SoCal fires thread

22,988 Views | 647 Replies | Last: 1 hr ago by movielover
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

If anyone needs to laugh this morning, turn on the senate confirmation hearings and listen to people like Senator Johnson and Senator Paul pontificate about how California should have prevented the forest fires.

But did the typical attack on California, saying it was maybe not preventable but limitable, while pointing out how you can't stop a hurricane. (No mention of halting construction in hurricane or flood zones, typical.)

I did like Paul's statement that it was mismanagement by CA politician to not have hoses and batteries so the coastal homes could just suck seawater out for homeowners to spray on their places while the fire was going.
Gosh, why didn't I think of that? All I need to know is how much battery capacity to run giant water pumps mounted in the surf.


So you don't think the SCOPE of this tragedy could have been prevented?
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think the LISTERINE of this tragedy could have prevented.


Try proofreading in order to avoid making your posts even less understandable than usual.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AunBear89 said:

I think the LISTERINE of this tragedy could have prevented.


Try proofreading in order to avoid making your posts even less understandable than usual.


5 SECOND GOOGLE SEARCH:

Scope of the tragedy" refers to the extent or magnitude of suffering and devastation caused by a tragic event, considering factors like the number of people affected, the severity of their loss, and the broader societal impact it might have, essentially encompassing the overall scale of the tragedy within a given context.

Key points about the scope of a tragedy:
Impact on individuals:
The number of people directly affected by the tragedy, including the severity of their personal loss or suffering.
Community impact:
How the tragedy affects a wider community, including social disruption, emotional distress, and potential long-term consequences.


WHAT THE HECK IS YOUR PROBLEM?
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I know what scope means. I don't understand why it's all caps.
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

So you don't think the SCOPE of this tragedy could have prevented?
No, I don't think anyone thinks the scope (or, SCOPE) of the tragedy could have prevented anything. I don't understand the question.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
It's too early to really know what could and could not have been prevented.
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

It's too early to really know what could and could not have been prevented.


But 003 is convinced the SCOPE of the tragedy would have prevented it.


Or something.


Still waiting for him to clarify what he thought the SCOPE of the tragedy was supposed to prevent.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Between the wind speed, the ambers and massive extent of outbreak, I can't think of anything that would have changed outcome other than the contractor that built the house below building more of the houses in the area:

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As stated before, my problem is holier than thou conservatives pretending they have all the answers when they can't even properly construct a basic sentence.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

It's too early to really know what could and could not have been prevented.


Thanks sycasey. I appreciate you actually addressing the question
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Flagged because I am triggered by you being triggered by me pointing out your question, as constructed, made no sense.

Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Perhaps you could make an effort to be less abrasive and pugilistic after your return from that long vacation?
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Perhaps you could keep your unwanted opinions to yourself. I give as I get.
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

sycasey said:

It's too early to really know what could and could not have been prevented.


Thanks sycasey. I appreciate you actually addressing the question

And I appreciate you finally editing the post so it is actually now a question. Not a very good question, but baby steps.

How do you "prevent" the scope of something? You can certainly limit or increase the scope of an event and subsequent impact, but preventing the scope of something? Those words must mean something else in your world.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
Cal88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AunBear89 said:

Perhaps you could keep your unwanted opinions to yourself. I give as I get.

But I digress: surely you have a dispatch from Moscow that needs reading and possible copy and pasting?

It sounds like you are soon headed for another trip to the digital goulag.
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I keep forgetting: criticizing conservatives is no longer allowed here. Open season on everyone else.


I retract my earlier statement, sire. Please don't report me to the thought police.
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AunBear89 said:

oski003 said:

sycasey said:

It's too early to really know what could and could not have been prevented.


Thanks sycasey. I appreciate you actually addressing the question

And I appreciate you finally editing the post so it is actually now a question. Not a very good question, but baby steps.

How do you "prevent" the scope of something? You can certainly limit or increase the scope of an event and subsequent impact, but preventing the scope of something? Those words must mean something else in your world.


While preventing the immense scope of devastation caused by this tragic event does work, limiting the scope would be better word usage. Are you happy?

The question is both good and relevant. Clearly, government, industry professionals, and homeowners could have done something to prevent this tragedy from being so massive, right?
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Words are important.



Even if conservatives are constantly trying to change what certain words mean.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:


The question is both good and relevant. Clearly, government, industry professionals, and homeowners could have done something to prevent this tragedy from being so massive, right?


No, the question is obvious and rhetorical.

Of course, many things could have been done by lots of people to mitigate the scope of the tragedy. But most Republicans aren't interested in identifying what could be done, but are only interested in blaming libs.

So take your obvious and rhetorical question, along with your smug sanctimony, and go see if there is another terrible cabinet appointee you can defend. Using the wildfires to score political points should be beneath most, but apparently it is in the wheelhouse of most Bear Insider conservatives.

Question: do you believe Fed disaster relief should be conditional pending policy changes, as stated by several Republicans in Congress?
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Incompetent politicians and bureaucrats spent decades turning California into a tinder box.

The Santa Ana winds, and mini droughts, are normal. Nothing new or unexpected.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AunBear89 said:

oski003 said:

So you don't think the SCOPE of this tragedy could have prevented?
No, I don't think anyone thinks the scope (or, SCOPE) of the tragedy could have prevented anything. I don't understand the question.


Ignorance is bliss. Our grandfathers and great grandfather's had no problems limiting fires, covering the basics, or working hard. Liberals created a Tinder Box in a desert and then blame fires on LNG.

Now we have soft individuals sitting behind computers, pampered, delusional, just like the UCLA basketball team (successful HC rant today calling then all delusional). These pretend professionals lecture us on DEI or global warming while some are morbidly obese.

Modern Liberals created Super-fires, not the Global Warming hypothesis. It's a destructive idealogy. Look at Germany (de industrializing), Britain (hiding mass racist rape and torture gangs for three plus decades), Sweden (now a leading rape Capitol), France, etc.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bear2034 said:

bearister said:

"Newsom can be fairly criticized for many things he has done or not done, but he is absolutely blameless on the fires, no matter what Trump and other critics might allege.

So who do you have left to blame if not Newsom, the mayor of LA?
Why do we have have to assign blame in the heat of the moment?
DiabloWags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

AunBear89 said:

oski003 said:

So you don't think the SCOPE of this tragedy could have prevented?
No, I don't think anyone thinks the scope (or, SCOPE) of the tragedy could have prevented anything. I don't understand the question.


Ignorance is bliss. Our grandfathers and great grandfather's had no problems limiting fires, covering the basics, or working hard. Liberals created a Tinder Box in a desert and then blame fires on LNG.


You just might be one of the most delusional and "twisted" people to ever post in this Forum.

Congrats.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
DiabloWags said:

movielover said:

AunBear89 said:

oski003 said:

So you don't think the SCOPE of this tragedy could have prevented?
No, I don't think anyone thinks the scope (or, SCOPE) of the tragedy could have prevented anything. I don't understand the question.


Ignorance is bliss. Our grandfathers and great grandfather's had no problems limiting fires, covering the basics, or working hard. Liberals created a Tinder Box in a desert and then blame fires on LNG.


You just might be one of the most delusional and "twisted" people to ever post in this Forum.

Congrats.


No, He's got some company at the bottom of the barrel!!!

One of? Definitely!
They amaze me as a collective unit.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
As the death toll from wildfires in Los Angeles County climbs to 27, officials with the sheriff's department announced that 31 active missing persons cases remain under investigation.

In a news release, authorities said that as of Jan. 16, 43 missing persons cases have been reported to LASD's Homicide Bureau Missing Persons Unit, 12 of whom have been found safe.
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

AunBear89 said:

oski003 said:

So you don't think the SCOPE of this tragedy could have prevented?
No, I don't think anyone thinks the scope (or, SCOPE) of the tragedy could have prevented anything. I don't understand the question.

Ignorance is bliss. Our grandfathers and great grandfather's had no problems limiting fires, covering the basics, or working hard. Liberals created a Tinder Box in a desert and then blame fires on LNG.

Now we have soft individuals sitting behind computers, pampered, delusional, just like the UCLA basketball team (successful HC rant today calling then all delusional). These pretend professionals lecture us on DEI or global warming while some are morbidly obese.

Modern Liberals created Super-fires, not the Global Warming hypothesis. It's a destructive idealogy. Look at Germany (de industrializing), Britain (hiding mass racist rape and torture gangs for three plus decades), Sweden (now a leading rape Capitol), France, etc.


"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- (maybe) Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
oski003
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

AunBear89 said:

oski003 said:

So you don't think the SCOPE of this tragedy could have prevented?
No, I don't think anyone thinks the scope (or, SCOPE) of the tragedy could have prevented anything. I don't understand the question.


Ignorance is bliss. Our grandfathers and great grandfather's had no problems limiting fires, covering the basics, or working hard. Liberals created a Tinder Box in a desert and then blame fires on LNG.

Now we have soft individuals sitting behind computers, pampered, delusional, just like the UCLA basketball team (successful HC rant today calling then all delusional). These pretend professionals lecture us on DEI or global warming while some are morbidly obese.

Modern Liberals created Super-fires, not the Global Warming hypothesis. It's a destructive idealogy. Look at Germany (de industrializing), Britain (hiding mass racist rape and torture gangs for three plus decades), Sweden (now a leading rape Capitol), France, etc.


Great points movielover. Unfortunately, they fall on insanely partisan, deaf ears.
MinotStateBeav
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Whoa looks like there were some corners being cut by the LA City, really great video here. First scandal is about the number of trucks in the repair yard, then how many trucks were actually deployed and finally the fire hydrants, how spaced apart they were for the pallisades AND the size of the hydrant valves were too small. ie, city was cutting corners to save costs.

sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
oski003 said:

movielover said:

AunBear89 said:

oski003 said:

So you don't think the SCOPE of this tragedy could have prevented?
No, I don't think anyone thinks the scope (or, SCOPE) of the tragedy could have prevented anything. I don't understand the question.


Ignorance is bliss. Our grandfathers and great grandfather's had no problems limiting fires, covering the basics, or working hard. Liberals created a Tinder Box in a desert and then blame fires on LNG.

Now we have soft individuals sitting behind computers, pampered, delusional, just like the UCLA basketball team (successful HC rant today calling then all delusional). These pretend professionals lecture us on DEI or global warming while some are morbidly obese.

Modern Liberals created Super-fires, not the Global Warming hypothesis. It's a destructive idealogy. Look at Germany (de industrializing), Britain (hiding mass racist rape and torture gangs for three plus decades), Sweden (now a leading rape Capitol), France, etc.


Great points movielover. Unfortunately, they fall on insanely partisan, deaf ears.
They are not great points. He's citing a time when there were a lot fewer people living in the L.A. basin, so it was easier to protect from fires. The rest is old-man-yells-at-cloud stuff. Just blaming everything everywhere on the younger generation and the "libs" without any further analysis.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

oski003 said:

movielover said:

AunBear89 said:

oski003 said:

So you don't think the SCOPE of this tragedy could have prevented?
No, I don't think anyone thinks the scope (or, SCOPE) of the tragedy could have prevented anything. I don't understand the question.


Ignorance is bliss. Our grandfathers and great grandfather's had no problems limiting fires, covering the basics, or working hard. Liberals created a Tinder Box in a desert and then blame fires on LNG.

Now we have soft individuals sitting behind computers, pampered, delusional, just like the UCLA basketball team (successful HC rant today calling then all delusional). These pretend professionals lecture us on DEI or global warming while some are morbidly obese.

Modern Liberals created Super-fires, not the Global Warming hypothesis. It's a destructive idealogy. Look at Germany (de industrializing), Britain (hiding mass racist rape and torture gangs for three plus decades), Sweden (now a leading rape Capitol), France, etc.


Great points movielover. Unfortunately, they fall on insanely partisan, deaf ears.
They are not great points. He's citing a time when there were a lot fewer people living in the L.A. basin, so it was easier to protect from fires. The rest is old-man-yells-at-cloud stuff. Just blaming everything everywhere on the younger generation and the "libs" without any further analysis.
Indeed. fires like the recent ones in LA have happened in California throughout history. It's only when we started building homes on the edge of wilderness areas that neighborhoods lost to wildfires became more common and widespread. Building at the urban-rural interface started with our grandfathers and great grand fathers, if not earlier, and continues to this day. It's the payback for the growth of cities beyond what reasonably available resources there are to fight wildfires that start in or near these rural-urban areas.
movielover
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Did you ever listen to Cal alum and West Coast legend Dr. Bill Wattenburg on KGO radio? What a brilliant man, book and real-world smarts. He was an acquired taste due to his temper and serious topics... he didn't spend time fawning over Brittany Spears (Ronn Owens). He became a contemporary of Dr. Glenn Seaborg and Berkeley's world-renowned scientists.

Dr. Bill - who taught physics at Cal, worked on the Apollo Mission, was an inventor, and conducted research at Lawrence Livermore Labs - also fought fires on the down low every summer with his fleet of yellow iron (Caterpillar dozers and heavy equipment). He even ran his bulldozers at night fighting fires even in his mid 60s, cutting fire breaks.

At the end of the Gulf War, more than 550 Kuwaiti oil wells and were ignited by retreating Iraqi troops. Experts said it would take 4, 5 years to put out the fires. Instead of long-term, structured, guaranteed contracts that were being negotiated for fat terms, Dr. Bill claimed to spearhead a different strategy. Companies would be given x number of well fires (say, 5) to put out; when completed, they'd receive x million dollars, and 5 more wells. This incentivized production over Insider deals. The oil well fires were put out in eight months.

Dr. Bill gave the West Coast an education on the airwaves about nuclear power, common sense, and our beloved forests. He grew up in Plumas County, and educated his listeners on maintaining healthy forests and fighting forest fires. He spoke for decades about how our forests are out of "equilibrium". The self-appointed experts let Yellowstone burn, and 1.4 million acres burned. Idiots. We used to have forests in equilibrium with smaller manageable fires, but with decades of mismanagement we now have super fires.

The chapparel in Los Angeles is a little different, but we still have similiar components: excess fuel, poor planning, less firemen and volunteers, few fire breaks or controlled burns. The fuel builds up, which creates bigger problems. L.A. had crazy wind, two wet years (fuel), followed by drought, so fires were expected. But they failed to deploy 1,000 available fire personnel, or equipment to Pacific Palisades. It was a real sh-t show. And to think that LA had dozens of fire personnel probably making $500,000 or more per year. A 117-million-gallon reservoir was left empty, and some out-of-state fire rigs had to pass through Sacramento for certification? Water pumps couldn't run because if kooky Progressive policies (generators would cause pollution). LA County had months to prepare, but multiple LAFD and LADWP leaders stressed DEI was their top priority.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Politicians, everyone, is saying we must rebuild asap. This is like how my NYC trader friends wanted to put up 2 identical twin towers immediately as a show of defiance.

What actually needs to happen are new fireproof home designs.

Earthquake proof
Fire proof
Flood zone proof
Hurricane proof
Coastal erosion proof

Tighten the building codes. Otherwise, don't bail out. Don't insure. Build at your own risk.

Nobody talks this way, however, so we are just spinning out wheels as a nation.

Movielover wrote: "Modern Liberals created Super-fires". Pfft. That's neither accurate nor helpful. You're excused from the room, sir.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PS: it's time to underground all electrical lines in fire zone geographies.

Is this economically feasible? No. Not really. But it's necessary.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
movielover said:

Did you ever listen to Cal alum and West Coast legend Dr. Bill Wattenburg on KGO radio? What a brilliant man, book and real-world smarts. He was an acquired taste due to his temper and serious topics... he didn't spend time fawning over Brittany Spears (Ronn Owens). He became a contemporary of Dr. Glenn Seaborg and Berkeley's world-renowned scientists.

Dr. Bill - who taught physics at Cal, worked on the Apollo Mission, was an inventor, and conducted research at Lawrence Livermore Labs - also fought fires on the down low every summer with his fleet of yellow iron (Caterpillar dozers and heavy equipment). He even ran his bulldozers at night fighting fires even in his mid 60s, cutting fire breaks.

At the end of the Gulf War, more than 550 Kuwaiti oil wells and were ignited by retreating Iraqi troops. Experts said it would take 4, 5 years to put out the fires. Instead of long-term, structured, guaranteed contracts that were being negotiated for fat terms, Dr. Bill claimed to spearhead a different strategy. Companies would be given x number of well fires (say, 5) to put out; when completed, they'd receive x million dollars, and 5 more wells. This incentivized production over Insider deals. The oil well fires were put out in eight months.

Dr. Bill gave the West Coast an education on the airwaves about nuclear power, common sense, and our beloved forests. He grew up in Plumas County, and educated his listeners on maintaining healthy forests and fighting forest fires. He spoke for decades about how our forests are out of "equilibrium". The self-appointed experts let Yellowstone burn, and 1.4 million acres burned. Idiots. We used to have forests in equilibrium with smaller manageable fires, but with decades of mismanagement we now have super fires.

The chapparel in Los Angeles is a little different, but we still have similiar components: excess fuel, poor planning, less firemen and volunteers, few fire breaks or controlled burns. The fuel builds up, which creates bigger problems. L.A. had crazy wind, two wet years (fuel), followed by drought, so fires were expected. But they failed to deploy 1,000 available fire personnel, or equipment to Pacific Palisades. It was a real sh-t show. And to think that LA had dozens of fire personnel probably making $500,000 or more per year. A 117-million-gallon reservoir was left empty, and some out-of-state fire rigs had to pass through Sacramento for certification? Water pumps couldn't run because if kooky Progressive policies (generators would cause pollution). LA County had months to prepare, but multiple LAFD and LADWP leaders stressed DEI was their top priority.
Your 20/20 hindsight works wonders after the fact, but before the fires, how do you know to deploy 1,000 fire fighters in Pacific Palisades versus a whole list of other locations at risk of having fires burning downhill into residential areas? Places at the base of area mountains and wilderness like Chatsworth, La Cañada-Flintridge, Azusa, Glendora and all the way out to San Bernardino. Not to mention that fires can start inside of the inner cities with winds of that strength. Do you want to gamble all 1,000 at one spot or spread them out among other locations, which would reduce their effectiveness at any one place? Also, why put all 1,000 at Pacific Palisades instead of Altadena?

As for Bill Wattenburg, he was a bright man, but he's been dead since 2018, off KGO since 2011 (which is where I suspect you picked up his thoughts) and off the air entirely for over 10 years . His knowledge is becoming more and more out of date all the time.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Eastern Oregon Bear said:

movielover said:

Did you ever listen to Cal alum and West Coast legend Dr. Bill Wattenburg on KGO radio? What a brilliant man, book and real-world smarts. He was an acquired taste due to his temper and serious topics... he didn't spend time fawning over Brittany Spears (Ronn Owens). He became a contemporary of Dr. Glenn Seaborg and Berkeley's world-renowned scientists.

Dr. Bill - who taught physics at Cal, worked on the Apollo Mission, was an inventor, and conducted research at Lawrence Livermore Labs - also fought fires on the down low every summer with his fleet of yellow iron (Caterpillar dozers and heavy equipment). He even ran his bulldozers at night fighting fires even in his mid 60s, cutting fire breaks.

At the end of the Gulf War, more than 550 Kuwaiti oil wells and were ignited by retreating Iraqi troops. Experts said it would take 4, 5 years to put out the fires. Instead of long-term, structured, guaranteed contracts that were being negotiated for fat terms, Dr. Bill claimed to spearhead a different strategy. Companies would be given x number of well fires (say, 5) to put out; when completed, they'd receive x million dollars, and 5 more wells. This incentivized production over Insider deals. The oil well fires were put out in eight months.

Dr. Bill gave the West Coast an education on the airwaves about nuclear power, common sense, and our beloved forests. He grew up in Plumas County, and educated his listeners on maintaining healthy forests and fighting forest fires. He spoke for decades about how our forests are out of "equilibrium". The self-appointed experts let Yellowstone burn, and 1.4 million acres burned. Idiots. We used to have forests in equilibrium with smaller manageable fires, but with decades of mismanagement we now have super fires.

The chapparel in Los Angeles is a little different, but we still have similiar components: excess fuel, poor planning, less firemen and volunteers, few fire breaks or controlled burns. The fuel builds up, which creates bigger problems. L.A. had crazy wind, two wet years (fuel), followed by drought, so fires were expected. But they failed to deploy 1,000 available fire personnel, or equipment to Pacific Palisades. It was a real sh-t show. And to think that LA had dozens of fire personnel probably making $500,000 or more per year. A 117-million-gallon reservoir was left empty, and some out-of-state fire rigs had to pass through Sacramento for certification? Water pumps couldn't run because if kooky Progressive policies (generators would cause pollution). LA County had months to prepare, but multiple LAFD and LADWP leaders stressed DEI was their top priority.
Your 20/20 hindsight works wonders after the fact, but before the fires, how do you know to deploy 1,000 fire fighters in Pacific Palisades versus a whole list of other locations at risk of having fires burning downhill into residential areas? Places at the base of area mountains and wilderness like Chatsworth, La Cañada-Flintridge, Azusa, Glendora and all the way out to San Bernardino. Not to mention that fires can start inside of the inner cities with winds of that strength. Do you want to gamble all 1,000 at one spot or spread them out among other locations, which would reduce their effectiveness at any one place? Also, why put all 1,000 at Pacific Palisades instead of Altadena?

As for Bill Wattenburg, he was a bright man, but he's been dead since 2018, off KGO since 2011 (which is where I suspect you picked up his thoughts) and off the air entirely for over 10 years . His knowledge is becoming more and more out of date all the time.


Movielover is stumping for Special Envoy to SoCal firefighting agencies status in the Trump Administration.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.