3 ms·

The medical analogy here is the DNR order. Doctors don't want to create liability by explicitly assisting in a patient's death, even of someone in a vegetative

by derefr 3y ago

The medical analogy here is the DNR order. Doctors don't want to create liability by explicitly assisting in a patient's death, even of someone in a vegetative state. So instead, they avoid this liability while still "accomplishing death", by following an order to intentionally avoid explicitly reversing any sudden "act of god" event that would cause the patient to die without active intervention. Or, to put that another way: instead of controlled burns where you're actively setting the fire, why not just build (and maintain) the firebreaks, wait for a wildfire to happen inside the burn zone, and then just refuse to put it out?

dllthomas 3y ago
> why not just build (and maintain) the firebreaks, wait for a wildfire to happen inside the burn zone, and then just refuse to put it out? Per my understanding, part of performing a controlled burn is mustering more resources near the burn (spatially and temporally) than you could reasonably maintain near every possible burn site all the time.
- toast0 3y ago
  Under the prepare the firebreaks ahead of time doctrine, you'd still be on the hook for mustering resources in response to an unscheduled fire as is the case today, but if the firebreaks are already in place and appropriate for the conditions at the time, the response would be watch and wait, and if all goes well, let it burn out without much additional effort. If conditions aren't appropriate, then you're back to status quo of containing a wildfire; but maybe the firebreaks help somewhat? (Would need the opinion of someone knowledgable in wildfire fighting rather than random internet peeps to know if this approaches a reasonable idea at all though; I'd wonder if it's reasonable to build and maintain general purpose firebreaks in large forests at all; and what effect that would have on the habitability of the forest for its flora and fauna)
- derefr 3y ago
  The interesting thing about controlled burns is that by doing them, you end up with fewer possible burn sites. So such an approach would get easier over time.
MrVandemar 3y ago
I don't know about the US and other countries, but firebreaks are not really there to stop fire. Well, they do have that effect on some intensity fires, but the actual reason is enabling vehicle access. A fire of any reasonable intensity can easily jump a firebreak with a decent wind. And then there's spot-fires, which are like voodoo, you can be fighting a fire in front of you and have fires suddenly 300m behind you. All they really do is give you a point to fight a fire.

by derefr 3y ago

dllthomas 3y ago

> why not just build (and maintain) the firebreaks, wait for a wildfire to happen inside the burn zone, and then just refuse to put it out? Per my understanding, part of performing a controlled burn is mustering more resources near the burn (spatially and temporally) than you could reasonably maintain near every possible burn site all the time.

toast0 3y ago
Under the prepare the firebreaks ahead of time doctrine, you'd still be on the hook for mustering resources in response to an unscheduled fire as is the case today, but if the firebreaks are already in place and appropriate for the conditions at the time, the response would be watch and wait, and if all goes well, let it burn out without much additional effort. If conditions aren't appropriate, then you're back to status quo of containing a wildfire; but maybe the firebreaks help somewhat? (Would need the opinion of someone knowledgable in wildfire fighting rather than random internet peeps to know if this approaches a reasonable idea at all though; I'd wonder if it's reasonable to build and maintain general purpose firebreaks in large forests at all; and what effect that would have on the habitability of the forest for its flora and fauna)
derefr 3y ago
The interesting thing about controlled burns is that by doing them, you end up with fewer possible burn sites. So such an approach would get easier over time.

MrVandemar 3y ago

I don't know about the US and other countries, but firebreaks are not really there to stop fire. Well, they do have that effect on some intensity fires, but the actual reason is enabling vehicle access. A fire of any reasonable intensity can easily jump a firebreak with a decent wind. And then there's spot-fires, which are like voodoo, you can be fighting a fire in front of you and have fires suddenly 300m behind you. All they really do is give you a point to fight a fire.