is used for..

[Anonymous No.319148]

>>318986
How about stop pretending you are me?

>>319016
You got trolled I'm afraid.

[Anonymous No.319260]

>>318948
>Nuclear requires invasive mining such as open pit, tunnel mining, and in-situ leach mining. In-situ leach mining, if you don't already know, is a type of hydrofracking similar to oil and gas hydrofracking.

Coal mining uses many of the same techniques. You end up with mine subsidence, acid mine drainage, and underground fires like the one in Centralia PA. Uranium/thorium mining gives you a raw ore that has more energy pound for pound that coal.

[Anonymous No.319265]

>>319260
Yes, that is true.

However, I still say that you shouldn't be using coal OR nuclear. Advocating either one is balls out retarded.

[Anonymous No.319287]

>>319265
The sun does not shine 24 hours a day, nor does the wind blow all the time. The efficiency of any solar power system drops like a stone once clouds block the sun. Batteries are woefully inadequate to meet the storage needs of modern society. Tidal power is limited to coastal regions and all rivers that could be dammed have been dammed. The world is not going to live the Amish do.

The best way forward is to use all possible energy sources. Keep developing "green" energy while cleaning up conventional sources of power. Rather than focusing on cutting CO2 emissions, resources should be put towards mitigating the effects of climate change. In the future, geo-engineering projects should be done to reduce the level of CO2 in the atmosphere to bring the climate back to pre-industrial levels.

[Anonymous No.319311]

>>319287

Actually most of the geoengineering and CO2 stuff is bullshit. A CO2 level of around 1,000ppm would be optimal for plant growth and agriculture while having no effect on human health.

The nonsense about costal cities and sea level rise is maddening. No coastal city is going to be coastal at the onset of the next ice age anyways.

Your point about solar and wind being useless for baseload power is spot on though. Treehuggers don't seem to understand that you have to have baseload power to sustain an energy grid.

The environmentalfags are a plague on humanity, as all the energy sources they advocate are seriously limiting to our civilization. Wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, etc... none of those things will get our civilization to the next level, and none of them will get us off this planet. Their philosophy seems to be to bury their heads in the sand and be content to die quietly in some kind of retarded idealistic nature preserve.

[Anonymous No.319313]

>>319147

>That would be if anyone even wanted to contain the lead. It's still used to make tons of stuff or as part of various alloys so I don't see why it would even need to be contained.

[Anonymous No.319317]

>>318993
USA seems really scary. Here natural disasters are pretty rare. Hurricanes, tornados, floods, tidal waves, never had anything apart from a few piddly storms.

If USA is so crazy then I suggest moving away from the states.

[Anonymous No.319438]

>>319317
>USA seems really scary
It's really, really not. About the only places that actually get really bad weather semi-regularly are the southeast (hurricanes) and the midwest (tornadoes), and even then most of the time they hardly do anything. Compared to other regions of comparable size and location, the USA actually has a pretty good track record with natural disasters. I'd be much more worried about living in China.

[Anonymous No.319446]

[Anonymous No.319464]

>>319446
Colorado, here I come!

[Anonymous No.319468]

>>317565
you... thank you

[Anonymous No.319476]

A friend of mine told me tonight that she's selling out ASAP and getting the hell out of the red zone. I think she's moving to Seattle..

[Anonymous No.319556]

>>319438
Midwest here. Tornadoes are sorta common in certain areas, but they only affect small areas. Getting hit by a tornado takes some crazy odds. Midwest is great: good aquifers (in places that aren't getting overdrawn by cattlers), great soil, good climate. Only problem is land prices. Agribusiness is snatching up all the flat land they can find.

[Anonymous No.319567]

According to Fox News, there are tons of jobs in South Dakota (and implying that unemployed people are just too lazy to move to where there are jobs).
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/11/where-unemployed-can-find-unfilled-jobs-across-america/

[Anonymous No.319588]

>>319464
Colorado is a fucking awesome place depending on where you live. If you go too far East you run into tornadoes and if you go too West you'll have your house lit on fire. Have healthy air and aside from some mad men in the state lately and no lush vegetation its pretty nice

[Anonymous No.320232]

>>319556
>Agribusiness is snatching up all the flat land they can find.
It's no better in the mountains and forests out west; ever since the "run to the woods with a duffel bag of shit when IT'S HAPPENING" thing caught on land prices have been through the goddamn roof - and the places that are second-rate are usually bought out by fucking gas companies.

[Anonymous No.320259]

>>317122
If you can handle cold, move to Canada. Only the cities really have people in them, rural Canada has shit loads of resources but regulations mean that you could live by wellheads or mines (people regularly do) with no issue. Only thing you need to worry about is sour gas in some regions but those pipes are inspected regularly.

The mountains/foothills and the shield are some of the best areas in the country, full of forests and large lakes. Fishing and hunting are amazing up here.

It only starts getting cold if you head north of Edmonton or live out in Winnipeg, just dress accordingly

[Anonymous No.320261]

>>319588
A few warnings about Colorado -- The altitude in Colorado makes the air dry as shit, winters are a bitch, and you have to be REALLY healthy not to have breathing problems there. I nearly died from altitude sickness in that hellhole, and will never go back. To add insult to injury, I went there to see the mountains, and you can't even see them from Denver because of the smog.

[thatguy No.320263]

Move to Australia - but we're kinda socialist, it sounds like that's what your after though.

[Anonymous No.320286]

Around where that most southern nuke plant is in Georgia. Just under the bad air, out of the minor earth quake zone, and isnt too over populated. Nice big open spaces in Georgia, tropical when it rains, but Georgia gets less Hurricanes than other states that border the Atlantic.

[Anonymous No.320288]

>>320261
The trick is to drink lots of water. LOTS