3 ms·

> As is less known, authorities used dynamite as a fire-fighting technique. There was no water, and they thought fire would spread less readily across rubble. I

> As is less known, authorities used dynamite as a fire-fighting technique. There was no water, and they thought fire would spread less readily across rubble. It wasn’t very effective, and the collateral consequences were tremendous, but no other solution was at hand, so authorities kept at it, blowing up larger and larger patches of the city: first, select buildings, then half a block, then an entire block, and eventually, twenty-two blocks of Van Ness Avenue — a mile and a half of “handsome and costly” Victorian homes that were mostly untouched by the quake. For the better part of ten days, explosions happened every few minutes, day and night, each one ratcheting the panic and exacerbating the unease. Whoah. I wonder if supporting vs not supporting this caused societal rifts similar to what we saw with COVID lockdowns.

rightbyte 3y ago
Seems very doubtful that rubble catches fire that much less easily than standing houses, that you blow standing houses up? I mean, I would guess rubble takes fire more easily than a plain wall. You got small sticks and insolation (which used to be saw dust) everywhere if you blow the house up. Rubble probably burn somewhat slower though.
- rz2k 3y ago
  The fuel will only burn when oxygen is available. Dynamited buildings would expose more raw wood that catches fire easily to the outside, but with everything on the ground, it is difficult for all of the fuel of the building to burn simultaneously. Just like with wild fires, the intensity of urban fires will contribute to how fast they spread. The author was not able to conduct A/B testing of two different strategies, but there is a long history of city-destroying fires involving pre-twentieth century fire-safety standards and wooden buildings.
  - Aeolun 3y ago
    There’s also a long history of fire brigades not fighting fires but instead demolishing homes to keep the fire contained. For small wooden construction that’s a bit easier than for large victorian mansions though.
    - rz2k 3y ago
      I think, "It wasn't very effective" is just the author filling space on a page with copy, not the assessment of an engineer. The conventional wisdom among experts is relayed here by The Chronicle: > Van Ness was once the city’s grandest boulevard, lined with Victorian mansions and impressive churches. That all came to an end when the great San Francisco earthquake of 1906 set off a firestorm that raged for days. The fire came under control only after the U.S. Army dynamited nearly every building on the east side of Van Ness. So the avenue provided the firebreak that saved the city. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/nativeson/article/The-bandages-are-coming-off-Check-out-S-F-s-16617835.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/nativeson/article/The-ba... I think of Victorian mansions as being wooden construction, and from a fast look at the results of image searching "Van Ness Avenue before 1906" that seems to be the case.
mock-possum 3y ago
Ah yes the sim city approach to firefighting

rightbyte 3y ago

Seems very doubtful that rubble catches fire that much less easily than standing houses, that you blow standing houses up? I mean, I would guess rubble takes fire more easily than a plain wall. You got small sticks and insolation (which used to be saw dust) everywhere if you blow the house up. Rubble probably burn somewhat slower though.

rz2k 3y ago
The fuel will only burn when oxygen is available. Dynamited buildings would expose more raw wood that catches fire easily to the outside, but with everything on the ground, it is difficult for all of the fuel of the building to burn simultaneously. Just like with wild fires, the intensity of urban fires will contribute to how fast they spread. The author was not able to conduct A/B testing of two different strategies, but there is a long history of city-destroying fires involving pre-twentieth century fire-safety standards and wooden buildings.
- Aeolun 3y ago
  There’s also a long history of fire brigades not fighting fires but instead demolishing homes to keep the fire contained. For small wooden construction that’s a bit easier than for large victorian mansions though.
  - rz2k 3y ago
    I think, "It wasn't very effective" is just the author filling space on a page with copy, not the assessment of an engineer. The conventional wisdom among experts is relayed here by The Chronicle: > Van Ness was once the city’s grandest boulevard, lined with Victorian mansions and impressive churches. That all came to an end when the great San Francisco earthquake of 1906 set off a firestorm that raged for days. The fire came under control only after the U.S. Army dynamited nearly every building on the east side of Van Ness. So the avenue provided the firebreak that saved the city. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/nativeson/article/The-bandages-are-coming-off-Check-out-S-F-s-16617835.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/nativeson/article/The-ba... I think of Victorian mansions as being wooden construction, and from a fast look at the results of image searching "Van Ness Avenue before 1906" that seems to be the case.

mock-possum 3y ago

Ah yes the sim city approach to firefighting