Where to retire early

jtmax said:
That Canada fire was a rare event, almost an anomaly but I supposed things can get worse with climate change. NY is humid in summer and that reduces chance of fires so it's not a bad place to retire if you don't mind the winters and humidity in summer.
Click to expand...
I wasn't talking about fires...talking about moving to the UK.
 
jtmax said:
We're parsing semantics here. Not sure why but smoking and alcoholic drinks deliver toxic chemicals to your body. It is in small enough amounts to not give you immediate health problems but it does degrade your health over time. It's not all black and white when it comes to toxic chemicals. More you take in the worse for your health over time. It's personal priority. I you don't mind breathing in lots of fire smoke then so be it. I personally prefer to try to be as healthy as possible as I get older.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree that any continuing "insults" to the body have potential for long term consequences.

My "thing" in relation to this thread is that CO2 levels are not really a health issue under "smokey" skies. As mentioned, we breathe out almost 40,000 ppm of CO2 so if ambient CO2 goes up to 1000ppm, your body won't know the difference and you won't have lasting damage from it.
 
jtmax said:

This is the typical air monitor. CO2 is almost all the ones I've seen. I have one in fact and it has 9 different detection including CO2. You might be confused with air CO detector/alarm.
Click to expand...
I postulate that the only reason to measure CO2 with such an instrument is to determine if you are changing the room air often enough. The actual CO2 as such is not an issue under any normal circumstances. If you happened to see CO2 creeping up to higher levels, you would know that you are not mixing much outside air with the inside air (which could build up CO2 from those breathing inside.) Once more: CO2, as such, is NOT an issue under normal circumstances - including near forest fires.
 
Cayman said:
Areas along the "bench" in Utah (foot/lower part of mountain) offer amazing views with nice temperatures. If you want cooler temps, move up the mountain. Warmer? Desert? Big cities? Rural mountain towns? In-between? Utah has it all, take your pick. Considering your posts, I think you'd enjoy the diversity in the greater Salt Lake City area it is definitely an energetic mix. Very good healthcare in SLC, University town, upper moderate COL and amazing lifestyle. 30 minute drive from urban fun in SLC to numerous mountain towns + resorts. Air quality is an issue, AQI is reported live online and you might choose to live in an area that has good scores and visit other areas.
Click to expand...
I think people considering their retirement in Utah (especially southern part of it) need to look into the nuclear test exposure map carefully: Impacts of Radiation from Aboveground Nuclear Tests on Southern Utah - Utah Department of Environmental Quality
 
Alex The Great said:
I think people considering their retirement in Utah (especially southern part of it) need to look into the nuclear test exposure map carefully: Impacts of Radiation from Aboveground Nuclear Tests on Southern Utah - Utah Department of Environmental Quality
Click to expand...
What is YOUR take away from the report regarding living in Utah? I've looked into deposition though out the USA from that period when above ground testing was conducted. Even the Midwest received relatively high doses of fallout. Lots of thyroid cancers have been linked to such fall out though no one case (mine included) can definitely be linked to such testing. It's a statistical link.

One of my Health Physics teachers suggested that SOME exposure is actually good for us (human kind) since we evolved with significant background radiation (all but the man-made stuff listed in the handy-dandy pie chart.) I'm not in that camp, but I didn't see data in the report suggesting that Utah is particularly hazardous due to 60 year old tests but I didn't screw on my HP hat either.

Clearly, EVERYWHERE has more nuclear waste exposure now than existed 80 years ago but is it actually something to be concerned about when choosing a place to live (So far, I don't think they are offering condos at the actual test sites.) :cool:

IIRC there are maybe a couple of days a year when the public can actually visit the Trinity site at ground zero. I think that would be kinda cool. I'm no longer worried about my thyroid.
 
Last edited:
Koolau said:
What is YOUR take away from the report regarding living in Utah?
Click to expand...
All I wanted to say is that there were nuclear tests conducted in Nevada between 1951 and 1958, which affected certain parts of Utah. It seems southwestern part (St. George, etc.) affected more than others, although some traces found in SLC-Provo-Ogden area. The dose is pretty small but I believe it is important to know about it when making a decision to relocate there.
As regarding other parts of country, I'm not aware about any nuclear tests of the same intensity compared to Nevada in 50th.
 
Alex The Great said:
All I wanted to say is that there were nuclear tests conducted in Nevada between 1951 and 1958, which affected certain parts of Utah. It seems southwestern part (St. George, etc.) affected more than others, although some traces found in SLC-Provo-Ogden area. The dose is pretty small but I believe it is important to know about it when making a decision to relocate there.
As regarding other parts of country, I'm not aware about any nuclear tests of the same intensity compared to Nevada in 50th.
Click to expand...
My point was the above ground tests spread fallout all over the USA (and the world.) Also, most of that fallout has "half-lifed" itself to trivial back-ground levels. Except for a few persistent (long half-life radionuclides) I don't think I'd worry too much about even St. George. BUT YMMV.
 
RetiredHappy said:
I visit St George every year. I have only passed through Salt Lake City. I like St. George and it's ahout a 2-hr drive from where we live in Henderson NV. We live in a beautiful area as well. You can check it out, lakelasvegas.com. We are 10 degrees hotter in the summer. St George, Utah's weather is a little cooler. We do go away for the summer for a month or two to get away from the heat.
Click to expand...
Checked out the del Webb community at lake Las Vegas last yr. It’s on my list if I want to deal with the heat ( I did live in Vegas and az for a short time, including summer). Love the proximity to Vegas without being in Vegas. Catching a boxing match or a raiders game would be on the todo list.
 
Heat is not the only problem Las Vegas has. Health care is not up to the high standards. For me, this is a big NO in my list.
 
Alex The Great said:
Heat is not the only problem Las Vegas has. Health care is not up to the high standards. For me, this is a big NO in my list.
Click to expand...
It is a perception by outsiders that our health care is not "up to high standards". We wouldn't have so many uber wealthy people living here if that were to be true. My PCP and specialists are better than those whom I had when I was living in N. California. They are far superior. Similarly, with my husband's doctors. We do have a concierge PCP, and have the best specialists who would see us quickly. We never have had long waiting periods to get to see our doctors. It's OK, please stay away. :)

My husband caught norovirus, likely on the plane ride over to sign closing documents on our first home here. That evening he was throwing up and I was trying to drive him to the ER. I stopped right outside one of the casino hotels while he threw up. Hotel security came out and called an ambulance right away. He was taken to the hospital and was in the ER while they attended to him, he blacked out many times just before throwing up. It was very scary. Anyway, he was discharged the following morning and I got him back to the lodging.

Separately, I was in a severe golf cart accident, paramedics got me to a trauma level 2 hospital, and was immediately wheeled in for CT scanning of my head and body. I was given round the clock care while in ICU for a day and a half before sending me to the floor for trauma patients. I had the best care, with 3 doctors and many caring nurses tending me to me during my stay. I had 5 broken ribs, in multiple segments, large larcerations of my liver and a perforated lung.
 
Last edited:
Alex The Great said:
All I wanted to say is that there were nuclear tests conducted in Nevada between 1951 and 1958, which affected certain parts of Utah. It seems southwestern part (St. George, etc.) affected more than others, although some traces found in SLC-Provo-Ogden area. The dose is pretty small but I believe it is important to know about it when making a decision to relocate there.
As regarding other parts of country, I'm not aware about any nuclear tests of the same intensity compared to Nevada in 50th.
Click to expand...
Nuclear test was done in NM first and there are nuclear waste repository in NM. So I think NM is a concern for me.
 
Koolau said:
I postulate that the only reason to measure CO2 with such an instrument is to determine if you are changing the room air often enough. The actual CO2 as such is not an issue under any normal circumstances. If you happened to see CO2 creeping up to higher levels, you would know that you are not mixing much outside air with the inside air (which could build up CO2 from those breathing inside.) Once more: CO2, as such, is NOT an issue under normal circumstances - including near forest fires.
Click to expand...
"
Exposure to CO2 can produce a variety of health effects. These may include headaches, dizziness, restlessness, a tingling or pins or needles feeling, difficulty breathing, sweating, tiredness, increased heart rate, elevated blood pressure, coma, asphyxia, and convulsions.

The levels of CO2 in the air and potential health problems are:

  • 400 ppm: average outdoor air level.
  • 400–1,000 ppm: typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange.
  • 1,000–2,000 ppm: level associated with complaints of drowsiness and poor air."
I actually get high blood pressure and dizziness at 1000 ppm. I monitor the CO2 at work and when it gets close to 1000 that's when I have a problem. Wildfires can cause the air to get way above that. In 2018, 2020, and 2021 when we had orange skies in the fall from wildfire and ash raining down in silicon valley, I had the same symptoms with high levels of CO2. CO2 is just one of many chemicals that are really bad for your health from wildfire. It will increase risk of cancer and cardiovascular problems. Those happen to be 2 leading cause of death. Health is probably #1 on my list for retirement. Can't put a price on it. There are plenty of data on air quality for each area. I consider AQ to have substantial effect on health. We can buy or filter water or always get shop for healthy food but cannot choose air quality we breath where we live.
With that said I find 2 affordable suburbs that check off alot on the list and have good air quality and don't really suffer from wildfires:

2024 Compare Cities Health: Cedar Park, TX vs Fish Hawk, FL

Best Places to Live | Compare cost of living, crime, cities, schools and more.
www.bestplaces.net www.bestplaces.net
These places get hot in the summer but I spent time there and perfectly fine with doing water activities or using AC to get comfortable.
 
Koolau said:
I postulate that the only reason to measure CO2 with such an instrument is to determine if you are changing the room air often enough. The actual CO2 as such is not an issue under any normal circumstances. If you happened to see CO2 creeping up to higher levels, you would know that you are not mixing much outside air with the inside air (which could build up CO2 from those breathing inside.) Once more: CO2, as such, is NOT an issue under normal circumstances - including near forest fires.
Click to expand...
+1
Unless your home is hermetically sealed and has an air-lock to enter I don't know how CO2 can get to dangerous levels in the house. If it does either open the windows, buy a lot of house plants, or release some bottled O2 (that last one was not serious). What are you going to do? If it is CO then a detector is a good idea then do the same adjustments and look for the source of the problem.
 

Attachments

  • Where to move.png
    Where to move.png
    99.2 KB · Views: 20
Badger said:
+1
Unless your home is hermetically sealed and has an air-lock to enter I don't know how CO2 can get to dangerous levels in the house. If it does either open the windows, buy a lot of house plants, or release some bottled O2 (that last one was not serious). What are you going to do? If it is CO then a detector is a good idea then do the same adjustments and look for the source of the problem.
Click to expand...
It doesn't have to be hermetically sealed fo CO2 to go up.Source is human breathing. We can produce CO2 faster than CO2 concentration to equilibrate.
 
jtmax said:
"
Exposure to CO2 can produce a variety of health effects. These may include headaches, dizziness, restlessness, a tingling or pins or needles feeling, difficulty breathing, sweating, tiredness, increased heart rate, elevated blood pressure, coma, asphyxia, and convulsions.

The levels of CO2 in the air and potential health problems are:

  • 400 ppm: average outdoor air level.
  • 400–1,000 ppm: typical level found in occupied spaces with good air exchange.
  • 1,000–2,000 ppm: level associated with complaints of drowsiness and poor air."
I actually get high blood pressure and dizziness at 1000 ppm. I monitor the CO2 at work and when it gets close to 1000 that's when I have a problem. Wildfires can cause the air to get way above that. In 2018, 2020, and 2021 when we had orange skies in the fall from wildfire and ash raining down in silicon valley, I had the same symptoms with high levels of CO2. CO2 is just one of many chemicals that are really bad for your health from wildfire. It will increase risk of cancer and cardiovascular problems. Those happen to be 2 leading cause of death. Health is probably #1 on my list for retirement. Can't put a price on it. There are plenty of data on air quality for each area. I consider AQ to have substantial effect on health. We can buy or filter water or always get shop for healthy food but cannot choose air quality we breath where we live.
With that said I find 2 affordable suburbs that check off alot on the list and have good air quality and don't really suffer from wildfires:

2024 Compare Cities Health: Cedar Park, TX vs Fish Hawk, FL

Best Places to Live | Compare cost of living, crime, cities, schools and more.
www.bestplaces.net www.bestplaces.net
These places get hot in the summer but I spent time there and perfectly fine with doing water activities or using AC to get comfortable.
Click to expand...
I never attempt to tell anyone how they should "feel" but the PEL (Permissible Exposure Level for CO2 as enforced by OSHA is 5000 ppm.) That means, OSHA's limit can be experienced by a w*rker for 8 hours and they would not expect any adverse effects in "most" people. After all, when you exhale, you are exhaling almost 40,000ppm CO2. How does 1000 ppm (or even 5000 ppm) cause one problems? I'm not saying it can't or never does. I'm saying the limits were set for the average w*rker (doing light to heavy l@bor.)

My guess, if you are experiencing "issues" with CO2 at 1000ppm, then your "space" is tight enough to increase the CO2 to that level and some other "insult" is the cause of your issues. I've had to chase down "issues" in "spaces" before and have found some really bizarre situations that caused them. My favorite was a company library in which 3 empl*yees were experiencing dizziness, head aches, nausea and other more or less diffuse situations. We FINALLY found that people were having a "reaction" to one of the employee's leather coats! I'm not making this up.

My point - CO2 at 1000ppm may be a "signal" that your space is too "tight" and that other offending "smells" or "irritants" have become concentrated enough to cause a few people (you in particular) some distress that most people would not experience. The leather coat only affected 3 people if I recall correctly.

Anyway, here is the OSHA document that applies.


 
I don't know why you insist on debating what are data and scientific facts. The link I posted states that 1000 ppm can cause health problems. The air monitors indicates CO2 at 1000 ppm. If you understand physics or fluid mechanics you would understand that cracks in the building do not allow CO2 to equilibrate.
 
jtmax said:
I don't know why you insist on debating what are data and scientific facts. The link I posted states that 1000 ppm can cause health problems. The air monitors indicates CO2 at 1000 ppm. If you understand physics or fluid mechanics you would understand that cracks in the building do not allow CO2 to equilibrate.
Click to expand...
I have to say that I find Koolau's points far more compelling than yours on the whole. That said, I can certainly see that individually, you may be exquisitely sensitive to ambient levels of CO2. However, it is hard for me (and apparently many others) to believe that applies to many (or most) others. I'm totally fine with agreeing oto disagree. Peace.
 
jtmax said:
I don't know why you insist on debating what are data and scientific facts. The link I posted states that 1000 ppm can cause health problems. The air monitors indicates CO2 at 1000 ppm. If you understand physics or fluid mechanics you would understand that cracks in the building do not allow CO2 to equilibrate.
Click to expand...
And I posted OSHA regulations, so you use your data and I'll use mine. If you feel bad at 1000 ppm CO2, I won't dispute it.

I used to do this stuff for a living. I have the university degree and gummint certification and I used to teach it at the university level, but you do you and I'll do me.
 
Last edited:
jtmax said:
This list is somewhat useful but local area to live is more important.Culture, climate, crime rate, COL vary significantly within a state.
Click to expand...
Indeed they do! The one glaring exception, is state income tax.... which (unless there is also a local income tax) is uniform state-wide. This is going to particularly affect affluent retirees, who otherwise manage their expenses carefully (housing, transportation, entertainment,...). So for example, a resident of a tiny arid desert hamlet in California, near the Nevada border, will pay the exact same state income tax, as somebody in Atherton or La Jolla. Something to consider, for people in an "obese FIRE" situation (the superlative of fat FIRE).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Route246
Asset Allocation Rethink - Overweight Equities ==> Primary Residence Upgrade
pb4uski
pb4uski
M
Advice / Info on Where to retire in the US
4 5 6
anothercog
A
P
After 48 years, I am moving to another state!
2
Koolau
Koolau
Luvtoride
Worst States to Retire
4 5 6
Dtail
D
dirtbiker
Fat ER or earlier ER?
2 3
Koolau
Koolau

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom