2 ms·
>Right, but even with a volunteer fire department, at least there's normally water that they can use to save the neighbor houses once they arrive on-scene. Lol
by Enginerrrd 4y ago
>Right, but even with a volunteer fire department, at least there's normally water that they can use to save the neighbor houses once they arrive on-scene.
Lol... no. There are so many flawed assumptions here I'm not sure where to start. Basically everything you said was wrong.
First, the "neighbor house" would typically be hundreds of yards away at the absolute closest.
Second, the availability of water for fire fighting purposes in rural areas is commonly dubious normally. It's exceedingly rare that a residence will have any form of pressurized water like "personal hydrant" type of system. At best, they might have a 2,500 gallon polyethylene tank, or a pond they could dip into, IF the volunteer fire department has a pump and hose setup, which is itself kind of rare or slow to arrive.
Third, a lot of the efforts on scene are unlikely to involve water at all. It's more like wild-land fire style where you might try to cut fire lines and stuff to try and prevent igniting surrounding areas, evacuate and render aid to affected people, etc.
- bradfa 4y agoThat's fair, I don't know how to fight fires. But it sounds like a lot of these newer houses in the article are not the normal spread-out rural type spacing but much more like suburb size lots. The article says: “Not only are they building as dense as they can build, they’re scraping everything to the ground,” If they really are building on multi-acre lots then you're probably right. But if it's more like a suburban style where houses are on 0.25 acre lots and there's only maybe 15-20 feet between houses then I feel my concerns are legit.