Re: Has anyone heard from BTR1701 today?

On 2025-01-09 8:36 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:

Rhino <no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:

On 2025-01-09 1:49 PM, EGK wrote:

On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 10:20:07 -0800, suzeeq <suzeeq@imbris.com> wrote:
>

On 1/9/2025 9:54 AM, Rhino wrote:

On 2025-01-09 11:48 AM, shawn wrote:

On Thu, 9 Jan 2025 10:45:23 -0500, Rhino
<no_offline_contact@example.com> wrote:
>

On 2025-01-09 4:49 AM, shawn wrote:

On Thu, 09 Jan 2025 05:59:01 GMT, Ed Stasiak
<user1263@newsgrouper.org.uk.invalid> wrote:
>

>

Rhino
>
Given the fires that are all over LA and the fact that he hasn't
posted,
it would be nice to now that he and his pets are somewhere safe.

>
Heard that the power was out in large parts of LA, both from the fires
damaging lines and the power company turning off lines to prevent
them from sparking fires.
>
Though I'd expect him to have a generator (unless Kalifornia finally
got around to banning them...).

>
Having a generator at your home won't help if the cable/telephone
companies equipment has been destroyed by the fires. It's so sad to
see how spread out the fires are so they are impacting a huge number
of people. Saw a sad video from CNN with James Woods who lost his home
in the fires and had a 90 something neighbor who wasn't mentally all
there who almost died in the fires. (Apparently left behind but with
the intent to come back for him, but the fire took out the house about
an hour after they did remove him so it could have gone so much
worse.)
>

I saw that too. I think Woods was still in shock. What a frightening
experience for all concerned! He's a good man for having checked with
the son to determine the neighbour was at the house instead of just
assuming that the old guy was safe in the hospital.
>

Looking at different videos it seems too many people didn't realize
how quickly the fires could spread. Which I get as even I would expect
the fires to spread slowly but with those winds of up to 80 MPH the
fires can spread so much faster than one would expect.
>

>
I hope they gather the smartest people available and try to figure out
some ways to prevent recurrences of this kind of problem, whether that
includes creating more fire breaks around communities, trimming back
undergrowth, increasing the moisture on the plants and trees so they're
not so flammable, etc. etc.

>
They don't need to gather anyone together as I think they've known
what needs to be done for years. Cut back all the growth and the fires
won't spread, but that takes a lot of money and time. Where they can't
cut it back they need to kill it off but that has it's own problems.
(Plant growth helps limit mud slides.)

>
Then they need to get off their asses and do what needs doing. It's that
simple. If this fire isn't enough to motivate the necessary political
will then I don't know what it will take.
>
I saw James Woods interviewed again today and he said there was no water
in the water mains, severely limiting what the fire department could do.
He understood that the reservoirs were too low but I saw a comment that
the reservoirs were full so I don't know who was right. In any case,
someone needs to be held to account for the water mains being empty.
Lawsuits and or criminal charges - and convictions - may motivate the
necessary action to clean up the forests if basic human decency and
common sense don't do the trick.

>
It's hard to hold mother nature accountable for not maintaining water in
reservoirs. If it's a dry year, there's no watcer to fill them.

>
Newsom claimed there was plenty of water but reports are water mains to
fight the fires ran dry.   Why was the fire department budget cut by 17
million dollars?   Why wasn't dry, burnable growth cut and disposed of?
Where the hell do the huge taxes go in California?  Rhetorical question.
>

Years ago, while doing a tech support call with a customer from
California, I discovered he was a firefighter (possibly a volunteer fire
fighter but maybe a professional, I don't recall which) and he was
concerned about some fires near his house. He remarked on the large
amount of undergrowth nearby. I asked why he didn't cut it back and he
said it was illegal! I learned later that California is concerned about
some obscure species of critters - a "snail darter" if I remember
correctly -

 The Snail Darter is infamous, but not in California.
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snail_darter_controversy?wprov=sfti1

Oops, I stand corrected. I'm not sure then what species is/are endangered in Cali that require the undergrowth.

  whose habitat was dry undergrowth. Apparently, the

eco-warriors insisted that these critters be protected which meant the
undergrowth could not be cut.
>
I can't help but wonder if there is some way to preserve snail darters
in some kind of different or even artificial habitat so that the
undergrowth could be cut back. It just seems crazy for people to die and
millions - or billions - of dollars in property damage to occur for the
sake of an obscure insect. I don't know enough to know if losing this
insect would be a world-ending catastrophe or of no consequence whatever
but if it IS critical in some way, let's find a way to preserve it and
still cut down the undergrowth!
>
Species die out all the time but I don't want to be callous: these
critters COULD be some obscure but crucial element of the ecosystem. If
so, let's figure out if there's a way to preserve them that would still
let the undergrowth be cut.
>

You can't prevent the wrath of mother nature but the preparation for a
disaster like this appears to be nill.   The area was a tinderbox waiting to
erupt.

>
>

  

--
Rhino