Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

100,000 flee their homes while fires rage in Saddle Ridge near L.A.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 100,000 flee their homes while fires rage in Saddle Ridge near L.A.

    Is it always so political here?
    There are also some REAL things happening out there-


    https://ktla.com/2019/10/11/saddleri...ons-overnight/

    https://ktla.com/2019/10/11/saddleri...ons-overnight/


    When the wind blows, fire will kill you in a heartbeat.


    Now, the interesting part (and it amazes me that nobody here has a thread on this) is how PG&E cut power to millions just to avoid more lawsuits on fires started by their power lines.
    And yet, this fire still happened.

    What's up with this mess. and how did they get it so wrong?

    https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/10/...c-gas-electric

  • #2
    Originally posted by Phaing View Post
    Is it always so political here?
    There are also some REAL things happening out there-


    https://ktla.com/2019/10/11/saddleri...ons-overnight/

    https://ktla.com/2019/10/11/saddleri...ons-overnight/


    When the wind blows, fire will kill you in a heartbeat.


    Now, the interesting part (and it amazes me that nobody here has a thread on this) is how PG&E cut power to millions just to avoid more lawsuits on fires started by their power lines.
    And yet, this fire still happened.

    What's up with this mess. and how did they get it so wrong?

    https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/10/...c-gas-electric
    Fires in California are almost entirely political since CA refuses steadfastly to do any planning or mitigation for "environmental" reasons.
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

      Fires in California are almost entirely political since CA refuses steadfastly to do any planning or mitigation for "environmental" reasons.
      Right back to politics here, even with this.

      No, why? Why not talk about a ruthless Company shutting off power for greed's sake or the fact that it did not work?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Phaing View Post

        Right back to politics here, even with this.

        No, why? Why not talk about a ruthless Company shutting off power for greed's sake or the fact that it did not work?
        Also political, since the power industry has been under attack by the California government for decades, because they have to use fossil fuels and/or buy energy from elsewhere to meet the lunatic government environmental standards. Why isn't the fire being fought with solar and wind power, the darlings of the California Loony Party in power?

        You cannot discuss anything happening in California without politics being an element of the situation. The situation in California is the direct result of bad politics for decades. After all, how can anyone fight a fire when the daily allocation passed by recent law is only 55 gallons of water per person per day? Who goes without water to enable firefighters to do their job? The government? The endless hoards of illegals inhabiting Southern California? Oh...HELL no. Not a chance...California is a "sanctuary" state...so who? Where does the non-existent money and water and resources come from in a totally dysfunctional state?
        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

          Also political, since the power industry has been under attack by the California government for decades, because they have to use fossil fuels and/or buy energy from elsewhere to meet the lunatic government environmental standards. Why isn't the fire being fought with solar and wind power, the darlings of the California Loony Party in power?

          You cannot discuss anything happening in California without politics being an element of the situation. The situation in California is the direct result of bad politics for decades. After all, how can anyone fight a fire when the daily allocation passed by recent law is only 55 gallons of water per person per day? Who goes without water to enable firefighters to do their job? The government? The endless hoards of illegals inhabiting Southern California? Oh...HELL no. Not a chance...California is a "sanctuary" state...so who? Where does the non-existent money and water and resources come from in a totally dysfunctional state?
          Prior to that law I had an idea to sell kits to people living in high wildfire potential areas who had pools. The idea was to have kit that consisted of a pump, portable generator with about a 12 hour run time, connecting hoses, and a set of impact sprinklers and misters that you placed on your home (this part could be custom designed for your property and home) when a wildfire approached.
          The system would be designed to allow for about 8 to 10 hours of run time drawing water from your pool to wet your home and property while also providing a means to put out flying embers and prevent spontaneous combustion from heat the fire might give off.
          Packed in a portable box with instructions making assembly easy and relatively quick, the whole thing would sell for around $2500. Much cheaper than having your house burn to the ground.

          I know if I lived in an area like that, I'd put one together provided I had the water source, like a pool...

          But, at 55 gpd that ain't happening now.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

            Prior to that law I had an idea to sell kits to people living in high wildfire potential areas who had pools. The idea was to have kit that consisted of a pump, portable generator with about a 12 hour run time, connecting hoses, and a set of impact sprinklers and misters that you placed on your home (this part could be custom designed for your property and home) when a wildfire approached.
            The system would be designed to allow for about 8 to 10 hours of run time drawing water from your pool to wet your home and property while also providing a means to put out flying embers and prevent spontaneous combustion from heat the fire might give off.
            Packed in a portable box with instructions making assembly easy and relatively quick, the whole thing would sell for around $2500. Much cheaper than having your house burn to the ground.

            I know if I lived in an area like that, I'd put one together provided I had the water source, like a pool...

            But, at 55 gpd that ain't happening now.
            This makes zero sense!
            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by pamak View Post

              This makes zero sense!
              Yea, right...



              The Ham Lake wildfire experience with the sprinkler systems as one component of wildfire preparedness demonstrated that the systems, when properly installed and maintained, can be extremely effective in protecting not only the built structure but also the trees and vegetation within the sprinkler area. Of the threatened structures on the Gunflint Trail that burned in the Seagull Lake and Saganaga Lake areas, only one had a working sprinkler. Of the threatened structures that survived, 72% had working sprinklers. All but one structure with a working sprinkler system survived the fire.
              https://wildfiretoday.com/tag/sprinklers/

              https://www.spiedr.com/wildfire-sprinkler-kit/

              Yea, right...

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                What right?

                Explain how the average 55 gpd is an issue for a pump that takes water from the pool for the purpose you described.
                Start with the measurement of the water meter...

                My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by pamak View Post

                  What right?

                  Explain how the average 55 gpd is an issue for a pump that takes water from the pool for the purpose you described.
                  Start with the measurement of the water meter...
                  You can't have a pool at 55 gpd.

                  https://dengarden.com/swimming-pools...-Swimming-Pool

                  Pool evaporation loss per day is anywhere from about 20 gallons and up. In Southern California in lower humidity, hotter weather it could be as much at 35+ gpd.

                  Then there's initially filling it. Pools typically take 10,000 to 20,000 gallons to fill.

                  That doesn't leave you much to do anything else with.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                    You can't have a pool at 55 gpd.

                    https://dengarden.com/swimming-pools...-Swimming-Pool

                    Pool evaporation loss per day is anywhere from about 20 gallons and up. In Southern California in lower humidity, hotter weather it could be as much at 35+ gpd.

                    Then there's initially filling it. Pools typically take 10,000 to 20,000 gallons to fill.

                    That doesn't leave you much to do anything else with.
                    So, you try to argue that people will not have a pool because the average water consumption (in the water district ) will fall by a few gallons per day?

                    Nope! It does not make sense: Those who can afford to build and fill a pool now will not have a problem to fill it if the water district adopts an average consumption of 55 gpd.
                    Last edited by pamak; 14 Oct 19, 19:41.
                    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      SF RESIDENTIAL water consumption is already way less than 55 gpd.

                      https://sfwater.org/modules/showdocu...cumentid=11472


                      San Francisco reduce total water demand over the last two decades despite population growth. In FY 2016-17, San Francisco retail customers’ gross per capita use was approximately 72 gallons per day and the residential per capita water use was about 41 gallons per day.

                      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by pamak View Post
                        SF RESIDENTIAL water consumption is already way less than 55 gpd.

                        https://sfwater.org/modules/showdocu...cumentid=11472


                        San Francisco reduce total water demand over the last two decades despite population growth. In FY 2016-17, San Francisco retail customers’ gross per capita use was approximately 72 gallons per day and the residential per capita water use was about 41 gallons per day.
                        San Fran.... Not reality...

                        Try 80 to 120 gpd on average.

                        https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3611

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                          San Fran.... Not reality...

                          Try 80 to 120 gpd on average.

                          https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3611

                          SF is reality!

                          Can you read?

                          I just gave you the number from SF and you come out with the CA average!

                          And notice in your graph how landscaping consumes most of the water (outdoors). Changing from lawn to gravel will save the average house many gallons per day The absence of any type of landscape is one of the reasons why SF has 41 gallons per day instead of 80.

                          p.s. And no, over the whole year the average consumption in CA is 85 GPD per capita according to your link. It goes to as low as 60 during winter and 120 during summer.
                          Last edited by pamak; 14 Oct 19, 22:33.
                          My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by pamak View Post

                            SF is reality!

                            Can you read?

                            I just gave you the number from SF and you come out with the CA average!

                            And notice in your graph how landscaping consumes most of the water (outdoors). Changing from lawn to gravel will save the average house many gallons per day
                            San Francisco is not indicative of the state in general. It is a very dense urban area.

                            Many cities already ban filling pools and even hot tubs there:

                            https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/05/...ries-steaming/

                            https://www.nbcnews.com/business/con...fornia-n333111

                            https://www.cbsnews.com/news/califor...ght-continues/

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                              San Francisco is not indicative of the state in general. It is a very dense urban area.

                              Many cities already ban filling pools and even hot tubs there:

                              https://www.mercurynews.com/2015/05/...ries-steaming/

                              https://www.nbcnews.com/business/con...fornia-n333111

                              https://www.cbsnews.com/news/califor...ght-continues/
                              I just gave you the fact that landscape is the important issue and that the average consumption you see in CA is high because lawn is still considered "sexy" in landscaping. SF is crowded and since there is little residential landscaping because of space limitations, this affects also the water consumption.

                              And yes, if there is a period of unusual drought (ad your links are from such period) there will be additional measures.

                              Last edited by pamak; 14 Oct 19, 22:51.
                              My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X