4 ms·

I think the liability side of things is maybe one of the largest roadblocks to this. Any time one of these prescribed burns gets out of hand and burns down peop

by rtkwe 5y ago

I think the liability side of things is maybe one of the largest roadblocks to this. Any time one of these prescribed burns gets out of hand and burns down people houses or god forbid kills someone there's going to be a lot of backlash to these programs. It's the kind of pain as a preventative measure we in the US have been very bad at accepting. I think in addition there's a lot of protection that can by had by ensuring when we do build back we build resilient building that can withstand fires. If there's going to be building in these areas they should be designed and landscaped to not burn down immediately; non-flammable roofs, flammable landscaping set back (I think) 5 feet from the house itself, etc.

abraae 5y ago
Liability. Sounds like the same kind of mindset that has resulted in the US having an huge overabundance of C-sections over natural births. Allegedly it's because the doctor can't be sued in the event of something going wrong, as they had done "everything possible" - even when it's not in the best interests of the mother and baby.
- rtkwe 5y ago
  I've read there's maybe other even less defendable factors at play; namely convenience. It's much easier for the whole staff compared to a normal natural labor which can go on an indeterminate amount of time. At least if it's liability you could argue doctors were being excessively cautious, the apparent reasons here are pure convenience for the doctors over patients. https://www.tipsonlifeandlove.com/health-and-wellness/c-sections-a-matter-of-doctors-convenience https://www.tipsonlifeandlove.com/health-and-wellness/c-sect...
  - prawn 5y ago
    Yes, easier to schedule a C-section than deal with natural birth arriving less predictably.
elihu 5y ago
Seems like the liability problem could possibly be worked out if you had some entity that pays for the damages either way, and then they have an incentive to do the thing that has probabilistically the least cost. For instance, if the government agency responsible for forest management were to take out a fire damage insurance policy, and the insurance company were free to set different rates depending on how the forest is managed. I think non-flammable buildings are a reasonable suggestion in general, but in a lot of cases the amount of heat involved in a serious forest fire just isn't survivable by any ordinary structure, even if the roof is steel and the walls are made of cinder blocks. Landscaping restrictions might help, but it would have to be a lot more than 5 feet. And I think a lot of people would be justifiably resistant to restrictions such as requiring people to cut down all the large trees within a hundred yards of their house. Trees make the built environment much more pleasant to live in.
- rtkwe 5y ago
  This isn't the original place I saw it but [0 p 49] specifically mentions the 0-5ft zone for protecting the home. It keeps flames from directly touching the house when combined with the larger exclusion zone so trees don't fall onto the house. Maybe if we combine the exclusion zone with a flammability metric for the house because as the house gets more resilient you can bring trees back in closer. Just making sure insurance pays for everything only solves one part of the problem though there's still going to be a lot of pain from people having to go through rebuilding even if the insurance problem was completely smoothed out. [0] https://headwaterseconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/building-costs-codes-report.pdf https://headwaterseconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/building-...

by rtkwe 5y ago

abraae 5y ago

Liability. Sounds like the same kind of mindset that has resulted in the US having an huge overabundance of C-sections over natural births. Allegedly it's because the doctor can't be sued in the event of something going wrong, as they had done "everything possible" - even when it's not in the best interests of the mother and baby.

rtkwe 5y ago
I've read there's maybe other even less defendable factors at play; namely convenience. It's much easier for the whole staff compared to a normal natural labor which can go on an indeterminate amount of time. At least if it's liability you could argue doctors were being excessively cautious, the apparent reasons here are pure convenience for the doctors over patients. https://www.tipsonlifeandlove.com/health-and-wellness/c-sections-a-matter-of-doctors-convenience https://www.tipsonlifeandlove.com/health-and-wellness/c-sect...
- prawn 5y ago
  Yes, easier to schedule a C-section than deal with natural birth arriving less predictably.

elihu 5y ago

Seems like the liability problem could possibly be worked out if you had some entity that pays for the damages either way, and then they have an incentive to do the thing that has probabilistically the least cost. For instance, if the government agency responsible for forest management were to take out a fire damage insurance policy, and the insurance company were free to set different rates depending on how the forest is managed. I think non-flammable buildings are a reasonable suggestion in general, but in a lot of cases the amount of heat involved in a serious forest fire just isn't survivable by any ordinary structure, even if the roof is steel and the walls are made of cinder blocks. Landscaping restrictions might help, but it would have to be a lot more than 5 feet. And I think a lot of people would be justifiably resistant to restrictions such as requiring people to cut down all the large trees within a hundred yards of their house. Trees make the built environment much more pleasant to live in.

rtkwe 5y ago
This isn't the original place I saw it but [0 p 49] specifically mentions the 0-5ft zone for protecting the home. It keeps flames from directly touching the house when combined with the larger exclusion zone so trees don't fall onto the house. Maybe if we combine the exclusion zone with a flammability metric for the house because as the house gets more resilient you can bring trees back in closer. Just making sure insurance pays for everything only solves one part of the problem though there's still going to be a lot of pain from people having to go through rebuilding even if the insurance problem was completely smoothed out. [0] https://headwaterseconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/building-costs-codes-report.pdf https://headwaterseconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/building-...