[norwaypinesavage]

Putting nuclear powerplants as a con, rather than a pro tells me that the rest of the article is not worth reading.

[brivette]

I agree.

[chiller]

ditto. worthless. Tsunami's in Oregon ? Isn't much of the Oregon coastline a rocky bluff where a tsunami would have absolute zero impact.

or the New Madrid fault in Mizzou (and one other) are not reasons to downgrade a rating.

Nucleur plants are a positives. Author has a real problem with nucleur energy as Yucca Mtn. in Nevada was also cited as a con.

In my AZ. case, and many western states, he neglected to mention the virtual absence of mosquitoes. Damn, I hate mosquitoes. And I used to hate feeling trapped indoors for several months a year, and hassling with everyday existence in rains, snow, etc.

We've had a chance to visit many regions, cities over the last few years, gotten to know many cities..mostly in the south. I like 'em all. North Carolina ranks well imho.... and Tampa also stands out as a city.

[Armando Guerra]

I think the nuclear power is listed as a negative because of the premise of the article which is: where do you want to live that would be a good place to hunker down in the case of a natural disaster or civil emergency (zombie apocalypse) scenario? In light of Japan's meltdown I might agree that living next to a nuclear power plant can have risks. I don't think the author's methodology, factors considered or conclusions are accurate or anything more than his personal opinion. However, I was hoping that the article would have resulted in a more enlightening discussion on the topic of what factors to consider and places to have in mind in the event the SHTF scenario unfolds. This seems to be an article from a preppers blog.