4 ms·

I would have assumed that logging clears out the old dense wood which does not burn so readily while leaving the shrub which is the most of the problem. The ea

I would have assumed that logging clears out the old dense wood which does not burn so readily while leaving the shrub which is the most of the problem. The easiest solution IMO is to stop trying to control every single fire and designate some zones as essentially wild and focus all efforts at protecting a smaller city area with a buffer zone between buildings and the nature reserve. Problem is people want to live right in the middle of a forest but also do not want to face the reality that fires happen and that they are at risk.

emodendroket 5y ago
As Northern California is currently demonstrating, wait and see can be unpredictable in historic drought conditions.
babesh 5y ago
Smoke travels pretty far and causes obvious health issues. The undergrowth due to suppressing previous fires and the additional fuel from dead trees due to droughts result in very hot fires that grow huge. The Dixie fire that is ongoing is 762 sq miles and is 25% contained. It is the largest fire started from a single source and second largest overall in California history. If we let a fire just burn, will it just get so large that it can’t be contained and will just burn till there is nothing left? I read about natural fires that would span states and would burn till the rainy season. The fires currently burning in Siberia cover 4000 sq miles. The Bay Area is about 7000 sq miles. Alameda County is about the same size as the Dixie fire.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
giantrobot 5y ago
The problem with letting fires just burn is they don't obey the demarcation of "zones". They generate super heated gases that can cause adjacent areas to spontaneously combust even if no embers land there. A fire break that works in no/low wind is completely ineffective in high winds which can be generated by the fire. Managing fires is very complex and takes a lot of resources but importantly political will. There's groups that don't want to spend federal money on infrastructure even though the federal government is responsible for significant amounts of infrastructure.

emodendroket 5y ago

As Northern California is currently demonstrating, wait and see can be unpredictable in historic drought conditions.

babesh 5y ago

Smoke travels pretty far and causes obvious health issues. The undergrowth due to suppressing previous fires and the additional fuel from dead trees due to droughts result in very hot fires that grow huge. The Dixie fire that is ongoing is 762 sq miles and is 25% contained. It is the largest fire started from a single source and second largest overall in California history. If we let a fire just burn, will it just get so large that it can’t be contained and will just burn till there is nothing left? I read about natural fires that would span states and would burn till the rainy season. The fires currently burning in Siberia cover 4000 sq miles. The Bay Area is about 7000 sq miles. Alameda County is about the same size as the Dixie fire.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

giantrobot 5y ago

The problem with letting fires just burn is they don't obey the demarcation of "zones". They generate super heated gases that can cause adjacent areas to spontaneously combust even if no embers land there. A fire break that works in no/low wind is completely ineffective in high winds which can be generated by the fire. Managing fires is very complex and takes a lot of resources but importantly political will. There's groups that don't want to spend federal money on infrastructure even though the federal government is responsible for significant amounts of infrastructure.