
Ben Waylin
Banned
Well-known member
Head for the hills and start building guys!!

Head for the hills and start building guys!!
We'll be dead by the time that's a problem.The apocalypse is upon us. It’s now been confirmed that the DOOMSDAY GLACIER will melt. Sea levels will rise by 17 feet. But, long before the 17 foot rise, the massive influx of fresh water into the ocean will kill off all sea life and most of humanity.
Now would be a good time to start building your domicile of impenetrability. Head for the hills and start building guys!! It’s upon us!!!
Ahhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!
Water, wood, game. I keep thinking about renting your cabin, 100/mo.I have limestone filtered springs and caves in the middle of the country and you are all invited in the event of Armageddon![]()
There won't be any electricity but bring your amps anyway so we have something to talk about.
FWIMBW, salt water into fresh is far more detrimental to aquatic life than fresh into salt.It’s now been confirmed that the DOOMSDAY GLACIER will melt. Sea levels will rise by 17 feet. But, long before the 17 foot rise, the massive influx of fresh water into the ocean will kill off all sea life and most of humanity.
Yes I always buy my tuna in brine rather than in oil. The tinned tuna is healthier that way!FWIMBW, salt water into fresh is far more detrimental to aquatic life than fresh into salt.
Every marine and reef aquarium I've kept has been run with a specific gravity (density / salt-content) reading of 1.020 rather than the typical 1.025 (Kg/L - distilled water is 1.0 'cause it contains no minerals).
That's 20% less salts than normal sea water. Fish are way-more-relaxed.
My justifications were complex and too much to get into here. Suffice it to say that fish spend an awful lot of energy maintaining a correct blood / tissue balance of minerals in the face of the enormous osmotic pressure imposed by sea water. Super-tough on the kidneys.
Of course, the further back in time you go, the less-salty the oceans were, for obvious reasons, another consideration in my decision.
Why's that? I'm guessing because are somewhat insulated in the interior of the continent and have access to agriculture and whatever else could be produced in a SHTF?Montana or ND would be a better location. Unless you just want to impress people by buying Hawaiian real estate.
It has it all. It is a long story. For another time. Just try not to get banned OK.Water, wood, game. I keep thinking about renting your cabin, 100/mo.
I was joking, haha. My friend is constantly sending me doomsday prophecies. His newest one is the doomsday glacier. I’m sure what he fails to mention is that by the time it melts 15,000 years will pass, or some such thing.FWIMBW, salt water into fresh is far more detrimental to aquatic life than fresh into salt.
Every marine and reef aquarium I've kept has been run with a specific gravity (density / salt-content) reading of 1.020 rather than the typical 1.025 (Kg/L - distilled water is 1.0 'cause it contains no minerals).
That's 20% less salts than normal sea water. Fish are way-more-relaxed.
My justifications were complex and too much to get into here. Suffice it to say that fish spend an awful lot of energy maintaining a correct blood / tissue balance of minerals in the face of the enormous osmotic pressure imposed by sea water. Super-tough on the kidneys.
Of course, the further back in time you go, the less-salty the oceans were, for obvious reasons, another consideration in my decision.
I always thought a good location for a survival bunker is in a sparsely populated area, rather than a popular tourist site. It just makes no sense to me.Why's that? I'm guessing because are somewhat insulated in the interior of the continent and have access to agriculture and whatever else could be produced in a SHTF?