7 ms·

> A house can be thirty feet from an entire forest on fire and never burn down. In zero wind. The fires in Santa Rosa were driven by 60 mph (100 kph) winds. Ev

> A house can be thirty feet from an entire forest on fire and never burn down. In zero wind. The fires in Santa Rosa were driven by 60 mph (100 kph) winds. Even 30 mph winds will pick up the top 15 meters of a burning Ponderosa Pine and carry it 400 meters away and start a new fire. After the Santa Rosa fires I saw newspaper photos of melted barbeque grills. A fire hot enough to melt cast iron is going to light or melt any roofing material I can think of.

xenadu02 8y ago
No one is claiming you can fireproof a house; did you even look at the link? With some simple actions you can change the odds of 100% of homes burning down to 10-50%. This isn’t made up, these are facts proven by evidence and experiment. Your comment is like saying no one should bother building basements in tornado country because a strong F5 will kill you anyway. The vast majority of tornadoes aren’t strong F5s so taking some precautions absolutely will save lives and property. The biggest ones are: - fire-resistant roofing; the vast majority of homes that burn in these evens are set on fire by embers long before the fire line even gets close, which makes firefighting efforts basically pointless - fire-resistant siding; if a fire is near this makes it much less likely that the siding will catch from brief contact or by being heated to its ignition point. If the side walls catch the house is a goner. - keep tree tops 30-60 ft away from structures. Fires often leap from treetop to treetop, then from there to the structure. - use non-flammable landscaping near the home.
- briandear 8y ago
  Keep tree tops 30-60 feet away from structures is certainly good advice, but the environmental extremists are virulently opposed to any efforts to permit homeowners from being able to do that sort of tree management on their own property. Here is a page from such a group attempting to oppose a measure that would allow private citizens to cut down trees on their own land, if that land is under 300 acres in area: http://winewaterwatch.org/2018/08/kill-ab-426-allowing-road-building-and-cutting-of-large-trees-without-a-permit/ http://winewaterwatch.org/2018/08/kill-ab-426-allowing-road-...
  - megablast 8y ago
    How about don't build your house in the forest?
    - rblatz 8y ago
      Or more accurately, don't build your house in the middle of a forest that has fire as an important part of its life cycle.
      - thaumasiotes 8y ago
        What would be an example of another kind of forest, where fire isn't an important part of the life cycle?
        bronson 8y ago
        rainforest
        sjf 8y ago
        Temperate broadleaf forest
  - oasisbob 8y ago
    That strikes me as a misleading read on AB 425. It expands the existing exempted activities which don't require a forestry management plan, like temporary road building: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB425 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... The ability of "private citizens to cut down trees on their own land" doesn't turn on AB 425. The code already has specific provisions for firebreaks, and AB 425 doesn't change them one way or another: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/public-resources-code/prc-sect-4584.html https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/public-resources-code/prc-sect-...
- dbcurtis 8y ago
  > Your comment is like saying no one should bother building basements in tornado country because a strong F5 will kill you anyway. The vast majority of tornadoes aren’t strong F5s so taking some precautions absolutely will save lives and property. No, my comment is like saying clearing 30 feet around your house is an absolute no-brainer, of course do it, but don't expect that alone to miraculously save you from a fire. Saying this as someone who's mountain cabin survived the Detweiler fire, largely because of vegetation control.
  - hueving 8y ago
    >No, my comment is like saying clearing 30 feet around your house is an absolute no-brainer, of course do it Ok, but that's not what you said. You just ignored it completely like you were disregarding it. If it was such a no-brainer everyone would have done that in California, which was clearly not the case and it's why we're having this discussion now. It's like someone posting stats about seatbelts saving lives in response to tons of vehicle deaths where people weren't wearing seatbelts. Then you come along and point out that if you drive off a 500 ft cliff a seatbelt won't save your life and some of the deaths were caused by driving off of a cliff. Either the implication is that the safety mechanism would not have helped, or you are offering a useless observation that it's not making them impervious.
    - haberman 8y ago
      > or you are offering a useless observation that it's not making them impervious. Considering that the original post literally used the phrase "could make homes basically impervious", I don't consider this a useless observation. I found it quite informative.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - pixl97 8y ago
    >my comment is like saying clearing 30 feet around your house is an absolute no-brainer, of course do Watch the videos coming out of the area. These people have trees touching their homes.
- zzzeek 8y ago
  > No one is claiming you can fireproof a house; the quoted line "A house can be thirty feet from an entire forest on fire and never burn down." says exactly that.
  - Filligree 8y ago
    Implicitly, that requires luck. Some houses will burn down, just not everyone. Nothing will save a house that's close to a forest fire while not being fire-resistant, however.
  - kbenson 8y ago
    I think it's a matter of interpretation. "A house can be thirty feet from an entire forest on fire and never burn down" is not equivalent to "A house thirty feet from an entire forest on fire will never burn down." It's a bit tricky because in truth a house may be touching trees that are one fire and "will never burn down" (in the sense that it won't that time) can also be a true statement. I think a generous interpretation is that "A house can be thirty feet from an entire forest on fire and never burn down." is meant to mean that a house thirty feet away from the forest fire likely won't while a house right next to the forest fire likely will. It was poorly worded, but it isn't necessarily saying what you state.
    - vorpalhex 8y ago
      You're arguing semantics in a non-cooperative way. I had to re-read your first sentence five or six times to glean the meaningful difference. It's unfortunately put you in the camp of either trying to make a moving target argument, or dismissing your peers as children - neither of which is a positive end. Like with anything, you have to pick what the likely scenario should be and build to it. You can build a nuclear power plant to resist 40ft high swells and still get a 50ft swell and be powerless. Obviously more protected is better, but also more expensive (which makes housing less available and affordable, etc). The recurrent nature of the problem suggests to me that the code may be too lax currently, and that the solutions are non-trivial: likely major work for existing homes (from a homeowner perspective, forest management may be able to do more).
- apersona 8y ago
  Quoting the original poster: > but there are other options for materials and landscaping that could make homes basically impervious > basically impervious That (for a layman like me) can easily be interpreted as fire proofing.
  - jjoonathan 8y ago
    It's very generous of you to suggest that the miscommunication is due to a lack of expertise on your part. I'm pretty sure it isn't, though.
schwabacher 8y ago
Slate and ceramic tile roofs are good options - they are not combustable and will not melt. I'm not sure they would hold up to a 15 meter log landing on them, but they really do reduce the chance of your house burning.
- dbcurtis 8y ago
  Yes, true. Slate is not common in the west. Tile is, although I think faux-tile is getting common.
  - jjoonathan 8y ago
    Highly flammable polymer faux-tile or somewhat-fire-resistant fiberglass faux-tile?
    - jacobush 8y ago
      Fiberglass faux-tile sounds like "polymer with a nice wick embedded in it".
hueving 8y ago
Cast iron BBQ grills? Where does one buy a grill made from cast iron? How do you stop it from immediately rusting out once you get it?
- Theodores 8y ago
  By 'seasoning' it. You slather it with some type of cooking oil and that protects it from turning bright orange with rust. Cast iron is the material of choice as it is cheaper than surgery grade stainless steel, it retains the heat and it is a traditional material that people expect. As for where you can buy yourself a grill made from cast iron, the options are many. In towns there are shops that sell such things. You can walk into such a shop, exchange money and get your own BBQ grill in genuine cast iron.
- giobox 8y ago
  Pretty much all Weber (a very, very mainstream grill brand available the world over) grills/“grates” are cast iron. It works fine! You do typically have to replace them every three to five years, but this isn’t that big a deal, the replacement grates are stocked at most home improvement stores. It’s extremely common in mid to high end grills.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Pretty much all Weber (a very, very mainstream grill brand available the world over) grills/“grates” are cast iron. No, they are “plated steel” for the cooking grate, and “heavy gauge steel” for the charcoal grate; at least per the specs on their website. (Which matches every Weber I've used over several decades.)
    - giobox 8y ago
      While I believe they receive some kind of coating, Weber themselves refer frequently to them being cast iron. From their site, “how to care for your cast iron cooking grates”. Quoting Weber’s website, “All our 2017 gas grills except for the Summit and Genesis II LX come with porcelain enameled cast iron cooking grates.”. The spec sheet on the site for virtually every gas grill lists a cast iron grate. https://www.weber.com/US/en/blog/tips-techniques/how-to-care-for-your-cast-iron-cooking-grates/weber-29675.html https://www.weber.com/US/en/blog/tips-techniques/how-to-care...

xenadu02 8y ago

No one is claiming you can fireproof a house; did you even look at the link? With some simple actions you can change the odds of 100% of homes burning down to 10-50%. This isn’t made up, these are facts proven by evidence and experiment. Your comment is like saying no one should bother building basements in tornado country because a strong F5 will kill you anyway. The vast majority of tornadoes aren’t strong F5s so taking some precautions absolutely will save lives and property. The biggest ones are: - fire-resistant roofing; the vast majority of homes that burn in these evens are set on fire by embers long before the fire line even gets close, which makes firefighting efforts basically pointless - fire-resistant siding; if a fire is near this makes it much less likely that the siding will catch from brief contact or by being heated to its ignition point. If the side walls catch the house is a goner. - keep tree tops 30-60 ft away from structures. Fires often leap from treetop to treetop, then from there to the structure. - use non-flammable landscaping near the home.

briandear 8y ago
Keep tree tops 30-60 feet away from structures is certainly good advice, but the environmental extremists are virulently opposed to any efforts to permit homeowners from being able to do that sort of tree management on their own property. Here is a page from such a group attempting to oppose a measure that would allow private citizens to cut down trees on their own land, if that land is under 300 acres in area: http://winewaterwatch.org/2018/08/kill-ab-426-allowing-road-building-and-cutting-of-large-trees-without-a-permit/ http://winewaterwatch.org/2018/08/kill-ab-426-allowing-road-...
- megablast 8y ago
  How about don't build your house in the forest?
  - rblatz 8y ago
    Or more accurately, don't build your house in the middle of a forest that has fire as an important part of its life cycle.
    - thaumasiotes 8y ago
      What would be an example of another kind of forest, where fire isn't an important part of the life cycle?
      - bronson 8y ago
        rainforest
      - sjf 8y ago
        Temperate broadleaf forest
- oasisbob 8y ago
  That strikes me as a misleading read on AB 425. It expands the existing exempted activities which don't require a forestry management plan, like temporary road building: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB425 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... The ability of "private citizens to cut down trees on their own land" doesn't turn on AB 425. The code already has specific provisions for firebreaks, and AB 425 doesn't change them one way or another: https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/public-resources-code/prc-sect-4584.html https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/public-resources-code/prc-sect-...
dbcurtis 8y ago
> Your comment is like saying no one should bother building basements in tornado country because a strong F5 will kill you anyway. The vast majority of tornadoes aren’t strong F5s so taking some precautions absolutely will save lives and property. No, my comment is like saying clearing 30 feet around your house is an absolute no-brainer, of course do it, but don't expect that alone to miraculously save you from a fire. Saying this as someone who's mountain cabin survived the Detweiler fire, largely because of vegetation control.
- hueving 8y ago
  >No, my comment is like saying clearing 30 feet around your house is an absolute no-brainer, of course do it Ok, but that's not what you said. You just ignored it completely like you were disregarding it. If it was such a no-brainer everyone would have done that in California, which was clearly not the case and it's why we're having this discussion now. It's like someone posting stats about seatbelts saving lives in response to tons of vehicle deaths where people weren't wearing seatbelts. Then you come along and point out that if you drive off a 500 ft cliff a seatbelt won't save your life and some of the deaths were caused by driving off of a cliff. Either the implication is that the safety mechanism would not have helped, or you are offering a useless observation that it's not making them impervious.
  - haberman 8y ago
    > or you are offering a useless observation that it's not making them impervious. Considering that the original post literally used the phrase "could make homes basically impervious", I don't consider this a useless observation. I found it quite informative.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- pixl97 8y ago
  >my comment is like saying clearing 30 feet around your house is an absolute no-brainer, of course do Watch the videos coming out of the area. These people have trees touching their homes.
zzzeek 8y ago
> No one is claiming you can fireproof a house; the quoted line "A house can be thirty feet from an entire forest on fire and never burn down." says exactly that.
- Filligree 8y ago
  Implicitly, that requires luck. Some houses will burn down, just not everyone. Nothing will save a house that's close to a forest fire while not being fire-resistant, however.
- kbenson 8y ago
  I think it's a matter of interpretation. "A house can be thirty feet from an entire forest on fire and never burn down" is not equivalent to "A house thirty feet from an entire forest on fire will never burn down." It's a bit tricky because in truth a house may be touching trees that are one fire and "will never burn down" (in the sense that it won't that time) can also be a true statement. I think a generous interpretation is that "A house can be thirty feet from an entire forest on fire and never burn down." is meant to mean that a house thirty feet away from the forest fire likely won't while a house right next to the forest fire likely will. It was poorly worded, but it isn't necessarily saying what you state.
  - vorpalhex 8y ago
    You're arguing semantics in a non-cooperative way. I had to re-read your first sentence five or six times to glean the meaningful difference. It's unfortunately put you in the camp of either trying to make a moving target argument, or dismissing your peers as children - neither of which is a positive end. Like with anything, you have to pick what the likely scenario should be and build to it. You can build a nuclear power plant to resist 40ft high swells and still get a 50ft swell and be powerless. Obviously more protected is better, but also more expensive (which makes housing less available and affordable, etc). The recurrent nature of the problem suggests to me that the code may be too lax currently, and that the solutions are non-trivial: likely major work for existing homes (from a homeowner perspective, forest management may be able to do more).
apersona 8y ago
Quoting the original poster: > but there are other options for materials and landscaping that could make homes basically impervious > basically impervious That (for a layman like me) can easily be interpreted as fire proofing.
- jjoonathan 8y ago
  It's very generous of you to suggest that the miscommunication is due to a lack of expertise on your part. I'm pretty sure it isn't, though.

schwabacher 8y ago

Slate and ceramic tile roofs are good options - they are not combustable and will not melt. I'm not sure they would hold up to a 15 meter log landing on them, but they really do reduce the chance of your house burning.

dbcurtis 8y ago
Yes, true. Slate is not common in the west. Tile is, although I think faux-tile is getting common.
- jjoonathan 8y ago
  Highly flammable polymer faux-tile or somewhat-fire-resistant fiberglass faux-tile?
  - jacobush 8y ago
    Fiberglass faux-tile sounds like "polymer with a nice wick embedded in it".

hueving 8y ago

Cast iron BBQ grills? Where does one buy a grill made from cast iron? How do you stop it from immediately rusting out once you get it?

Theodores 8y ago
By 'seasoning' it. You slather it with some type of cooking oil and that protects it from turning bright orange with rust. Cast iron is the material of choice as it is cheaper than surgery grade stainless steel, it retains the heat and it is a traditional material that people expect. As for where you can buy yourself a grill made from cast iron, the options are many. In towns there are shops that sell such things. You can walk into such a shop, exchange money and get your own BBQ grill in genuine cast iron.
giobox 8y ago
Pretty much all Weber (a very, very mainstream grill brand available the world over) grills/“grates” are cast iron. It works fine! You do typically have to replace them every three to five years, but this isn’t that big a deal, the replacement grates are stocked at most home improvement stores. It’s extremely common in mid to high end grills.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Pretty much all Weber (a very, very mainstream grill brand available the world over) grills/“grates” are cast iron. No, they are “plated steel” for the cooking grate, and “heavy gauge steel” for the charcoal grate; at least per the specs on their website. (Which matches every Weber I've used over several decades.)
  - giobox 8y ago
    While I believe they receive some kind of coating, Weber themselves refer frequently to them being cast iron. From their site, “how to care for your cast iron cooking grates”. Quoting Weber’s website, “All our 2017 gas grills except for the Summit and Genesis II LX come with porcelain enameled cast iron cooking grates.”. The spec sheet on the site for virtually every gas grill lists a cast iron grate. https://www.weber.com/US/en/blog/tips-techniques/how-to-care-for-your-cast-iron-cooking-grates/weber-29675.html https://www.weber.com/US/en/blog/tips-techniques/how-to-care...