Connect with us

Published

on

2.1K

Its happened. Its 28 Days Later, Night of the Living Dead, and The Walking Dead. Take your pick of any one of the other countless zombie apocalypse movies as your reference point, but lets say its happened and now you need to find the safest states in a zombie apocalypse to migrate to.

There are, of course, studies on this topic, but theyre flawed. Were going to look at why theyre flawed and then Im going to go into the details of my own study on this topic and go through the results that I find.

By the time youre done reading this article, youll have an understanding of my logic and Id appreciate it if you left a comment letting me know where your state ranked in my analysis and what if any criteria you think I should have included that I left out.

Alternatively, if youd rather watch than read, see my latest YouTube video on this very subject. Other Studies

Could a zombie apocalypse really happen? Its a reasonable question, but its a question that has different meanings depending on whos posing the question. Fans of zombie fiction post the question as a make believe, hypothetical imagination of a post-collapse world. Preppers, on the other hand, they often speak of the zombie apocalypse as a means to describe any type of situation where the collapse happens and everyone is fighting each other for survival. Its a safer way to describe what might one day come.

When people talk about the safest states in a zombie apocalypse, theyre often using criteria for the former, reanimated humans. The undead. That said, what makes one state safer in a zombie apocalypse also makes a state safer in a more real world collapse situation. A zombie reading zombie fiction.

Google best states for a zombie apocalypse and youll get a few results, most of which reference each other. There are a few problems with their analyses. For starters, theyre not studies performed by real preppers, so they just throw criteria at the study without really thinking it through.

The reason that they even do these studies is because their articles are whats called link magnets. Link magnets are articles that they hope other sites will link to. When that happens, it gives Google algorithm credibility to the site, making their sites rank higher in search results. And for them, it works. Unfortunately, theyre not reliable sources on this subject at all. CableTV

One of those studies is from the website Cable TV. Think about it, do you want to get your zombie apocalypse advice from CableTV.com?

You only need to look at their results to find out why their study is so flawed. Any prepper knows, California is about the WORST state in the nation to be in if you want to survive the apocalypse. If anything, the apocalypse will probably START in California.

Among the other worst states on their list include Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire. Look, if youre going to call my home state of Maine out for anything, youd better know what youre talking about. California is a safer state to be in than Maine during a zombie apocalypse? Pfffft!

What exactly is their logic based on?

To find out where the best place to survive a zombie apocalypse was, we looked at the population density in each state, the gross receipts of farms per capita, and the states electricity percentage from solar. https://www.cabletv.com/horror/doomsday-usa

I can get behind using population density as a metric, but there are problems with using gross receipts of farms per capita and the states use of solar power. The problem with using gross receipts of farms per capita, and thats probably a big reason why they listed North Dakota as the safest, is because this favors massive farming states where gigantic, industrial scale farms plant single-season crops of one, maybe two types, and rely on RoundUp or other pesticides and commercial fertilizers to make the crops grow.

What happens when the seasons seeds dont get delivered? What happens when RoundUp doesnt roll out?

Give these farms one season without being resupplied with seeds and chemicals and the farms are done. No new seeds to plant. No fertilizer to spread. No fuel to run their massive farm equipment. No pesticides to kill insects. There are not nearly enough people in these states to farm those same lands by hand even if they could. They might be able to process enough food for themselves, but so will people in other states. Being in a large-scale farmland state doesnt offer you an inherent advantage over some other state OTHER THAN that you have low population density, which well account for separately.

Similarly, what does it matter if a state gets a lot of its power from solar? For a zombie apocalypse, it doesnt matter at all. The entire grid is going to go down. Replacement parts, skilled workers, that grid isnt going to come back up for a long time, it doesnt matter the source. And if energy resources did matter, better to favor states that have coal resources like Wyoming, West Virginia, or Pennsylvania. Or maybe the most-forested states, like Vermont, New Hampshire, and the most forested state of all Maine! Lawn Love

Another one of the top results is from a site called Lawn Love whose study covers the best cities in a zombie apocalypse. Because nothing screams zombie survival expertise like a lawn care business

Granted, this list is on the best cities for surviving a zombie apocalypse, but look at the results. Number one is Orlando, Florida? Seriously!? There are 2700 people per square mile in Orlando. Their criteria include the number of supermarkets per 100,000 residents note: this doesnt account for the many thousands of TOURISTS that would be trapped around all the Disney resorts. The zombie apocalypse could very well START at Disney.

The Lawn Love studys criteria includes the number of homes with basements, kitchens with plumbing, the number of hospitals, etc. If theres anything Night of the Living Dead taught is its DONT go into the basement in a zombie apocalypse! Also, hospitals will be the WORST places to be in a zombie apocalypse. Thats where people will go once infected.

As I said, these studies are FLAWED.

Miami, by the way, they rank as the 8th safest city, ahead of Boise, Idaho. I dont know about you, but if Im given a chance to survive the zombie apocalypse and I can choose between Miami and Boise it wouldnt be Miami. Safest States in a Zombie Apocalypse My Results

Given the poor logic Ive found in other studies, I set out to conduct my own analysis. Not everything the other studies used was flawed, and I salvaged some aspects of those studies while tossing other criteria aside.

So, this begs the question, what criteria should be used in determining the safest states to ride out a zombie apocalypse. My Methodology Population Density

Certainly, population density should be near the top. The fewer people there are, the fewer zombies there are. Simple. This alone isnt enough, because if we look just at that, Alaska wins by a landslide, but you want a balance. Trying to eke out post-collapse life by yourself in the Alaskan outback good luck with that. Too many people means too many zombies, but too few people means too few resources and partnerships for survival. Gun Ownership

Many studies on this topic also reference gun ownership as a determining factor. This is a good factor to consider. It doesnt account for ammunition per capita assuming that can be measured but its probably safe to assume that the more guns a state has the more ammo it has. Ammo will only last so long in a zombie apocalypse, however. Then it comes down to citizens ability to FIGHT. Residents Health

Residents health should also be considered. The more fit the citizens are, the faster they can run, and the longer they can fight. Access to Water

Food is an important factor, so we could look at the length of the growing season, and that would favor states in the south, but dont underestimate the power of winter in a zombie apocalypse. Yes, it will be cold, but have you ever seen a zombie tr to move in knee-deep snow? Winter would be the perfect time to walk the landscape in snowshoes and drive a spear tip into the head of the undead. For that reason, Im going to value longer summer and longer winter equally and discard growing season as a factor.

Whats more important than the availability of food is the availability of potable water. Nevada is the 9th least densely populated state, but what happens after the grid fails the tap water goes off, and youre left searching for fresh water to drink in Nevada. Good luck with that.

So, lets see what we get when we run these four factors: Population density Household firearm ownership rates Population health Water resources

I weigh them all equally. Results

Here I entered all 50 states and where they rank under each category. You can see the sources for my numbers here.

The lower the number the higher the rank, so if I total a states rank in each category and divide by four, I then have the states overall rank.

I sort the total score column from low to high and then we have the results!

Safest states in a zombie apocalypse: Alaska North Dakota Vermont Utah Idaho Wyoming Maine Montana South Dakota Minnesota

Alaska, despite my comments about how its remoteness can be a detriment, comes out as the safest state in a zombie apocalypse with a score of 10.5. Its health score was its worst score, but high rankings in population density, gun ownership and water availability compensated for it.

North Dakota, similar to the other study, tied with Vermont for the 2nd and 3rd spots, each with a score of 15. North Dakota was better in population density, but Vermont residents are much healthier, the healthiest in the nation.

The fourth safest state, with a score of 16.5, is Utah where the health of its residents helped push it into the top 10.

Idaho and Wyoming tie for the fifth and sixth spots with a score of 16.75. Wyoming is very rural with many gun owners. Idaho came out a bit ahead with water and health.

The seventh and eighth spots are a tie between Maine and Montana, each with a score of 17.25. Maine was rather well-balanced across all four categories. Montana did well in population density and gun ownership.

Ninth place, with a score of 19, goes to South Dakota. Again, low population density and high gun ownership rates pushed it up the safest state list.

Rounding out the top ten is Minnesota, with a score of 19.75. Average ratings in most categories except for health, where it ranks seventh in the nation. Safest StatesPopulation DensityGun OwnershipHealth RankWater ResourcesState ScoreAlaska13271110.5North Dakota410143215Vermont201612315Utah112352716.5Idaho74164016.75Wyoming22194416.75Maine1322211317.25Montana31244117.25South Dakota59253719Minnesota213471719.75Oregon1215223120Wisconsin262823921.5Hawaii38473222.5Washington293591923New Hampshire303662223.5Louisiana251349823.75Nebraska829174625Colorado1430104825.5Virginia3732151825.5Alabama248472526Massachusetts48502426Michigan333832126Mississippi197502826Kansas1019294726.25Arkansas176483526.5Oklahoma1611463627.25Connecticut474541427.5Nevada921354527.5Iowa1533204327.75Maryland464218527.75South Carolina3217422027.75New York4446111228.25North Carolina3626361528.25Rhode Island494813328.25West Virginia225454228.5California4043122129Kentucky2812433329New Jersey504981029.25Georgia3418402629.5New Mexico625375029.5Texas2727343029.5Missouri2320393930.25Arizona1824314930.5Delaware454130630.5Florida434033730.75Tennessee3114443430.75Illinois3944262433.25Ohio4139381633.5Pennsylvania4237282934Indiana3531413836.25The complete results of the study I conducted.

Sources of data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_and_territories_of_the_United_States_by_population_density https://www.concealedcarry.com/firearms-ownership/which-states-have-the-most-gun-owners/ https://selecthealth.org/blog/2017/01/healthiest-states-report https://rlist.io/l/50-u-s-states-highest-water-to-land-ratio Worst States in a Zombie Apocalypse

The absolute worst states to survive a zombie apocalypse using this methodology goes to Indiana. Sorry, hoosiers, youre all gonna die. Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Tennessee, and yes, even Florida, you are all in tough shape as well.

Is the criteria I used to rank the states ideal? I dont know, but I think its better than what some other states did. There would be exceptions in every state, of course. Southern California is going to be worse off than Northern California, for example. Rural Pennsylvania will fare better than the Philadelphia area. I have years worth of experience slaying zombies. Ill survive the zombie apocalypse will you!?

Those are my thoughts. Sorry if your state didnt rank as highly as you may have liked, but hey not everyone can survive the zombie apocalypse. In fact, most wont.

Stay safe out there.

Continue Reading

Politics

Just 25% of public think Sir Keir Starmer will win next election – with welfare row partly to blame

Published

on

By

Just 25% of public think Sir Keir Starmer will win next election - with welfare row partly to blame

Only a quarter of British adults think Sir Keir Starmer will win the next general election, as the party’s climbdown over welfare cuts affects its standing with the public.

A fresh poll by Ipsos, shared with Sky News, also found 63% do not feel confident the government is running the country competently, similar to levels scored by previous Conservative administrations under Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak in July 2022 and February 2023, respectively.

Politics latest: ‘A moment of intense peril’ for PM

The survey of 1,080 adults aged 18-75 across Great Britain was conducted online between 27 and 30 June 2025, when Labour began making the first of its concessions, suggesting the party’s turmoil over its own benefits overhaul is partly to blame.

The prime minister was forced into an embarrassing climbdown on Tuesday night over his plans to slash welfare spending, after it became apparent he was in danger of losing the vote owing to a rebellion among his own MPs.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Govt makes last-minute concession on welfare bill

The bill that was put to MPs for a vote was so watered down that the most controversial element – to tighten the eligibility criteria for personal independence payments (PIP) – was put on hold, pending a review into the assessment process by minister Stephen Timms that is due to report back in the autumn.

The government was forced into a U-turn after Labour MPs signalled publicly and privately that the previous concession made at the weekend to protect existing claimants from the new rules would not be enough.

More on Benefits

While the bill passed its first parliamentary hurdle last night, with a majority of 75, 49 Labour MPs still voted against it – the largest rebellion in a prime minister’s first year in office since 47 MPs voted against Tony Blair’s Lone Parent benefit in 1997, according to Professor Phil Cowley from Queen Mary University.

It left MPs to vote on only one element of the original plan – the cut to Universal Credit (UC) sickness benefits for new claimants from £97 a week to £50 from 2026/7.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Govt makes last-minute concession on welfare bill

An amendment brought by Labour MP Rachael Maskell, which aimed to prevent the bill progressing to the next stage, was defeated but 44 Labour MPs voted for it.

The incident has raised questions about Sir Keir’s authority just a year after the general election delivered him the first Labour landslide victory in decades.

Read more:
How did your MP vote on Labour’s welfare bill?
The PM faced down his party on welfare and lost

And on Wednesday, Downing Street insisted Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, was “not going anywhere” after her tearful appearance in the House of Commons during prime minister’s questions sparked speculation about her political future.

The Ipsos poll also found that two-thirds of British adults are not confident Labour has the right plans to change the way the benefits system works in the UK, including nearly half of 2024 Labour voters.

Keiran Pedley, director of UK Politics at Ipsos, said: “Labour rows over welfare reform haven’t just harmed the public’s view on whether they can make the right changes in that policy area, they are raising wider questions about their ability to govern too.

“The public is starting to doubt Labour’s ability to govern competently and seriously at the same levels they did with Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak’s governments. Labour will hope that this government doesn’t end up going the same way.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Emotional Reeves a painful watch – and a reminder of tough decisions ahead

Published

on

By

Emotional Reeves a painful watch - and a reminder of tough decisions ahead

It is hard to think of a PMQs like it – it was a painful watch.

The prime minister battled on, his tone assured, even if his actual words were not always convincing.

But it was the chancellor next to him that attracted the most attention.

Rachel Reeves looked visibly upset.

Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves (right) crying as Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer speaks. Pic: Commons/UK Parliament/PA
Image:
Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves (right) crying as Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer speaks. Pic: Commons/UK Parliament/PA

It is hard to know for sure right now what was going on behind the scenes, the reasons – predictable or otherwise – why she appeared to be emotional, but it was noticeable and it was difficult to watch.

Reeves looks visibly upset as Starmer defends welfare U-turn – politics latest

Her spokesperson says it was a personal matter that they will not be getting into.

More from Politics

Even Kemi Badenoch, not usually the most nimble PMQs performer, singled her out. “She looks absolutely miserable,” she said.

Anyone wondering if Kemi Badenoch can kick a dog when it’s down has their answer today.

The Tory leader asked the PM if he could guarantee his chancellor’s future: he could not. “She has delivered, and we are grateful for it,” Sir Keir said, almost sounding like he was speaking in the past tense.

Pic PA
Image:
Rachel Reeves looked visibly upset behind Keir Starmer at PMQs. Pic PA

It is important to say: Rachel Reeves’s face during one PMQs session is not enough to tell us everything, or even anything, we need to know.

But given the government has just faced its most bruising week yet, it was hard not to speculate. The prime minister’s spokesperson has said since PMQs that the chancellor has not offered her resignation and is not going anywhere.

But Rachel Reeves has surely seen an omen of the impossible decisions ahead.

How will she plug the estimated £5.5bn hole left by the welfare climbdown in the nation’s finances? Will she need to tweak her iron clad fiscal rules? Will she come back for more tax rises? What message does all of this send to the markets?

If a picture tells us a thousand words, Rachel Reeves’s face will surely be blazoned on the front pages tomorrow as a warning that no U-turn goes unpunished.

Continue Reading

Science

Newly Detected Seaborgium-257 Offers Critical Data on Fission and Quantum Shell Effects

Published

on

By

Newly Detected Seaborgium-257 Offers Critical Data on Fission and Quantum Shell Effects

German Scientists at GSI Helmholtzzentrum für Schwerionenforschung found a new superheavy isotope, 257Sg, named Seaborgium, which reveals unexpected details about the stability and nuclear fission. This study was published in Physical Review Letters and describes how this isotope, made by fusing chromium-52 with lead-206, survived for 12.6 milliseconds, longer than usual. The rare longevity and decay into 253Rf provide new indications of how K-quantum numbers or angular momentum impact the fission resistance. The findings fill in the gaps and give us an understanding of the effects of quantum shells in superheavy nuclei, which is crucial for preventing immediate disintegration.

Challenging Traditional Views on K-Quantum Numbers and Fission

As per the study by GSI, it challenges conservative views on how K-quantum numbers impact fission. Previously, it was found that the higher K values lead to greater fission hindrance, but after getting the findings from the GSI team, a more complex dynamic emerged. They found that K-quantum numbers offer hindrance to fission, but it is still ot known that it is how much, said Dr. Pavol Mosat, the study’s co-author.

Discovery of First K-Isomeric State in Seaborgium

An important milestone is the identification of the first K-isomeric state in seaborgium. In 259Sg, the scientists found that the conversion of the electron signal occurs 40 microseconds after the nuclear formation. This is clear evidence of the high angular momentum K-isomer. These states have longer lifetimes and friction in fission in a more effective way than their ground-state counterparts.

Implications for the Theorised Island of Stability

This discovery by the scientists provides key implications for the Island of stability, which has long been theorised. It is a region where superheavy elements could have comparatively long half-lives. If K-isomers are present in the still undiscovered elements such as 120, they can enable scientists in the detection of nuclei that would otherwise decay in just under one microsecond.

Synthesising 256Sg with Ultra-Fast Detection Systems

This team of German Scientists under GSI is now aiming to synthesise 256Sg, which might decay quicker than observed or predicted. Their success is dependent on the ultra-fast detection systems created by GSI, which are capable of capturing events within 100 nanoseconds. This continued research by the team may help in reshaping the search and studying the heaviest elements in the periodic table.

For the latest tech news and reviews, follow Gadgets 360 on X, Facebook, WhatsApp, Threads and Google News. For the latest videos on gadgets and tech, subscribe to our YouTube channel. If you want to know everything about top influencers, follow our in-house Who’sThat360 on Instagram and YouTube.


OpenAI Says It Has No Plan to Use Google’s In-House Chip



Apple Loses Bid to Dismiss US Smartphone Monopoly Case

Continue Reading

Trending