BS: California fire danger-Los Angeles

Subject: RE: BS: California fire danger-Los Angeles
From: Donuel
Date: 15 Jan 25 - 04:51 PM

If you ever visit San Fran to LA you will see gumdrop foot hills of brown dry grass to desert palms and dry forests climbing the steep mountainsides. Not exactly beaver territory although they are masterful land and water scapers.

Subject: RE: BS: California fire danger-Los Angeles
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 15 Jan 25 - 01:08 PM

Right. And there are a few token beavers in the Sonoran Desert, last I looked. Dick, look at a map of the place. No beavers will be introduced to save Los Angeles. They need to stop doing the landscaping with plants next to houses that are made of fuel.

From the US Forest Service - Ignition-Resistant Homes
Use wildfire-resistant building materials and landscaping.

From This Old House - How To Build a Fireproof Home
Learn how insulated concrete forms—combined with fire-resistant exterior and interior materials—make for one safe home.

From a site called Fast Company - No shrubs and lots of concrete: This is what a fire-resistant house looks like
There’s no such thing as a fire-proof house, but certain design choices can help protect a home during a wildfire.

Subject: RE: BS: California fire danger-Los Angeles
From: The Sandman
Date: 15 Jan 25 - 04:13 AM

Beavers have been introduced in other places to prevent wild fires

Subject: RE: BS: California fire danger-Los Angeles
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Jan 25 - 02:55 PM

This isn't a canal kind of area, Dick. Too much infrastructure to work around and not enough water to fill them. The discussion now is to rebuild with materials that don't burn, to landscape in a way that you don't have fuel growing against the house, and to rework the reservoir system to give more access to water when needed like this.

I won't be surprised to see more non-traditional structures going back into the burned areas. And those who didn't burn - this time - need to look to the future to harden their homes to fire.

Subject: RE: BS: California fire danger-Los Angeles
From: Donuel
Date: 14 Jan 25 - 02:45 PM

This fire event is already considered more expensive than any other natural disaster in US history including Katrina.

If humans were capable of defeating this fire they would have needed 46,000 more pumper fire trucks and 7 million more gallons of water than was available.

Subject: RE: BS: California fire danger-Los Angeles
From: The Sandman
Date: 14 Jan 25 - 01:41 PM

if Trump had any sense he would invest in infra structure in this area, for example building several canals at strategic points might help to stop the spread of fires to some extent.

Subject: RE: BS: California fire danger-Los Angeles
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Jan 25 - 01:06 PM

I was listening to a morning news conference at which the regional FEMA director was very clear about all of the options available for fire victims. The head of each household is the only one who needs to file, for example, not each family member, saving time. And he mentioned other services from other federal agencies. He also addressed a couple of the top misinformation pieces making the rounds now.

Subject: RE: BS: California fire danger-Los Angeles
From: gillymor
Date: 14 Jan 25 - 12:14 PM

I just hope President Biden is doing the maximum to help out during the short time he has left in office because the incoming cretin will probably do the minimum, given that this disaster is in California.

Subject: RE: BS: California fire danger-Los Angeles
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 14 Jan 25 - 11:51 AM

Watching the local LA station this morning as winds increase - so much we take for granted is part of a building block thousands of people are having to rebuild. They're being told where to collect their mail that isn't delivered to burned homes, where to get water in neighborhoods with unsafe tap water, to charge devices because of upcoming power outages, where to find food assistance, how to replace prescriptions, clothes, temporary housing. . . unmet needs are going to be gigantic out there. FEMA and other agencies are being enumerated. Fraud and rumor web pages. There but for the grace of dog. . .

Subject: RE: BS: California fire danger-Los Angeles
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 13 Jan 25 - 06:43 PM

That may be the case at FOX HQ, but right now the local reporters are more concerned about people who evacuated a week ago and left their pets in the house. Now they want to get back to retrieve them or feed them - that was the first question out of the FOX reporter's mouth this morning. (Why didn't they take the pets when they could?)

Note: the answer just showed up. Many of them had gone to work and couldn't return home once the fires passed through. So whatever was in the house stayed in the house.

Subject: RE: BS: California fire danger-Los Angeles
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Jan 25 - 05:07 PM

The difference between Fox and NBC is that climate change does not exist on Fox.

Subject: RE: BS: California fire danger-Los Angeles
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 13 Jan 25 - 11:12 AM

This weekend I watched the local network affiliates in Los Angeles via streaming services. Sling is a paid streaming network but you can sign up and just watch their free channels. I watched the FOX affiliate (when it came to just fire coverage they were top-notch, no political stuff, just on the ground and helicopter views of the region, not just the rich side of town.) Sling has lots of FOX channels, this is the first time I've ever watched one.

Similar with the CBS news affiliate, that I got to via Pluto, which is always free. Scroll down and you'll find various city affiliates.

The same is possible via NBC affiliates, not sure where they stream, maybe that's on Hulu or another source. You can go to the channel feed directly via the local channel's home page (https://www.nbclosangeles.com/)

The local news programs are a lot different than the national ones as far as the granularity of their coverage. I'm afraid it is rather like watching a train wreck.

I've just tuned in this morning; the wind is predicted to get worse today. FOX is preparing at the moment to play a press conference. I'll switch around and see how the coverage compares. FOX just ran an ad for a remastered interview with Jane Fonda opposing the Vietnam war - same ol' same ol' conservative stuff once the ads come back, it looks like.

A note about the terminology that I learned from FOX this weekend - when they say "structures burned" that is everything, including sheds, barns, residences, and even RVs and cars. So when the total structures (at that point) was 6,000, the homes in that count were about 500. Still a lot of homes, but it is something the fire department has made a point of trying to clarify for the news outlets.

Subject: RE: BS: California fire danger-Los Angeles
From: Donuel
Date: 13 Jan 25 - 06:20 AM

"It never rains in southern California"
"Here comes those Santa Anna winds again"

Over 100,000 people are evacuated and or homeless. The size of the destruction is composed of unbelievable comparisons. The disaster continues.

Subject: RE: BS: California fire danger-Los Angeles
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Jan 25 - 05:07 PM

Hmm. I used to have 4-5 RSS readers. Gotten out of the habit. I'll go see if they're still buried in old program files.

Subject: RE: BS: California fire danger-Los Angeles
From: DaveRo
Date: 09 Jan 25 - 03:57 PM

Thanks. But I'm not a subscriber ;) I read it on RSS, which, unusually, for the Atlantic gives me the full text and pictures - most feeds only give a summary.
https://www.theatlantic.com/feed/all/

Unlike the NYT they don't seem to have any offers for new subscribers or foreigners.

Feedreaders: Windows: RSSOwl, Linux: Liferea, iOS: Netnewswire, Android: Sparse RSS mod (all free)

Subject: RE: BS: California fire danger-Los Angeles
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 09 Jan 25 - 03:00 PM

DaveRo, if you look at the top of your subscription page, The Atlantic lets subscribers share any number of articles they wish each month. I grabbed the share link from my account and updated your link.

Subject: RE: BS: California fire danger-Los Angeles
From: DaveRo
Date: 09 Jan 25 - 03:17 AM

Also this in the Atlantic - may be paywalled:
‘I’ve Never Seen Anything Like This’

Subject: RE: BS: California fire danger-Los Angeles
From: DaveRo
Date: 09 Jan 25 - 03:07 AM

This is about the Santa Anna winds that spread these fires:
How Santa Ana winds fueled the deadly fires in Southern California

In Europe fires are often blamed on arsonists. Is that the case in California?

Subject: RE: BS: California fire danger-Los Angeles
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 08 Jan 25 - 07:09 PM

Scary stuff.

It's in the news here, too & Australia also has fires. Once upon a time Oz firefighters could hire water tankers from the northern hemisphere but fire seasons are wider now.

Subject: RE: BS: California fire danger-Los Angeles
From: Tattie Bogle
Date: 08 Jan 25 - 06:50 PM

Hoping that all of our Mudcat friends and their families stay safe. We are seeing graphic pictures on the UK news and it looks horrendous.

Subject: BS: California fire danger-Los Angeles
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Jan 25 - 10:01 AM

The danger exists from Pasadena to San Diego and beyond but 80,000 are evacuated from the Pallisades which are almost totally lost amid 100 mph winds and no humidity with 0% containment. There are no reported fatalities but it seems to me that the Maui fire will be considered tiny to this LA fire. This is an unprecedented disaster.