Environment LA Wildfires

Remove this Banner Ad

Omg. The cookers on SM are going into meltdown over energy weapons.

Not sure though if they're real or just trolls

There's some crazy conspiracies doing the rounds:
  • started as a distraction before January 20
  • started as a targeted burn of Diddy's house to destroy evidence
  • California isn't allowing fire trucks from other states to assist unless they meet certain environmental markers; this was being doubled down on even though the fire houses coming to assist had shared info when they arrived in LA & the roles they'd play a good 12hrs before the lies were being spread. But people were paying more attention to the lies, believing & sharing that BS compared with the good news of what was actually happening



Then you've got the naive (some who seem very serious) asking why they aren't using that big blue thing beside California (the ocean) to put out the fires...

When it's been explained to them that the equipment isn't designed to work with salt water which would cause issues, they argue it'll at least be a start. Then others are trying to educate them on the dangers of "salting the earth", to which they reply "well, at least that's better than fire destroying everything"

Then there's a group asking why don't they have desalination plants located in those areas for use during these types of situations



They've also some who've now decided they want James Wood (who's house didn't burn down even though he stated it did) to run for Governor in 26, and Mel Gibson for mayor
 
Could you rule out big players leading them though?
Indirectly through daily Rumble videos ranting about how to get at those treasonous commie Hollywood elites? I cannot rule that out.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Not sure how long it takes here, but was staggered to read that it can take 7 years to get approvals to conduct controlled burns in the US.

A recent analysis by my colleagues at the Property and Environment Research Center underscores just how cumbersome NEPA-related delays can be for the projects most needed to reduce fire risks. On average, it takes 3.6 years to begin a mechanical thinning project and 4.7 years to implement a prescribed burn after the U.S. Forest Service initiates the environmental review process. For large projects requiring environmental impact statements, the timeline stretches even longer, averaging 5.3 years for mechanical treatments and 7.2 years for prescribed burns.


Same reason we had the black summer fires few years ago.. I grew up in East gippy and 30 odd years ago there was regular burning off during spring.
Greenies and NIMBYs made it harder and harder for it to be done.
 
You can't take your stock into the parklands to eat the grass anymore LIKE YOU USED TO - animals ate the grass and kept it low and their poopies were good for the soil

Councils and shires no longer maintain all those dirt off the grid access roads in case of fire AS THEY USED TO - meaning firetrucks have limited access to fast spreading fire fronts

Not enough backburning and controlled burns done in the off season - resource and budget problem

Celeb California problem is wanting privacy and gated community but not being prepared for the risks by having multiple water storage tanks and a back up water supply on hand - ignorance on their behalf - most Aussie homes in the bush have a dam or man made dam or dams and water storage tanks on hand and a back up water supply just in case
 
You can't take your stock into the parklands to eat the grass anymore LIKE YOU USED TO - animals ate the grass and kept it low and their poopies were good for the soil
From my recollection, their hooves chop up the top soil. Some eat the grasses down to the soil, killing it entirely. Cattle isn't good for native Australian flora as far as I know.
 
Just to expand on this point, here is a music video from the band Evanescence who are also from Arkansas.


I haven't ever been to Arkansas but I did watch Ozark which was pretty entertaining.

Ronnie Hawkins and Levon Helm.
 
Heard on the LA radio that the LA fire department has the same number of resources that it had in 1960. Since the 1960's the population has almost doubled.
 
Then you've got the naive (some who seem very serious) asking why they aren't using that big blue thing beside California (the ocean) to put out the fires...

When it's been explained to them that the equipment isn't designed to work with salt water which would cause issues, they argue it'll at least be a start. Then others are trying to educate them on the dangers of "salting the earth", to which they reply "well, at least that's better than fire destroying everything"

In emergency situations concerns about soil degradation should be low priority.

There are aircraft that are able to use salt water to fight fires, for example, the Viking Canadair CL series. They are built with a lot of corrosion-resistant materials, mostly treated aluminium. For fires that are near the ocean they could have a 10 minute turn round of water drops with over 100 runs per day totalling 500,000 litres.

 
Then you've got the naive (some who seem very serious) asking why they aren't using that big blue thing beside California (the ocean) to put out the fires...

When it's been explained to them that the equipment isn't designed to work with salt water which would cause issues, they argue it'll at least be a start. Then others are trying to educate them on the dangers of "salting the earth", to which they reply "well, at least that's better than fire destroying everything"
However, they do use sea water at times.

That's not really the issue, though. The issue is that the wind speed was too high to fly anything in, at the same time as it was fanning the flames like a leaf blower on your camp fire.

Salt water on a sea-front property would not be a HUGE problem given that land and flora has developed to exist in that environment, including storm surges and the like flooding the land.

Dumping it inland on a national park would, I imagine, screw things up in that immediate area. Do you sacrifice a bit to save the rest, and worry about remediation later? I don't know the cost and effects so I couldn't say. Online information sources that developed online in the past 25+ years have often been poisoned by trash and grifters.
 
We used to take our sheep up there to graze for a few days every year back in the day
Problem was we'd have to rotate on guard duty for foxes and wild dogs
I have a memory of sheep being a big culprit in eating grasses to the soil where animals native to the area will not.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

However, they do use sea water at times.

That's not really the issue, though. The issue is that the wind speed was too high to fly anything in, at the same time as it was fanning the flames like a leaf blower on your camp fire.

Salt water on a sea-front property would not be a HUGE problem given that land and flora has developed to exist in that environment, including storm surges and the like flooding the land.

Dumping it inland on a national park would, I imagine, screw things up in that immediate area. Do you sacrifice a bit to save the rest, and worry about remediation later? I don't know the cost and effects so I couldn't say. Online information sources that developed online in the past 25+ years have often been poisoned by trash and grifters.

Using saltwater inland would likely have a long term impact compared with in coastal regions

But it does seem a number of those arguing for it to be used aren't exactly meaning for use with firefighting aircraft, but they somehow want it connected to the reserve water supplies or hydrants so that the ground crews have access to it

It's also why they want desalination plants operating in those areas to connect to water reserves - that makes a bit more sense, but then it's about the logistics of how that works

I've also seen some blaming "Greenies" for rivers that run into the ocean as that's a waste of fresh water which should be diverted elsewhere - ignoring that it's not necessarily intervention by man that directs the flow of rivers
 
But it does seem a number of those arguing for it to be used aren't exactly meaning for use with firefighting aircraft, but they somehow want it connected to the reserve water supplies or hydrants so that the ground crews have access to it
Oh OK. Yeah, nah.

Bucket on a helicopter? Sure.
 
I've also seen some blaming "Greenies" for rivers that run into the ocean as that's a waste of fresh water which should be diverted elsewhere - ignoring that it's not necessarily intervention by man that directs the flow of rivers
Next minute "the Dems have destroyed our fishing industries with their taxes and mismanagement and red tape" (ignores river mouth devastated by low water flow).
 
The most hilarious thing is all these gofundmes. some ex-tech developer or a rockstar's house burnt down and ordinary people are actually donating? saw some redundant ex smack head indie dweeb had lost his house and he's already got $100,000 in donations.

Absolutely nuts.
 
The most hilarious thing is all these gofundmes. some ex-tech developer or a rockstar's house burnt down and ordinary people are actually donating? saw some redundant ex smack head indie dweeb had lost his house and he's already got $100,000 in donations.

Absolutely nuts.

Do GoFundMe need proof of loss of property in the fires? Asking for a fiend.
 
Fair enough.

Can't say I've heard of propensity towards arson being a mental health condition.
Pyromania is a disorder listed in the DSM 5, so you have now.
 
Fair enough.

Can't say I've heard of propensity towards arson being a mental health condition.
Obsessive behaviour? Lack of ability to see consequences? Lack of empathy? Lack of connection with reality?

Could be wrong but I don't think it would be listed as "arsonist".
 
Reports of looting in the evacuated areas so even if your house hasn't burned down there is a chance it could get robbed instead.


Pyromania is a disorder listed in the DSM 5, so you have now.

Even if the arsonists starting these fires have a diagnosed disorder I don't think that is any excuse and they should still be punished with jail time, if you let them get away without any punishment it gives the green light for other people to start fires.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Environment LA Wildfires

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top