XPost: alt.building.construction, alt.trades.construction.us, alt.survival   
   XPost: alt.construction, alt.talk.weather, rec.travel.usa-canada   
   From: johndoe@nowhere.com   
      
   "Hatunen"  wrote in message   
   news:dc7j32hj8aqisd59k970206q2qm831si53@4ax.com...   
   > On Sun, 09 Apr 2006 15:39:56 GMT, "Frank F. Matthews"   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >>Your map shows the line for cold as much too far north.  It shows the   
   >>line for hurricanes as much too coastal.  Your earthquake area should   
   >>show almost all of the US except for a bit of coastal TX and part of   
   >>FLA.  You left out Tsunamis, sink holes, & volcanos.   
   >>   
   >>Basically your best bet is to die young.   
   >   
   > Some places are both hot and cold. When I lived in Richland,   
   > Washington, the winters could be bitterly cold, but it got up to   
   > the likes of 113F in the summer.   
      
   Bitterly cold? Well, maybe relative to Tucson, but not to other parts of the   
   US.   
      
   I think the OP eliminated Washington state for extreme cold, not realizing   
   how much warmer it is west of the Cascades. But, of course, we're   
   disqualified because of earthquakes.   
      
   When I lived in LA, it wasn't only the earthquakes. There were also grass   
   fires and landslides. For all the picture of idyllic weather there, lots of   
   (natural) bad stuff can happen.   
      
   To the OP, regarding wood houses. They're the best thing in an earthquake.   
   Bricks and stones, if not reinforced properly, shake apart. Stick-built   
   houses are lightweight and nailed together in a semi-rigid framework; they   
   withstand quakes quite well. 2 caveats: the wood house must be bolted to its   
   foundation or it just slides off. And all too often your house does fine,   
   but the brick chimney falls over on the house.   
      
   Marianne (in Seattle)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)