Yeah. You all may've read the articles or caught something online by now. Some folks have speculated and calculated and surmised which cities would fair better than others if there ever were a Zombie Apocalypse. Whether it's coming from Cornell or CareerBuilder [[and I can tell you as an occasional job seeker that CareerBuilder-like most job search sites-does not get it at all), I just don't think it's all that well thought out.
According to the theories, Boston is supposed to be tops [[Now, who really came up with this study?-some M.I.T. guys? Yeah, thanks for the Smoots and laser satellites that can fry the Yankees cap off someone's head or burn crop circles in some gullible schmuck's field, but I think you Beaver kids got to lay off the chemicals.). Now, folks familiar with my rants with think I'm just axe-grinding as usual on Beantown, but that's not the case. While I agree that Boston would probably be tops in racing to find a cure [[if not being the cause)-even if it means academics from Harvard, M.I.T., or B.U. experimenting on a bunch of homeless, mentally challenged children, or terminally ill patients [[like they did in the '40s and the '50s with radiation) to do this.
I also see Boston as being very dense and thus, hugely vulnerable to mass infection. My health did not fair very well there [[even with Masshealth), and I contracted a viral infection every two months [[along with a kidney stone and an U.G.I. blockage-which were all new to me) when I was there. Rats also dominate [[giant mean sarcastic ones, bigger than your boot) the areas there, so that would be an adverse element to avoid, as that would spread more infection and diminish food supply.
What does Boston have? The Charles River to keep Zombies at bay [[pardon the pun)? I have not read fully from those zombie survival books, but it's my understanding, that zombies can lurk underwater and grab at you. Also, Boston is a very tight and tiny town with narrow streets that intersect oddly. This makes for poor fleeing [[much less any form of half-hour high-speed chases despite what the news may report). One wants wide open areas to see them coming, otherwise it's "Goodbye, Glenn!" [[poor Glenn). God forbid you pull an early Romero and use fire to keep them back. You'll end up torching all of Beacon Hill and the North End with wandering fireballs.
It also mentions Baltimore as tops; better have a sledgehammer to break into those bricked-up abandoned buildings. Doesn't surprise me that N.Y.C. and Chicago got ranked poorly, but what really irks me is that Detroit ranks so low [[which brings me to the point about this). We have open areas. We have buildings to shack up in. Our low numbers would guarantee less spread. As long as all our radio shows don't all end up pre-recorded, at least the word will assuredly get out. I actually think that due to all the traumas we've been through and keyed-up awareness we possess, we wouldn't be caught off guard, and we'd have a good defensive strategy. I just think were more industrially resourceful, and those familiar with enduring poverty under their belt here would fair better than any of those Listerine-drinkers passed out on the lawn of Cambridge City Hall.
One of the studies suggested that we would be good at containment. You hear that? We are good at quarantine or lockdown for a zombie apocalypse [[or God only knows-something else....).
Like I said: I haven't read up on the survival books, and I'm sure there are many factors I'm overlooking. Yet, I just don't think we would make #41 in best city for surviving a zombie apocalypse. http://www.freep.com/story/news/loca...ival/74813206/Any thoughts [[and hold the typical crackhead jokes, please)?
