My take on fire part 2

Heres an article supporting what I said in an earlier post by someone smarter than I am.

https://www.wired.com/story/wildfires-used-to-be-helpful-how-did-they-get-so-hellish/
Hot button

Jim,
Crazy idea, probably won't work.
Some are talking about CO2 capture. So what are we going to do with the CO2?
Make a CO2 bomb and drop it on wildfires. If the explosion doesn't blow the fire out, the CO2 should. IF not make a bigger CO2 bomb.
That's my big bang theory.
You heard it here first.

Three words, too many people.

How about. Too many people building a house inside a match box?

Not to get political or offend anyone, but any article that leads with climate change pretty much tells the direction it is going.

But otherwise, I agree the devastation is mostly man made. Unintentionally causing a bigger problem by trying to stop natural occurrences.

On a small scale example, my parents bought land on top of a cliff before I was born. Looking at photo albums, and my early memories, the view was amazing! Could see for miles, overlooking a valley that was farmland.

I remember the face of the cliff being mostly rock, cactus, and some grass. It was too steep and loose for much to grow, made for some good exploring, but the climb was not easy, had to be careful not to get to sliding or tumbling down!

As the years went by, vegetation began to get a better hold. Something changed, I assume the area must have been burned in the past, but I don't recall seeing any evidence as in burned stumps.

By the time I was a teen, it became an overwhelming challenge to keep the tree growth under control. In a period of 15-20 years or so, maybe longer (from the time the property was bought and pictures documented the growth) the barren ground turned into a jungle!

Also the farm land was sold and developed, many more houses were built along the bottom and top of the cliff. Looking at aerial Google views, you can barely see the houses for the tree canopy.

None of the cliff is kept cleared, should there ever (and there will be) another fire, it will be devastating to the houses along the top of the cliff, as there is no longer access to the bottom to fight a fire. The original dirt road is long gone, replaced with houses on lots with privacy fences.

So, what caused the change? I don't know. If anything it seems the climate has become more favorable to plant growth.

That article leaves out the fact that in 1995 the US Forest Service retuned to a policy of having controlled burns again after nearly a century of a policy of extinguishing as soon as possible. They obviously need to have more and bigger burns but they have to tread lightly due to public sentiment against burning. This is all old news.

Good idea Gorge maybe you should apply for a patent on that.

Stupid people building houses in places that WILL burn them down. I, as a wildland firefighter (retired) would not go into a situation as described to risk life and equipment to save an unsaveable structure. There are methods and programs to reduce fuel loads and mitigate the risk of a fire burning down your home. Explore the options and get to work. Every homeowner needs to do everything they can to protect against that loss - firefighters will NOT risk THEIR lives to save a house in a poorly planned situation. steve

I agree with you.
Some say they wouldn't live in my county because this is a free country, they own the land and no one will tell them what they can and can't build.
My county has area planning. They tell you what you can and can't build. Can't build in a flood plane.

People in those areas really need to build their homes underground where they can just pack their bags and leave when a fire blows through. It might take 30 years for the area to recover but at least they would have a home to come back to.

Would that also apply equally to people living in tornado alley, the hurricane belt, any place that can get heavy hail, or houses with trees around them? Almost everywhere has some risks as well as some benefits.

The underground homes that I've seen have little appeal to me, they are worse than living in a basement.

House underground would be easy to heat and cool and easy to defend if the need arose.No need to leave when a fire comes thru really.

I figure a house underground you would have to turn off ventilation from the outdoors and you would run out of air before the smoke cleared. You couldn't even get air for a generator so you would run out of battery backup power before it was over. Would be like a WWII era submarine. Would need to come to the surface from time to time.

Probably for less than the cost of building underground a person could build a house that would withstand a tornado or hurricane. In the 19th century someone built a two story house in Galveston TX which the exterior walls were 24 thick stone or brick. Then in 1900 a hurricane made a direct hit on Galveston leveling the city except for that house.

About 25 years ago there was a picture of a house in California,the only one left on the block. The guy who built it was not from this country, and he knew the hill would catch fire someday. Stucco siding,tile roof and a sprinkler system on the roof. His house was untouched and all of the neighbors lost everything. That might have been in Readers Digest,maybe Consumers Report. Back in my abundant days.

That picture and story was on one of the news shows.Owner wanted a home that would still be standing after the fire.He did his homework before he built.In the end he was right

I think I have seen pictures of the devastation and of that house still standing. Didn't know the story behind the house.