LA fires

[Thomas II]

https://globalnews.ca/news/10952360/los-angeles-wildfires-canadian-plane/

https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/quebec-...rnia-after-aircraft-struck-by-drone-1.7171759

Thank you, Canada!

 

[ZiprHead]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pacific-palisades-reservoir-offline-empty-163924460.html

I live in SoCal, and one of my most consistent criticisms of the state is that it has refused to build more desalination plants. 800 miles of coastline and only a dozen plants.

These plants can produce tens of billions of gallons per year. The state could have the capacity to potentially produce trillions, but it doesn't despite the overwhelming need for it. There's no such thing as too much fresh water in SoCal.

Why is desalinated water necessary for fire suppression?

Because then you don't need two separate city wide water distribution systems.

Okay, thanks. Makes sense now.

 

[ZiprHead]

James Woods and Mel Gibson, both climate change deniers, lost their houses.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Do people in Russia live in stone houses? I don't think they do, most can't afford it.

In Russia i's bricks and concrete. Mine is bricks.

Houses catch fire because it is natural to do so

Not if it's brick/concrete.

Are Russian houses windowless and doorless? Does Russia have 160 kmh fire imbued hot winds? Those winds can crack right through the windows and burn everything inside.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pacific-palisades-reservoir-offline-empty-163924460.html

I live in SoCal, and one of my most consistent criticisms of the state is that it has refused to build more desalination plants. 800 miles of coastline and only a dozen plants.

These plants can produce tens of billions of gallons per year. The state could have the capacity to potentially produce trillions, but it doesn't despite the overwhelming need for it. There's no such thing as too much fresh water in SoCal.

Why is desalinated water necessary for fire suppression?

Salt water is very corrosive and can cause damaging effects to the environment.

Stupid. Brick and concrete structures can burn to the ground.

How? They are not flammable.

The heat generated by a fire can break glass and get inside, not to mention the smoke damage that gets into the structure....

The heat from a raging inferno outside the house can damage a non-flammable house, sure, but the structure itself will not be additional fuel for that house now will it get consumed in the fire.
Look at the aftermath of the Palisades fire:
View attachment 49090
This was all houses in close proximity to one another.
I can see your point if it's a rural area with houses surrounded by a blazing forest fire. Then it doesn't make that much of a difference what the house is made of.
But in a suburban environment, the 2x4s and plywood in the house structure provide much if not most of the fuel to keep the fire going.

See my answer to barbos - structures have windows and doors that the fire can penetrate.

 

[thebeave]

James Woods and Mel Gibson, both climate change deniers, lost their houses.

So, I guess...this is appropriate?

 

[ZiprHead]

Not really, but I do hope it is a learning experience for them.

 

[barbos]

Are Russian houses windowless and doorless? Does Russia have 160 kmh fire imbued hot winds?

We have ordinary windows. Doors surprisingly made of .... metall.

Those winds can crack right through the windows and burn everything inside.

That's not what I see on videos. I see houses catching fire from very low shrub around houses.
In any case, you can code first floor windows to have metal shutters. And in general, you should not be able to set house on fire that easy.

 

[barbos]

Stupid. Brick and concrete structures can burn to the ground

Yes, it was stupid thing for you to say.

 

[barbos]

In catastrophic fire conditions, there are always sources of ignition.

Nobody argues with that. Forest fires are natural. What is "unnatural" are fires in a large city which burn whole parts to the ground. That means went something wrong during planning and construction.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Stupid. Brick and concrete structures can burn to the ground.

How? They are not flammable.

The heat generated by a fire can break glass and get inside, not to mention the smoke damage that gets into the structure....

The heat from a raging inferno outside the house can damage a non-flammable house, sure, but the structure itself will not be additional fuel for that house now will it get consumed in the fire.
Look at the aftermath of the Palisades fire:
View attachment 49090
This was all houses in close proximity to one another.
I can see your point if it's a rural area with houses surrounded by a blazing forest fire. Then it doesn't make that much of a difference what the house is made of.
But in a suburban environment, the 2x4s and plywood in the house structure provide much if not most of the fuel to keep the fire going.

From the 1970s on, setbacks from the property line shrunk and shrunk to the point of being better described as air gaps. At the turn of the century what I seen being built and still considered “detached homes” were little more than an arm’s length from one another. Stucco walls and terracotta roofs isn’t quite getting the job done.
I’d think when considering fire safety, Southern California would have to decrease their single family detached home supply by about a third. I can only imagine what prices would be like had they built this way all along.
They tried to keep building the American Dream in paradise. It’s not working. Imagine if all those who need to rebuild were forced to drastically reduce the square footage of their new homes to comply with sensible fire safety. What an uproar there would be.

 

[bilby]

Stupid. Brick and concrete structures can burn to the ground.

How? They are not flammable.

But pretty much their entire contents are.

The heat generated by a fire can break glass and get inside, not to mention the smoke damage that gets into the structure....

The heat from a raging inferno outside the house can damage a non-flammable house, sure, but the structure itself will not be additional fuel for that house now will it get consumed in the fire.

It doesn't matter. Once there's a sufficent fire, the structure will fail due to intense heat, even if it can't burn.

Look at the aftermath of the Palisades fire:
View attachment 49090
This was all houses in close proximity to one another.
I can see your point if it's a rural area with houses surrounded by a blazing forest fire. Then it doesn't make that much of a difference what the house is made of.

It doesn't make a lot of difference regardless.

But in a suburban environment, the 2x4s and plywood in the house structure provide much if not most of the fuel to keep the fire going.

Or, if the house is made from concrete, the furniture, drapes, wallpaper, carpets, residents, pets, etc., etc., will provide more than sufficient fuel.

A sufficiently hot fire, with sufficient draught, will burn anything that can oxidise, up to and including steel.

Building wooden houses close together is asking for trouble, sure. But in the wrong conditions, trouble will find you whether you ask or not.

There's no such thing as a fire-proof house. Or suburb. Or city.

And a big fire is nothing like a small fire. Big fires, in catastrophic conditions, are unlike anything else you will experience, and they behave in ways that defy common sense.

 

[scombrid]

clearly the deep state targeted James woods and Mel Gibson while sparing Tom Hanks and Speilburg.

 

[scombrid]

That people think a fire hydrant will stop something like this is mind boggling. Metal roofs and block construction won’t even do it unless you can seal all the vents. High winds will drive the embers into every crevice and the wood trusses and rafters will catch in the extremely low relative humidity.

 

[TV and credit cards]

By the grace of The Great Sky Dude, James Woods' home was spared.
I like this passage:

“The man on the left, Robert Trinkkeller, is a hero,” Woods captioned the photo on X. “By the grace of God, he stayed behind when the evacuation order was given. When I called the man on the right, our neighbor, in Boston to be sure his 94 year-old father had been evacuated, he was devastated that a replacement caregiver had left his father behind."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pacific-palisades-reservoir-offline-empty-163924460.html

Not relevant. The water issue was pressure, not volume. For instance, LA has the Pacific Ocean to the west, a very large source of water, but having the supply doesn't mean you have the pressure required to transmit it elsewhere.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

James Woods and Mel Gibson, both climate change deniers, lost their houses.

So, I guess...this is appropriate?

View attachment 49091

For an anti-Semite. Sure. Why not.

 

[TV and credit cards]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/pacific-palisades-reservoir-offline-empty-163924460.html

Not relevant. The water issue was pressure, not volume. For instance, LA has the Pacific Ocean to the west, a very large source of water, but having the supply doesn't mean you have the pressure required to transmit it elsewhere.

If these reservoirs have to then fill local water towers, the pumps probably couldn’t keep up with demand, I read being four times normal. And then there are those home owners who will turn sprinklers on and leave strategically placed garden hoses running before they bug out.

 

[Colonel Sanders]

James Woods and Mel Gibson, both climate change deniers, lost their houses.

I keep seeing this opinion posted all over the interwebs.

Is there any scientific accuracy to this claim?

Every time some natural disaster occurs, people start talking about climate change. Where the fires are SoCal falls in between a mediterranean and savannah-like climate. Fires are regular occurrence in SoCal and always have been.

Last year and the year before we got a lot of rain, which caused more vegetation than normal to grow. This past fall and the current "winter" has given us very little rain, so all that vegetation has dried up, creating a gigantic tinderbox that finally got lit. Again though, it's part of the natural conditions of the area.

Maybe it does have to do with climate change, but that seems like the go-to now when any natural disaster happens.

 

[thebeave]

Not really, but I do hope it is a learning experience for them.

James Woods and Mel Gibson's views on climate change are fairly inconsequential. Some tweets and stuff, I guess? I don't know the specific details of either. Though I don't wish anyone to lose their home from wildfire (I was a victim of it myself in 2020...it is unbelieveably painful), I think the person I would most hope would learn a lesson from all of this is Jane Fonda. She has arguably has done more to contribute to climate change than any one single person in the US by using her celebrity status to rail against nuclear power for decades. And she's still doing it! Here is her most recent outrage.

James Woods has long lent a helping hand to many locals affected by wildfire, regardless of their political leanings. This is from a 2018 wildfire:

Alyssa Milano Calls Out People Who Shamed James Woods For Helping Evacuate Her Horses In California Wildfire

In the midst of helping people, Woods also responded to another Twitter user who asked him why he’d cross party lines to help Milano. Woods simply replied, “Because her animals are in danger and she needs help. @Alyssa_Milano #SoCalFiresJamesWoods.”

Ultimately, Milano was able to report that her horses made it to safety before the fire threatened their health. She also had words for the people who questioned people helping people in such a difficult situation in California.

“Horses are finally safe. My children are safe. My home is in jeopardy but… everything with a heartbeat is safe. Thank you all for your concern. To those who insisted on still being hurtful because our political affiliation is different, you are what is wrong with the country.”

BTW, I found these rather disturbing responses to Woods' video from a couple of days ago: Tweets to James Woods

 

[thebeave]

James Woods and Mel Gibson, both climate change deniers, lost their houses.

I keep seeing this opinion posted all over the interwebs.

Is there any scientific accuracy to this claim?

Every time some natural disaster occurs, people start talking about climate change. Where the fires are SoCal falls in between a mediterranean and savannah-like climate. Fires are regular occurrence in SoCal and always have been.

Last year and the year before we got a lot of rain, which caused more vegetation than normal to grow. This past fall and the current "winter" has given us very little rain, so all that vegetation has dried up, creating a gigantic tinderbox that finally got lit. Again though, it's part of the natural conditions of the area.

Maybe it does have to do with climate change, but that seems like the go-to now when any natural disaster happens.

Exactly. Continuing to bleat about it being climate change doesn't accomplish much. Fires have been happening long before the current climate crisis. It is much more helpful to build fire breaks in the hills, do control burns and/or thin the forests of dense vegetation by mechanical means and maintain a 100' defensible space around your home. From what I'm hearing, a lot of this stuff is not getting done because environmental activists are disrupting these plans by tying them up in the courts, as well as residents complaining about control burn smoke, etc. Some areas have gone decades now without reducing the fuel loads in the neighboring hills.