Hmm. I see your point. A gun can be useful no doubt. A necessity. Hate to think what an urban landscape would be like with no water available to anyone. I'm just thinking. After two weeks of no/dwindling water, how are gangs of looters going to sustain themselves?

That's why I don't think the suburbs will necessarily be sacked like in a bad movie. The population density is much lower than the inner city. I don't think people basically stuck on foot with no water can move very far or very fast and they will be looking for one thing - water. Not something anybody associates with a housing tract once the water pressure is gone.

Lakes, rivers and highways could become kill zones as desperate people fight for what little bit of moisture they can steal from the next guy. I think the regular places people live now will be quickly abandoned to the very few who have stored emergency water supplies.

"If you are truly convinced that such a catastrophe is likely, it might make sense to try, somehow, to make a transition to a more rural lifestyle now. Certainly there are risks in the country too; it's not by itself the answer to the survival problem."


I'm not convinced this catastrophe will ever occur, but the peak oil argument is strong enough that it's reasonable to make some preparations. The food storage/hide strategy is preparation for possible quick catastrophic energy/transportation/infrastructure collapse. Also, this action is useful for other potential disruptions ie. earthquake, terrorism. For me, there are too many hypotheticals in the peak oil argument to consider such a drastic step as moving. My hesitation is that the theory is too dense with statistics. Statistical analysis is fraught with manipulation, exagerration, gaps, false data and misinterpretation. So, while I believe it is reasonable and credible to some extent, it lacks certainty for me. Now if I was planning a big change anyway, I would definitely think more along the lines of people in this forum and consider relocation of my family into a less densely populated area.

I found this comment to be quite insigfhtful.

Some of the 'big' peak oil sites are full of deceivingly simple numbers and equations. at some level you have to take matt simmons at face value, because you have limited ability to independently fact check him or second guess his numbers or reasoning.

also, while i find matt savinars site to be full of great information, i also recognize he must be a good lawyer, which immediately makes me suspicious.

Unless people believe that the (water) situation is only temporary. What will the government AM radio Emergency Broadcast System tell us? "Don't panic! The water shutoff is only temporary! Please remain in your homes! Water will be restored within 24 hours! Emergency drinking water is being distributed as we speak!" Then the 24 hours will be pushed out to 48, 72, etc.

I'm not sure of the exact science on this, but I believe after about 72 hours, nobody will be hearing goverment bullitens, because they will have all died of thirst. Humans can survive without food for weeks and even months, but without water I believe it is less than a week.

A week, last time I checked is 168 hours.

They have pulled people out of earthquake buildings over a week afterwards who were surviving on condensation and rain.

don't overlook container gardening. you can grow an incredible amount of vegies in containers.

From www.health24.com

"Under mild conditions a fairly healthy individual can go around a week without water. But if people are subjected to high temperatures, it’s impossible for the human body to survive more than a few days."

Using this as a basis, perhaps we could estimate an average of 4 or 5 days before people become desperately thirsty. I'm assuming average outdoor temperatures, the fact that some liquids will be available to most for a few days at least and perhaps some helping rainfall. Between 7 and 14 days I would guess people would start dying of thirst in large numbers. I assume roads will be generally impassable in population dense areas. The initial traffic jams would be bad enough. Once a few cars break down or run out of gas, then nothing will move, leaving people to travel almost solely by foot or bicycle. This makes you safer the farther out from the urban center you are. I think it will be very hard for inner city dwellers to move very far from the city under these conditions.

You can go a lot of hours on the water in your water heater and toilet tanks. Providing you suspect you are in a long term cut off situation and start conserving immediately.

Remember, don't drink from the radiator, guys.

"Some of the 'big' peak oil sites are full of deceivingly simple numbers and equations. at some level you have to take matt simmons at face value, because you have limited ability to independently fact check him or second guess his numbers or reasoning.

also, while i find matt savinars site to be full of great information, i also recognize he must be a good lawyer, which immediately makes me suspicious."


I agree. Savinars and Kunstler are very smart guys, but their polemics have an overbearing quality and undermines their credibility somewhat, as far as I'm concerned. There are few "on the other hand, you could look at the same number another way" moments in their writings. Every statistic quoted fits their argument perfectly every time. I'm a little mistrustful of people who are so intelligent and persuasive that you get the feeling they are such good debaters that they could at any moment turn around, take the other side and argue it just as convincingly - like you said, they would both make good lawyers.

I think theres too much evolving around the water issue.If it comes down to suburbia losing its water supply for more than thirty days,well I think TSHHTF and its going to be wild wild west .
I also disagree that all people will flee.Many will stay as long as they can and scrounge their general area because thats their habitat.if they dont have a destination,they will stay and do what they can to survive there.They will be creeping.
If you really want to secure your water supply,dig a hole in the yard and bury a plastic 1000 liter tank.they are pretty cheap.

I wasnt serious about the zombies smoking you out of your home.But then again,anythings possible over there.

I’m not sure what could trigger a long-term Supermarket-Runs-Out-of-Food scenario, let alone societal collapse. At any rate, I’m not sure I agree with sh2 this time regarding people leaving the city. First, where are they going? Second, just like Daryl, they are attached to their homes and most don’t really know any other way than city ways. And third, many folks who live in the country today have no more experience in how to get buy without a supermarket, commuter job and riding lawnmower than the average suburbanite – they would be moving TO the city.

There are bad people in the country as well as in the city, the only advantage in the country, it seems to me, is there are fewer of them and most people are expected to be able to arm themselves. But no matter where you live, no amount of hiding will keep you safe if people can see your belongings. In the event the thin blue line is erased there will simply be no safe place – end of story.

Personally I don’t see that as likelihood, but if you do, it only seems prudent to learn to defend yourself with force, in what manner is up to you.

However, short-term, localized scarcity and unrest due too natural disasters, strikes, riots, embargos, wars, etc, are certainly possible, so water storage/collection and storing and using the foods you normally eat seems only sensible. Perhaps as well is a modest amount of fuel so if the situation becomes dire you can at least get down the road a ways.

But remember, even in a national fuel shortage scenario there will be fuel available for a price, so there will be food available for a price – don’t forget to store some greenbacks along with your green beans.

I may have been misunderstood,

I think people should plan on staying where they are. If you live in the city, just stay there. If you live in the country, stay there. Stay with people, places that you are familiar with. I also think any kind of shortages will be long lived (be it food or water). I advocate fire extinguishers for several reasons, if there is a natural disaster or any type of disaster, you may have to get out of your home before or if there is no fire service (maybe its overtasked?). I have three kids, and a fire extinguisher in the bedrooms, kitchen, living room (fireplace) is a good idea for any reason.

An evac plan is good idea for lots of reasons - fire, robbery, earthquake, tornado etc (keep in mind my evac plan for kids was somewhere within a block of the home). Its a place and way that all the family can link back up at a known place if they get separated for any reason.

Yes, I agree sh2.

If events overtake you stay in the place where you are familiar. Personally, I think the current situation will be painful but temporary unless everyone is lying – well, lying more than normal.

It worries me though that my predictions from a year ago have come to this point so quickly. I grew up on a farm with parents used to a rough life, read and piddled around a lot while on the merry-go-round and now that I’ve half jumped – half fallen off I have a better start than some.

I still hope it will be several years until a fairly constant decline sets in and someone with real energy, dedication and desire can make a place somewhat isolated from the centers of conflict.

But unless you have a better place to go stay where you are – but don’t wait for the .gov to come to your rescue; start preparing today.