Been thinking about time tables...

Specifically, in certain SHTF scenarios, how long before it would be safe to venture from your location and rejoin 'society'. Started thinking about it when I was wondering about how much supplies we would need for various 'doomsday' scenarios.

Now in a nuclear catasrophe scenario(whether a power plant is comprised by man or nature, or WMDs, doesn't really matter, the outcome is the same), I doubt it'd be safe to go out during the rest of my lifetime.

In a pandemic scenario, I figure(depending on the incubation period of course), that in 3-6months(based on previous ones and the global everyday travel that we didn't have then), the majority of it would be over.

EMP issue, I've heard estimates that it would take the US 10years to rebuild the power grid(which is kinda funny, because by then I think those with a brain will either already have their own power source, or be used to doing without).

Other things like famine, volcanic eruptions, another civil/revolutionary war, etc., I view those as having so many multiple factors affecting the severity and affected locales to give any sort of reliable estimate. I am not including other natural occurences because A: I hate the words 'natural disaster' for stuff like this, especially when it's used by people who live in areas commonly hit with the same type, and get all bent out of shape every time it happens. To me a natural disaster is when people poison the planet, and B: earthquakes in L.A., tornados in the Midwest, hurricanes in the Southeast, they are not uncommon and tend to be localized with short-term damage(well it would be short-term if government wasn't such a you-know-what...are there still places in New Orleans that never got cleaned up after Katrina?).

 

Minimum 18 months after a major scenario before we leave our redoubt, barring any extraordinary occurrences.

 

Ok thanks. 18 months...I'd need alot of epazote(herbal Beano) for that long, if there were threats of outside air not being safe.

 

are there still places in New Orleans that never got cleaned up after Katrina?

Yes there are, you do know that Kat hit Mississippi not NOLA right?

NOLA was manmade.

 

Sorry, chief.

Sorry Chief, primary impact was New Orleans. Sure a vast amount of damage done was because of man-made issues but Katrina Bullseyed the Big Easy.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremeevents/specialreports/Hurricane-Katrina.pdf

 

And the levees broke because they were only designed for level 3 they got hit with level 4 or 5 (IIRC)

 

I was in New Orleans in May, and yes there were LOTS and LOTS and LOTs of vacant space, and places that were never rebuilt.

 

Ok shippy, I wont argue exact landfall coordinates other than the chocolate city was not ground zero.
The primary reason that NOLA and surrounding wards suffered the deaths and flood destruction was manmade.

 

....and the corrupt Levee Boards mismanagement

Orleans Levee Board - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Nice bit of info. However, corroption of any kind, will not strenthen or weaken a floodwall beyond it's ability to hold. The end result was, it got hit by a bigger storm than it was designed to protect against. It COULD not hold.
The Big Easy is below sea level, due to the land subsiding. Water will ALLWAYS try to seek the lowest level. The board may not have taken the job seriously enough. (Easy to second guess from here) but physics broke the levees, not man.

 

Oh the boards took their job real serious, which F.B.I. , maintained the pumps, hunted the nutri rats etc... , had to get their cut.

I submit that the corruption was the enabler leading up to the failures, Kat was just mother nature's vehicle.

 

The walls simply were not strong enough for what they got hit with. Anything else, is just a contributing factor.
Just like a car sliding.on Ice, it doesn't matter how good your brakes are, if you can't get enough traction, you are still going to hit. Those walls were only designed to protect to a level #3 storm. That is not what they got hit with. Even if everything had worked perfectly, they still would have breached.

 

Ok you win. Nola and her wards taint worth getting into a pissing match over.

 

There is no pissing match. Just an exchange of opinions. Now if you want to get into conspiracy ideas, we have a "Tinfoil Lounge" for that. You will find everything from sunken power pyramids, to aliens there, enjoy.

 

Thanks but no thanks!

 

Now there WERE conspiracies flying about the levees being blown by government agents, and such...you sure you don't want to take the ball and run with it in the TFL?

 

Uh............................nope!

folks give the guburnment' way too much credit

 

They don't need credit, they just print more money.

 

That's your safest bet. My concept of a survival scenario is a biosphere.

Montreal Biosphère - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The trap with questions like this is there are way too many variables to give an accurate answer. You won't know the answer until you know the answer. Anyone who gives a definitive answer is steering you wrong with completely made up, random assumptions.

It's not like a math equation with a calculable solution that can be replicated across any other problem and always be true. There is no proven standard that says "for xx situation lay low for xx period of time", or "xx amount of time will get you past anything."

There are known numbers one can take into account, such as how long an area remains radioactive or how long a storm is expected to last, but until and unless you know what your specific situation exactly is (and you likely won't know until you are actually in it), there is no realistic way to foretell how long you'll need to hide.

My answer: Prep to be on your own for as long as you can and hope that it's enough. There isn't anything else.