Did This “Nuclear List” Really Forget The Obvious Texas Choice?
It's not something any of us are excited about. The idea of a nuclear disaster or war is terrifying. With everything that has been happening in the news, of course there would be articles about the "worst places to be" in the event of a nuclear attack.
But did they really miss the obvious choice in Texas? It seems so.
15 Worst Places To Be In A Nuclear Attack
So, an article and a study were recently published about the worst places you could be in the event of a nuclear catastrophe. They listed the 15 worst places to be when it all goes apocalyptic.
Texas did make it on the list. You can get all of those details here.
However, the Texas location they picked wasn't the one that we all would have expected.
How Does Pantex Not Make The List?
We're all familiar with Pantex and what they do. If you aren't, here's a link and I'll let them explain it in their own words. Spoiler alert; it involves nuclear weapons.
It's a part of life in the Texas panhandle. I've always heard it said that the Texas panhandle is a major target if a conflict were to ever arise.
So, why didn't the Texas panhandle make the list?
I Suppose, Our Chances Are Better Than Houston's
Which is the area that did make the morbid list. In compiling this list, they looked at things like population density and how easy you could evacuate.
I'm no expert, but I figure rush hour traffic is worse in Houston compared to what we'd see here. Also, I'm sure we've got plans in place. Plus, I'm sure it's a lot more crowded down there than it is up here.
Still it's hard to believe nowhere in the panhandle made the list.