Thread: Pristine air quality, soil quality

I have this idea that somewhere in this world there is a perfect place to start a healthy life. Clean air free from pollution, fertile soil, clean perfect drinking water, and constant temperatures from 65-80 degrees everyday.. Does some place like this exist? I know places like Tasmania, and Antarctica obviously have clean air and water but since I one day would like to grow many fruits that don't grow in these climates it is out of the question. Pristine paradise somewhere? Or is every place polluted now

As an atmospheric chemist I can comment on air pollution but I'll leave the rest for others. Atmospheric pollution is pretty much everywhere nowadays (although some places are cleaner than others). To find the cleanest places look up met. data of prevailing winds and atmospheric circulation and look for places that are not in the "flight path" of large pollution sources, bearing in mind a lot of pollutants are quite long lived and can be transported on intercontinental scales over several days (one of my first field work campaigns was researching intercontinental transport of ozone and its precursors across the Atlantic from the US to Europe). Pollution from the US affects air quality as far as Europe, European pollution affects Asia and Asian pollution affects the US in the northern hemisphere, the southern hemisphere has a similar story, you will find nowhere on the planet that is not polluted for a given value of polluted...

what are these places with the lowest levels of air pollution?

Follow the advice I gave, you need to look at the meteorology and atmospheric dynamics, but generally speaking, islands in the southern hemisphere far away from continental landmasses would be your best bet...

If you're after pure water and air, Tasmania really is your best bet.

There's nothing much between Tasmania's west coast and Argentina's east coast. By the time the violent winds of the "roaring forties" have done their worst with the air travelling for many thousands of kilometres in that direction, it's been virtually scoured clean of all but a very few particles of contaminants. There was even a company selling bottled rain water from the West Coast claiming that it's the purest in the world.

But you don't want to live there. Hobart (east) and Launceston (north) are nice places in Tasmania, but the west coast is sparsely populated with lots of forest in lots of very impressive national parks. It's cold and damp.

The best kind of place you might find would be some of the South Pacific islands. Maybe the western coasts of South America - that aren't desert - would be a reasonable option. Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Chile.

Will it ever be possible to purify polluted air? Outdoor air purification?

WASHINGTON The amount of heat-trapping pollution the world spewed rose again last year by 3 percent. So scientists say it's now unlikely that global warming can be limited to a couple of degrees, which is an international goal.

The overwhelming majority of the increase was from China, the world's biggest carbon dioxide polluter. Of the planet's top 10 polluters, the United States and Germany were the only countries that reduced their carbon dioxide emissions.

Last year, all the world's nations combined pumped nearly 38.2 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the air from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal and oil, according to new international calculations on global emissions published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change. That's about a billion tons more than the previous year.

Nature still sucking up considerable carbon dioxide
UN climate chief: Climate change initiatives lack support
Post-Sandy, Dems push for climate change action
The total amounts to more than 2.4 million pounds of carbon dioxide released into the air every second.

What do you think is more important for health.. Abundant Sunshine and Vitamin D from the sun... Or breathing the cleanest air possible

The cleanest and least contaminated place on the temperate globe (livable weather) is Gough Island according to several sources read over the years. Unfortunately, the UK would never let you legally live there, an off limits nature park and the weather is rainy with decaying storms from Antarctica. Only giant 'killer mice' are present there. If you are looking for a place to personally live, try Tasmania (Australia) or Stewart Island (N.Z.) The rain washes out almost all the pollutants on those tips. Patagonia has the same, but environmental regulations are not nearly as strong.

Pitcairn Island's neighbor of Henderson Island (Pitcairn Islands) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

is nice in theory, but again the UK would not allow it. A millionaire survivalist tried some 25 years ago, despite willing to lavish the Pitcairn Islanders with money and take care of the rare flora/fauna. No go said the Home Office.

I would love Tasmania but I do wonder if there is enough sunshine there to produce healthy levels of Vitamin D year round. So it comes down to what is more important. The Cleanest air and water possible or living in a climate with an optimal amount of sunlight

If you have TB, emphysema or other lung disease issue then air quality wins hands down. If you have issues of UV lamp aversion, lactose intolerant, pill wary for the Vitamin D or seasonal affective disorder (SAD) issue, then go for a more equatorial clime. Clean air is nice, but outside some cities or industrial areas most people end up dying of other things. Long life is apparently mainly a genetic thing anyway, beyond simple health steps. No place has been proven to have most people live to 95 AFAIK, including isolated hill valleys of lore. And quality of life issues exist, as well as proximity to hospitals. In short, you run your risks everywhere. (Like the back to nature, get away from war and evils of civilization group of 40 which circa 1978 staked out and moved to some isolated large islands in the Atlantic which only had about 2,000 people on them -- the Falkland Islands just before the war there!)

To Adelady

I sorrow that you did not think of NZ. We have a better climate than Tasmania (at least in the north), fertile soils, adequate rain, and very clean air. I live in a place that National Geographic Traveller magazine called the second most beautiful coastline in the world. Since the most beautiful was in Labrador, I have no qualms calling my home the most beautiful coastline in the world with a decent climate.

On purity of air.
For good health, you do not need perfect air quality. A small amount of pollution will not measurably affect your health at all. Aspire instead to reasonable air quality. Also needed for good health is pathogen free water, good diet, good exercise, good medical care, good genetics, not smoking or drinking alcohol to excess, good social contacts, good management of stress. Of all those, the most important is the medical care, followed by good genetics. Air quality follows way behind.

Globally, as a general rule, people are healthier and live longer when they live in cities. The main reason for this is good medical care.

Anopsology's options are limited by nature herself. Very little of the Earth is what we idealize as natural paradise. It's grey, brown, dusty and barren for the most part. Then unless your food comes by jet-fuel you want agriculture, the best for which was discovered and exploited already.

I agree with skeptic. Go colonize that corner to make it like the rest of our domains.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

WASHINGTON The amount of heat-trapping pollution the world spewed rose again last year by 3 percent.

Be careful not to confuse CO2 with pollution that causes health effects. While we can certainly emit enough CO2 to cause warming, there are no predictions that the amount of CO2 we emit will become unhealthy to humans, as the original post is asking about.

Most of the health impacts of "air pollution" are related to particulates and ozone (there are other nasties but these are by far the worst in that they are ubiquitous and have a large effect).

thanks guys! At the moment I actually have come into a good amount of money that will allow to purchase land... a good amount of money to say the least and I feel fortunate and so damn grateful. I have always been super into health and I have the diet and the exercise thing down for sure but.. I always wanted to live in this pristine environment with no air pollution, and no soil pollution so I could grow damn near perfect quality food.. And of course I imagined that clean water would most likely be in this place as well..It seems like some of this pristine environments would not have the optimal amount of sunshine to produce good vitamin d levels,, which is very important to me... I feel so much happier when I am exposed to sunlight all day/all year.... I think I might try to work with some health experts and scientists to determine the best place. I feel like I have an opportunity to move to somewhere perfect and take my friends and family with me and I want to do it as a longevity and health experiment.. Now im just trying to decide if pristine air or optimal sunshine is more important to human health

Here's an eccentric billionaire's private island, where according to local legend he had enforced strict utopian environmentalism. No combustion allowed, no plastics, that sort of thing. No ordinary visitors allowed either. Now it's for sale: Reclusive billionaire selling ‘enchanted island’ in B.C. for $75M. For perspective, that money will buy ~50 typical city lots in nearby Vancouver. So I'm guessing it becomes vacation cottages with equally strict restrictions to appeal to people like yourself.

are there studies done anywhere about the cleanest air , soil and water quality? Just because a place is seen as clean an pristine it may not be due to pollution from other parts of the world. I want a place as far away possible from the polluted world...... Its looking like Tasmania so far