In other news
In the current news climate we see that some figures and events tend to dominate the front-pages heavily. Still, there are important, interesting or just plain weird things happening out there and a group of people can find these better than one.
I thought I would test with a thread for linking general news articles about "other news" and discussion. Perhaps it goes into the abyss that is page 2 and beyond, but it is worth a try.
Some guidelines:
- Try to find the "clean link", so that links to the news site directly and not a social media site. Avoid "amp-links" (google).
- Write some cliff notes on what it is about, especially if it is a video.
- It's not an excuse to make outlandish claims via proxy or link extremist content.
- If it's an editorial or opinion piece, it is polite to mark it as such.
- Note the language if it is not in English.
- There is no demand that such things be posted here, if you think a piece merits its own thread, then make one.
The rich don't want controlled burns nearby where they live because they believe the overly exaggerated health risks of temporary higher microparticle density in the air (same people who believed in double masking and so on).
Crazy green types don't want controlled burns because some bird nests would burn and the like.
You would think having lost thousands of millions of dollars home would make at least the rich change their minds but I wouldn't bet on it
There is also the fear that a controlled burns could become an uncontrolled burn and that fear is probably responsible for a lot of the lack of them.
Man if only there was a word for ‘thousands of millions’
**** your feelings
I have no idea. That doesn't change my point which is that you're being ridiculous to think that Glen Beck and Hannity created the idea that California doesn't do enough controlled burns.
Dumb****, CA has a pretty diverse environment as a whole and any criticisms of their statewide policies have nothing to do with a discussion about controlled burns in Los Angeles county. You, Beck, hannity and Bundy need to show us how the lack of controlled burns have anything to do with the Palisades or Hollywood Hills fires.
Obviously there is a lot that could be done better-- the biggest would just be clearing brush, creating fires breaks, having more controlled burns, using goats, educating the public on the need to clear brush around homes, mandating that homes are built to be more fire resistant (stucco and tile roofs are very fire resistant), making sure that there is adequate water supply, deenergerizing power lines when Santa Anas come, etc.
Ok, Trump, go rake the forest. Not that there is one.
Dumb****, CA has a pretty diverse environment as a whole and any criticisms of their statewide policies have nothing to do with a discussion about controlled burns in Los Angeles county. You, Beck, hannity and Bundy need to show us how the lack of controlled burns have anything to do with the Palisades or Hollywood Hills fires.
How does this change the fact that lack of controlled burns has been a talking point since forever? You're the alleging that people here picked it up from a select few rightwing hosts. Just admit you're an idiot and we can move on.
Obviously there is a lot that could be done better-- the biggest would just be clearing brush, creating fires breaks, having more controlled burns, using goats, educating the public on the need to clear brush around homes, mandating that homes are built to be more fire resistant (stucco and tile roofs are very fire resistant), making sure that there is adequate water supply, deenergerizing power lines when Santa Anas come, etc.
The answer was with luckbox all along!
Dumb****, CA has a pretty diverse environment as a whole and any criticisms of their statewide policies have nothing to do with a discussion about controlled burns in Los Angeles county. You, Beck, hannity and Bundy need to show us how the lack of controlled burns have anything to do with the Palisades or Hollywood Hills fires.
Controlled burns help at least a little everywhere vegetation can happen to generate wildfires.
Literally there is less to burn when the wildfire happens
Controlled burns help at least a little everywhere vegetation can happen to generate wildfires.
Literally there is less to burn when the wildfire happens
WE have controlled burns in the Kootenay's every year its a smart part of fire management .
How a reservoir is out of commission for a year is baffling .
Funny that you and Glenn Beck and Hannity have the same exact theory. It’s not the 7 inches of yearly rainfall on average, it’s the lack of controlled burns in the palisades.
Probably some libtard regulations not allowing control burns at the auto dealership or the strip of grass between the sidewalk and the street .
Probably some libtard regulations not allowing control burns at the auto dealership or the strip of grass between the sidewalk and the street .
surely the fire started right there and was thus unavoidable, it's not like it started somewhere else where, if controlled burns had happened, it would have started slower, progressed slower, made it far easier to contain and so on
surely the fire started right there and was thus unavoidable, it's not like it started somewhere else where, if controlled burns had happened, it would have started slower, progressed slower, made it far easier to contain and so on
Yeah, a little trolling but yours is just a theory. We're talking about sustained 65km/h winds gusting to 100 and how much of a controlled burn can you have and still protect against landslides? I don't know but my main point is this is a natural disaster similar to an earthquake.
Is everyone going to pile on Ca because they didn't tear down every pre 1990 building and rebuild it to code when the big one hits?
Yeah, a little trolling but yours is just a theory. We're talking about sustained 65km/h winds gusting to 100 and how much of a controlled burn can you have and still protect against landslides? I don't know but my main point is this is a natural disaster similar to an earthquake.
Is everyone going to pile on Ca because they didn't tear down every pre 1990 building and rebuild it to code when the big one hits?
No wait, that systematic controlled burns would have helped at the margin is absolutely certain without even the slightest shade of doubt.
What we can't quantify is how much they would have reduced the probability of these wildfires happening in the first place, and/or how much they would have made them less severe. The more the arsonists theory is true the less it would have mattered and viceversa.
If you have far less stuff that can burn nearby all urban settings (imagine burning down everything everytime withing 50 meters of buildings, something like that), could it act as a "cordon sanitaire"?
This is nothing like an earthquake because you cannot do absolutely anything to protect agains EQ intensity and frequency while there is a lot of stuff you can do to reduce frequency and intensity of wildfires.
If you deeply prune every single plant within 300 meters of your house every 3 months you can't get into a wildfire (imagine owning a single house with only vegetation around) , correct? nothing remotely like that exists for an EQ.
For an EQ you can only build to sustain less damage if it happens. You can still do that for wildfires (there are 800 years old palaces in europe that got burnt more than once and still stand for example) but you have a ton of things you can do to decrease intensity and frequency of wildfires as well.
If you have an area which is richer than 99% of the USA you actually do expect them to spend more per resident than 99% of the USA to secure these things yes lol so you would actually expect this to be harder to happen there than almost everywhere else.
It's kinda beyond insane to think they didn't do anything that has even a very low marginal expectations to be useful given that the cost to do so doesn't depend on the value of the homes being protected, while the home to protect where among the highest value in the whole nation so fully deserved FAR more money spent to protect them than basically any other place in the USA.
Show me the receipt of them spending public money there proportional to home value in mitigation/security efforts as logic would dictate.
What we should be commenting should be "look at this rich *******s that in order to minimize risk spend 5x the good ol people outside Boulders, CO".
And keep in mind it's not linear, if you have a 300k home maybe your very stretched in how much more you can pay for anything, if you have a 3M home you are supposed to spend a lot more than 10x the former guy to guarantee everything in your life goes smooth right?
300 meters? Dude thinks everyone is living on 40ac parcels lol Defensible space recs are 100ft. And there are zillions of houses much closer together than that ffs.
300 meters? Dude thinks everyone is living on 40ac parcels lol Defensible space recs are 100ft. And there are zillions of houses much closer together than that ffs.
No i was reasoning ad absurdum, for excesses, which is how you find if a lot of stuff is logic or not.
So, instead of being 1 house, now make it 5-10-20-50, does it change if around the circle they are in, you ****ing have no dry vegetation staying there ready to get on fire?
Just wipe clean everything around the urbanized area as frequently as you can resource wise (and being one of the wealthiest urban areas in the history of the world, it means you could do it every 3 months without even noticing the payments), and wildfires will still happen but those homes won't get touched by them
