patagoniax wrote:thisisreallycomplicated wrote:patagoniax wrote:4. If you are worried about your health, Chile is not the place to be.
Unfortunately there aren't many options left. How does it compare to Argentina?patagoniax wrote:5 In Chile, if it's a desert, it's toxic. There are other ways to say it, but in the end that is the message.
How far south do you have to go before it gets reasonably non-toxic, or is it bad everywhere?
You don't have to live in a desert or near mining. Many places in VII Región and southward with probably less toxicity, and most have easy access to water. Just bear in mind that commercial farming and some industries in Chile also contribute to the contamination landscape.patagoniax wrote:4. Unfortunately there aren't many options left. How does it compare to Argentina?
Argentine toxicity comes in more flavours, including how badly you can be treated by their government. In Chile, property and business owners suffered terribly 1970-1973 and that included theft by the government. In Argentina such things have continued to more recent times.
----
Isn't this the sort of thing you might like to do? Then why try to live in a place where it rarely rains and water is usually contaminated and hard to obtain?
No cacho.
Before the multiple melt-throughs (much worse than meltdowns) in Japan, it wouldn't have made much sense. But things are different now, and noone knows exactly where all that new contamination will go. Most of what's in the atmosphere should stay north of the ITCZ. But all that crap going in the Pacific is a different story. Anyway, some of the atmospheric contamination will probably get here, and that will come down with the rain. So now, learning to live and grow food in a desert actually makes some sense.
For some background:
Helen Caldicott:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ITrXVJMKeQ
A is for Atom:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2 ... _atom.html
And for some of the latest news:
http://enenews.com/



