4 ms·

> Much of the terrain doesn't allow for heavy equipment use Do the areas that are reachable. After all, somehow roads manage to get constructed. > or the budg

> Much of the terrain doesn't allow for heavy equipment use Do the areas that are reachable. After all, somehow roads manage to get constructed. > or the budget Well, the budget for the devastation from the fires will be orders of magnitude more. Fences can also be constructed that will stop flaming debris from being pushed across the ground.

nradov 1y ago
You're not making any sense. Even with roads, the terrain above and below the roads is largely inaccessible. If you haven't personally traveled through those areas then you might not be able to visualize the difficulty. As for fences, what a stupid and pointless idea. The wildfires spread largely by embers blown up in the air, not by flaming debris being pushed across the ground. And what exactly are you going to build the fences out of?
- WalterBright 1y ago
  In the vicinity of San Francisco, in the 80s, there was a big fire in a rural area, where every house but one burned to the ground. The one was untouched. One feature it had was a low masonry wall about 20 feet away from the house. The firemen quoted in the newspaper said that wall was instrumental in keeping rolling, burning debris away from the house. Fires aren't always accompanied by high velocity winds. Lower velocity winds will pile up the embers behind various obstacles, like a low wall. Masonry walls also are an obstacle for the wind, which will slow down near the ground, and behind the wall it will be still, which will result in debris falling to the ground. The wall can also be made of chicken wire. It would be appropriate to experiment with various forms of inexpensive fencing like chicken wire. As for hills, it isn't necessary to denude them completely of vegetation. Just the parts that are easily accessed, and alongside the roads. I seriously doubt experienced wildfire firefighters would agree with your assessment that it's completely hopeless.
  - estearum 1y ago
    The specific risk in the specific area we're talking about is indeed extremely dry, extremely high speed wind. If you take away the wind, we wouldn't even be talking about this problem.
    - WalterBright 1y ago
      One can also do controlled burns on cold, humid and windless days.
      - estearum 1y ago
        These aren't done more commonly in the LA area due to intense public opposition. It turns out people don't like inhaling smoke year round. Cities in general struggle to do things their citizens don't want them to do and it's not clear to me that this is a bad thing or something you can really blame the city for.
        WalterBright 1y ago
        When I lived in Pasadena in the 70s, there were fires now and then, with smoke and ashes falling like snow. It was just part of life in that area. The way to present it to the citizens is, do you want to smell smoke now and then, or have your house burn down? Like what happened a few months ago? Or you can do the controlled burns when the wind is blowing away from the city.
        estearum 1y ago
        Sure, and here's what has changed between then and now: 1. A much longer and drier dry season 2. A much larger urban-wilderness interface 3. A much more organized public apparatus to combat environmental hazards (even in cases like this which require tradeoffs against more severe future risks) The reason this is such a challenging problem today is not because everyone living in 2025 is a moron or morally corrupt and the people in the 70s were not.

nradov 1y ago

You're not making any sense. Even with roads, the terrain above and below the roads is largely inaccessible. If you haven't personally traveled through those areas then you might not be able to visualize the difficulty. As for fences, what a stupid and pointless idea. The wildfires spread largely by embers blown up in the air, not by flaming debris being pushed across the ground. And what exactly are you going to build the fences out of?

WalterBright 1y ago
In the vicinity of San Francisco, in the 80s, there was a big fire in a rural area, where every house but one burned to the ground. The one was untouched. One feature it had was a low masonry wall about 20 feet away from the house. The firemen quoted in the newspaper said that wall was instrumental in keeping rolling, burning debris away from the house. Fires aren't always accompanied by high velocity winds. Lower velocity winds will pile up the embers behind various obstacles, like a low wall. Masonry walls also are an obstacle for the wind, which will slow down near the ground, and behind the wall it will be still, which will result in debris falling to the ground. The wall can also be made of chicken wire. It would be appropriate to experiment with various forms of inexpensive fencing like chicken wire. As for hills, it isn't necessary to denude them completely of vegetation. Just the parts that are easily accessed, and alongside the roads. I seriously doubt experienced wildfire firefighters would agree with your assessment that it's completely hopeless.
- estearum 1y ago
  The specific risk in the specific area we're talking about is indeed extremely dry, extremely high speed wind. If you take away the wind, we wouldn't even be talking about this problem.
  - WalterBright 1y ago
    One can also do controlled burns on cold, humid and windless days.
    - estearum 1y ago
      These aren't done more commonly in the LA area due to intense public opposition. It turns out people don't like inhaling smoke year round. Cities in general struggle to do things their citizens don't want them to do and it's not clear to me that this is a bad thing or something you can really blame the city for.
      - WalterBright 1y ago
        When I lived in Pasadena in the 70s, there were fires now and then, with smoke and ashes falling like snow. It was just part of life in that area. The way to present it to the citizens is, do you want to smell smoke now and then, or have your house burn down? Like what happened a few months ago? Or you can do the controlled burns when the wind is blowing away from the city.
        estearum 1y ago
        Sure, and here's what has changed between then and now: 1. A much longer and drier dry season 2. A much larger urban-wilderness interface 3. A much more organized public apparatus to combat environmental hazards (even in cases like this which require tradeoffs against more severe future risks) The reason this is such a challenging problem today is not because everyone living in 2025 is a moron or morally corrupt and the people in the 70s were not.