4 ms·
I’d imagine that it is feasible to defend any area with greater than x people per square mile from fire, aye? At some point you could install multiple fire hose
by lumost 3y ago
I’d imagine that it is feasible to defend any area with greater than x people per square mile from fire, aye? At some point you could install multiple fire hoses per block, build river beds to create fire breaks, and clearcut the surrounding area, no?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Schiendelman 3y agoSure, at far greater cost than the houses themselves. Who pays for that?
- lumost 3y agoWe wouldn’t debate fire risk with a city as dense as Manhattan. There is a cutoff where the population density and size makes fire prevention/risk management economical.
- Schiendelman 3y agoThat cutoff is probably two orders of magnitude higher density than these places that are burning.
- sologoub 3y agoThat depends on where you are talking about. In SoCal with the Mediterranean climate and relatively few forests, it would probably work. Brush clearance is already a thing and it’s possible to step it up a lot more and enforce on absentee land owners that don’t do it. NorCal with the thick forests, you’d need to clear cut so much, you’d be irreversibly altering the landscape and will probably get other bad things for it, such as erosion and landslides. The vegetation will also try to grow back aggressively (NorCal is a lot wetter than SoCal). So you’d end up doing this over and over again. It’s unlikely to be economical.
- lumost 3y agoThe northeast is full of managed landscapes. It’s not necessarily cheap to do, but it’s also not expensive. However we do not generally have landslide risks.
- bandrami 3y ago> build river beds to create fire breaks Ah, I see you've never tried to do anything involving water or drainage in California