3 ms·

The other issue is repsonse times. Many of the responders are volunteers and the areas are inaccessible. The notion that there will be a 15 minute response time

• bjterry 13y ago
  We are probably close to the point of diminishing returns on education and prevention, given people's limited attention spans, the time dedicated to reading warning messages, already prominent notices when you go to campsites, and limitations on human intellect/awareness/abilities. "According to the Ad Council, Smokey Bear and his message are recognized by 95% of adults and 77% of children."[1] The cost of fighting the Rim Fire was $127 million dollars[2], and that doesn't include some much smaller cost to repair the damages it caused (cited to be in the tens of millions by "experts"). The Cedar Fire cost $32 million in firefighting plus 15 lives and 2800 structures. The Zaca Fire cost $117 million to fight. From my perspective it's just a mathematical question whether it would be cheaper to put a satellite in the air vs. other mitigation strategies, and what the cost would be over the lifespan of the satellite for accelerated response vs. typical response. If we plug in the expected value of $200 million in additional funding to awareness I think we will be dissatisfied with the results. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokey_Bear https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokey_Bear 2: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rim_Fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rim_Fire 3: http://interwork.sdsu.edu/fire/resources/fire_facts.htm http://interwork.sdsu.edu/fire/resources/fire_facts.htm 4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaca_Fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaca_Fire
  • 001sky 13y ago
    I think the analytical approach is a good one, but I'm not sure the results are as simple as you imply, or have the result you may be led to believe. The damages of the Rim and Zaca fires were large, but the question is could the system actually prevent the ignition of the fire and decrease the costs of containment. In both of those cases, the answer to the former is <no> and to the latter is <unlikely>. _________________ The Yosemite Rim Fire was man-made and had outsize damages because of inaccesibility and bad policy. Viz: The fire was caused by a hunter's illegal fire that went out of control The blaze was difficult to fight because of inaccessible terrain and erratic winds, forcing firefighters to be reactive Also contributing to the fire was a pre-1980s policy of suppressing small natural fires. The lack of those fires created nearly a century's worth of fuel to burn, resulting in a massive forest fire killing virtually all plant life in its path. A widespread heat wave and drought conditions helped to spread the fire and make it difficult to combat. _________ It takes hours if not days to get men and supplies into some of these locations. On the flip side, the grow very, very quickly. Lets look at the Rim Fire: Only 40 acres when it was discovered, it grew to 10,000 acres within 36 hours and 100,000 acres after four days. The premise that a fire is like an ICBM launch that can be shot down before it explodes via star-wars is flawed. Its the sort of thing that people in Ivory towers believe to make themselves feel better. Which is fine, but its not clear at all that such a mindset correlates with reality. Lets look at the Zaca Fire: ______________ The Zaca Fire was a wildfire which began burning northeast of Buellton, California, in Santa Barbara County, California. The fire started on July 4, 2007, and by August 31, it had burned over 240,207 acres (972.083 km2), making it California's second largest fire in recorded history after the Cedar Fire of 2003.[1][2] The fire was 100% contained on September 2, 2007.[3] It was declared controlled on October 29, 2007.[4] The fire was started as a result of sparks from a grinding machine on private property which was being used to repair a water pipe. ______________ Again, man made fire. People doing stupid things. Entirely preventable. On the flip side, would the Bird save any money by early warning? Highly unlikely. There was no delay in getting at this other than it being called in. So, you would not save any material amount on this. The order of magnitude of cost savings would appear to be perhaps 1/10 of the actual cost, not 100/100. So, in this case, perhaps you save $12MM on the Rim Fire ans $11MM on the Zaca fire. So, for these two events you save $20MM. At a cost of 200-400 million, you would need to incure 10x to 20x of these large scale fires. But this case would be devastating, if ever incurred. So using it as a rational backdrop seems off. If we are really expecting that, we should adopt strategies of prevention and fuel mitigation as much if not more-so than early warning.