Re: OT: Typical Globlist

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 10:45:07 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 18:01:17 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
>

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 08:17:12 -0800, john larkin <JL@gct.com> wrote:
>

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 13:10:58 +0000, Cursitor Doom <cd@notformail.com>
wrote:
>

On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 09:49:31 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
>

Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>
[...]

The proposition that radiant heat generated by one burning would set off
an adjacent house is pretty dumb. Fire codes are written to make sure
that houses aren't vulnerable in that way.

>
In that case, what spread the fire?

>
Airborne embers I would guess.

>
That shouldn't be allowed to happen, but the breeze was offshore when
that seaside strip burned.

>
Are the Santa Annas always offshore? I mean as in *invariably*
offshore?

>
>
I think by definition, since it means wind coming from the direction
of Santa Ana.
>
We call the wind from the east here The Diablo Winds, since they blow
on us from the direction of Mt Diablo.
>
>

>

Sloman snipped my link of course. He does that when reality interferes
with his theories.

>
Just another good reason not to waste time trying to argue with him.
Aren't you happier now you don't interract with the damn fool any
more? It was a good idea, that deal we did, I reckon.

>
I might respond if he said something interesting and intelligent about
electronic design, which is highly improbable.
>

>

There are many pics of the LA fire, and of Paradise and Lahaina.
Houses set houses on fire, leaving rubble and green trees. The fire
codes, and especially enforcement, were criminally stupid in all those
cases.
>
Our cabin in the mountains is not very flammible from radiation or
grass fires or from embers, and the local enforcement of defensible
space rules are brutal. Steel roof, no gutters, no attic with vents,
first floor is concrete blocks.
>
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/i9tvka59d0mizo5e5qxnn/Sides.jpg?rlkey=qbzapwuvtju7bjoswnfu1gmhc&raw=1
>
We are required to trim tree limbs and remove pine needles and scrub
bushes and such. Housing density is low by design.
>
There's a forestry department that inspects every property and issues
periodic reports too.
>
Humans have known about fire for dozens of years by now.

>
Indeed! It would appear the building codes badly need updating to take
the natural, cyclical climate change which is taking place into
account.

>
When people excavated for all those houses in the hills in so cal,
there were chunks of old charcoal in the dirt. Clue?
>
San Francisco had giant fires after the 1906 earthquake. Now we have
over 200 cisterns that gravity feed high pressure water into a piping
system dedicated solely to fire hydrants. And the system is still
being expanded.
>
We live two blocks from a canyon that is a known fire hazard, one of
maybe 10 around here. There were crews out there recently cleaning up
brush and leaves.
>
They also hire goats.

There's some dude called Gavin Newsome and he's done this *seriously*
bizarre interview about the fires which throws up a *lot* of
questions. The damn fire's not even out properly and he's said he's
got some sort of plan to 'move forward' with some property speculators
he's spoken with and the 'lawyers are already working on it' and so
on! I'm thinking - 'WTAF??" This is all far too sudden. Has he got the
agreement of the landowners for these plans? Has he even asked them??
I can't find the clip right now, due to the lateness of the hour and I
have to go, but you *must* watch it! It's bound to be on YT somewhere.