Smokey

[Sualdam]

Interesting NASA photo of the Californian forest fires:

NASA Photo (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/Archive/Oct2003/California.TMOA2003299_lrg.jpg)

<edit - Oh.>

[JMac]

Well, I hope no one will be offended by the lightness of that pun - this picture is incredible! It really shows the effect of smoke (and, when you think about it) pollution on the atmostphere.

[JMac]

Click Here (http://www.canada.com/vancouver/story.asp?id=EA73CA45-A651-4AA1-813D-DC6C0DE9DFE7)

Just in case people were wondering, after having suffered some major losses to forest fires this year, BC has offered to help fight the California forest fires.
I hope they take BC up on the offer - we may not have top notch military equipment but this kind of stuff, we've got. Water bombers are especially big here...

<Mod Edit: I changed the URL to a "Click Here" because it was interferring with the layout. Hope ya don't mind! - Brittany, Forum Host>

[Greyhawk]

Click Here (http://www.canada.com/vancouver/story.asp?id=EA73CA45-A651-4AA1-813D-DC6C0DE9DFE7)

Just in case people were wondering, after having suffered some major losses to forest fires this year, BC has offered to help fight the California forest fires.
I hope they take BC up on the offer - we may not have top notch military equipment but this kind of stuff, we've got. Water bombers are especially big here...



I find it funny that BC has forest fires and it makes National news. California has smaller fires and it makes International news.

I guess we just need a better press agent.

Greyhawk

[carbonize]

Just America thinking it's the center of the Universe as normal and thinking that what happens there never happens anywhere else. Apparently terrorists didn't exist until September 11th.

[calmwave]

Interesting NASA photo of the Californian forest fires:

<edit - after scratching my head for several hours, I still can't figure out where I turned this into a light pun!!!

No pun was intended. Indeed, I still cannot see any pun.>


Relax, Sualdam, JMAC was referring to the title of HER post.

[minstrel]

<Mod Edit: I changed the URL to a "Click Here" because it was interferring with the layout. Hope ya don't mind! - Brittany, Forum Host>

I'm viewing these posts using 800 x 600 screen resolution and, when I first read this at the bottom of JMac's post, I thought it said, "I changed the URL to a "Click Here" because it was interfering with my mind!"... :-)

[matauri]

I'm going to turn this in another direction, in relation to the fires (& terrorism).

Dont you think its rewarding for countries having other countries step in and help in times of crisis? Coming from a country that spends most of spring/summer burning (as she already chokes back the smoke in the air), I really appreciate the offers of help that come from Canada & the US. Many more properties & forests would have gone up in smoke if we hadn't had the equipment & manpower from the US & Canada in particular. We in return have reciprocated the help in aiding in Canada,US, & other countries fires, and in NYC after 9/11.

I dont care whether the media reports it or not. I do however care about the loss of life, property & the impact on the environment. My condolences go out to anyone affected by this or other fires. Trust me, it doesnt matter where you live, its gut wrenching to watch your life go up in smoke. Insurance doesnt give it back to you.

Pesonally, I dont think the the emergency services are given half the credit or respect that they deserve. And arsonists should have their lifes belongings put into a big bonfire for all those affected to watch burn. Give them a little taste of their own wrong doings.


Cindy

[whitelightning7]

Personally, I think BC should hang on to their money. I keep hearing about all of the poor people who have to leave their homes and temporarily relocate somewhere else, but I don't hear anything about the vast amounts of natural habitat and the creatures that lived in it that were forced to relocate when these urban sprawlers moved out into this wilderness area. From the reports on the radio, there are a lot of them, it's not just your random individual. It's about time nature re-impose the natural cycle of things on mankind, who is constantly trying to subvert natural law. Now, our, (yes, I'm a native) our circus act of a Govenor is offering to give these people money for moving into a potentially dangerous area, and not taking the proper precautions to protect their own homes. Just more of the circus act that CA is quickly becoming. And if you want to talk about polution, consider the tons of it that the LA area spews into the air every day, from their cars, airports, and industry. Nature is a cycle, we should let it get back to doing its job.

~dave~

[minstrel]

Personally, I think BC should hang on to their money. I keep hearing about all of the poor people who have to leave their homes and temporarily relocate somewhere else, but I don't hear anything about the vast amounts of natural habitat and the creatures that lived in it that were forced to relocate when these urban sprawlers moved out into this wilderness area. (snip) Nature is a cycle, we should let it get back to doing its job.

I don't intend this as an argument against environmentalism but, like any other cause, sometimes its proponents take the arguments too far. If you really want to just "let nature do its job", you'd better start activating against treating illnesses like pneumonia or small pox or allowing children born with heart defects to have corrective surgery, etc. It also means that you should activate to ensure that we only attempt to put out fires that are deliberately set - a lightning strike that sets off a forest fire (which also destroys natural habitats for numerous animal species) should be left alone to run its course...

[matauri]

From an environmentalist, Minstrel...I couldn't have said it better! :-)

<<shakes her head in dispair>>

[Greyhawk]

Hey, there were some good points made in that post like why should tax money go to pay for people that were too stupid to get insurance or to get expert advice on building in the forest.

Just playing the devils advocate here. Minstrel I can see your side and agree with your points also.

Greyhawk

[rocky1]

I would have to concurr with Menstril, that the comments there are uncalled for. Isn't most everyone in California living on a fault line? Given the train of thought offered there, maybe the rest of the world should just forget they all exist, when their houses, and businesses, and freeways come tumbling down upon them in the next major earthquake. In that it happens on a routine basis, they know it's going to happen again, and they've been warned the big one is yet to come. That is in fact another of nature's ways of reclaiming nature not? So why do we eternally rebuild it, repeatedly, Dave?

Furthermore, you profess being a native, however the fact is... only the plants and animals indigenous to the area a million or more years ago are native. Why are you still there Dave?

Rocky

[matauri]

Yes & No Greyhawk. Yes ppl who live in those areas (as here also) should prepare themselves better. But having been a victem of a wildfire, once they come barrelling down on you, no ammount of deterence is going to save your home. You are lucky to get out with your own life.

And in refs to Rocky's post...ditto! If our emergency services money can go to rebuilding towns in tornado ally, along the hurricane coast, and on earthquake faults...then yes it can go towards fire. There aren't too many places on this planet that aren't affected by natural elements.

If you want retribution for outgoing costs...then rally for tougher penalties for arsonists! If someone dies in a fire, be it fireman or civilian, the person lighting the fire should be charged with manslaughter at least. Their asssets should also be sold to pay for the cost involved.


Cindy

[Greyhawk]

I can see your points Rocky and Cindy but some of these people even here in Canada have been told to clear the tress back around their houses. May be what we should do is cahnge the zoning laws to state that if you build in a region that is forested, you must clear trees to say 50 feet from the buildings if you don't then you forfiet any help from the State (province ect.)

As for the arsonist. Cindy you are too nice to them I think they should be turned over to the victims families.

Greyhawk

[rocky1]

Having been there and fought wildfire, there is no sufficient buffer zone Greyhawk! While I was beating the small fires popping up along the edge of the roadway from sparks dropping well in advance of a wildfire in southern Mississippi, the fire in the treetops jumped over 300 feet across the road above my head! It was a very erie feeling, believe me, you never realize just how small you are until faced with something of that magnitude, and the enormity of that one was nothing compared to what they're seeing is South CA, or in Australia.

The next major hurdle that fire faced was an abanoned airfield, and sparks from the flames jumped that half mile wide clearing and continued on like it wasn't there either. Only the weather and efforts of 9 fire departments stopped that one.

Further supporting there is no safe zone, a few short years ago we had fire break out and race across stubble fields here in central ND, nearly consuming the home town community. Had it not been for the assistance of 4 other departments and several farmers plowing firebreaks, around the edge of town, we'd have lost the community. There was no stopping it, even on stubble, it was halted mere yards from the edge of the community, within the city limits. The bottom-line is, when the conditions are right it burns, period, I don't care what you do!

And, Cindy is very much correct, we battle other elements all over the world as well. There is no place safe from mother nature.

Rocky

[matauri]

We have fireballs here Rocky. The eucalyptus oil heats up in the trees then shoots out as fireballs. Have seen them shoot a long way too! Do you get those?

[EdRust]

Some well meaning but not too bright fella imported Eucalyptus to california many years ago. And while much of it is in the central vally around Sacremento, there is also a fair amount in the foothills around San Diego. I wonder if they had fireballs from it?

Also I wonder if the environmentalist who wants to let em burn realizes he is ruining our environment by using the electricity to be online here, or does he have one of those new solar powered laptops?

[rocky1]

We have fireballs here Rocky. The eucalyptus oil heats up in the trees then shoots out as fireballs. Have seen them shoot a long way too! Do you get those?

Have not seen such myself, but I have heard reports of such in certain types of pine forest under the right conditions.

Rocky

[flood6]

Just America thinking it's the center of the Universe as normal and thinking that what happens there never happens anywhere else. Apparently terrorists didn't exist until September 11th.

[inner struggle]
...must...not...take...the...bait...and get offended...

must...resist...urge to tell <Mod edit:>...

[whitelightning7]

Wow, I see that I have brought down the wrath of the break room on top of my very head. Agreed, I took it too far, when lives are being lost, then something must be done. Buuuuuuut, I'm curious as to how many of you have ever been down to that region? It is a sprawling nightmare. Just take a look at that satelite photo.

What I was trying to say, but obviously failed at, was that mankind continues to do whatever we want, but pays no consequences for it. If your house burns down, or a huricane blows it away, or it falls into a crevas, you just stick your hand out, the gov. gives you money, and you put the thing right back up in the very place that it used to be. No one stops and thinks, "Hmm, maybe this isn't such a good idea. This place doesn't seem to be safe."

From what I've heard on the radio, few, if any of those people down there bothered with fire precautions. Sure, you can't stop it, but you can at least give yourself a better chance, not having shake roofs because they look nice would be one. My concern with the entire thing is that no one seems to be learning from any of this. They are all going to cry into some news camera about loosing everything, get their check, and then do it all over again. And in the meantime, few people are going to talk about the environment, and little, if any money is going to go towards restoring it.

Rocky: I'm curious, does the supresion of these fires, ie. not letting them clear out the dead debris that builds up over time, actually lend itself to a bigger, more destructive fire later on?

EdRust: Sometimes the only way to bring about change is start it from within. And as soon as I can afford a solar powered laptop, you can be sure I'll get one. But then the gov. wouldn't get to stick it's grubby little paws into my pockets for taxes on electricity, so I suppose they'll do whatever they can to stop that from happening.

Matauri: Who says we should give money to any of them. As far as I'm concerned, if you've taken the risk to live there, then pay the innsurance money incase something happens. Why should everyone have to foot the bill for another's extravagence?

~dave~

[rocky1]

Wow, I see that I have brought down the wrath of the break room on top of my very head. Agreed, I took it too far, when lives are being lost, then something must be done. Buuuuuuut, I'm curious as to how many of you have ever been down to that region? It is a sprawling nightmare. Just take a look at that satelite photo.

Apology accepted Dave, you just came off sounding entirely too much like an environmentalist the first time around. It initially sounded as if you favored setting peoples lives and well being aside over concern for the environment upon which they have tread, when in fact we've pretty much tread over this entire continent. If my memory serves me correctly, man migrated here period. We did not exist here in the beginning. And, per your question, no I've never been to the region, but I've seen similar growth in Florida, and it's not pretty.


What I was trying to say, but obviously failed at, was that mankind continues to do whatever we want, but pays no consequences for it. If your house burns down, or a huricane blows it away, or it falls into a crevas, you just stick your hand out, the gov. gives you money, and you put the thing right back up in the very place that it used to be. No one stops and thinks, "Hmm, maybe this isn't such a good idea. This place doesn't seem to be safe."

Agreed... And, I might add, stated logically this time. I think we all see the same thing on the east coast with hurricanes. They blow everything away; the government turns right around and rebuilds it. The sandbar they're built upon washes away, and we pump billions of federal dollars into pumping the thing back out of the ocean, and recreating the sandbar. That's insanity! Why not let the sandbar do it's thing naturally, and move the houses that are going to get blown away off of it, forever. Common sense should dictate that you do not build your house on a sandbar! Common sense should dictate as well that you do not build your house on a fault line! Common sense should dictate that you do not build your house in an area subject to huge wildfires. Common Sense should dictate you do not build in a flood plain. And, Common Sense should dictate that you do not build in Tornado Alley. Common Sense however tells me that if you avoid all of that, it's going to get damned crowded on the 10 acres that are left in the world!


From what I've heard on the radio, few, if any of those people down there bothered with fire precautions. Sure, you can't stop it, but you can at least give yourself a better chance, not having shake roofs because they look nice would be one. My concern with the entire thing is that no one seems to be learning from any of this. They are all going to cry into some news camera about loosing everything, get their check, and then do it all over again. And in the meantime, few people are going to talk about the environment, and little, if any money is going to go towards restoring it.

You need to all get together out there and tell Arnold to implement a design code for fire, similar to that seen for earthquakes, or you're going to Terminate him! As for the environment, we all too often underestimate it's resiliency. The environment will survive what has happened there, it's been surviving such for millions of years. The people are a different story.


Rocky: I'm curious, does the supresion of these fires, ie. not letting them clear out the dead debris that builds up over time, actually lend itself to a bigger, more destructive fire later on?

Yes it certainly does. That was proven in Yellowstone a few years back. Control burns have always been utilized management practice in the south, and after the federal government's handling of things in Yellowstone a few years back I believe it has been re-introduced as a management tool on many federal forest lands as well. The problem is the yuppies that move out there into those hills in southern California, being environmentally minded don't want to see all those hills and canyons burned on a routine basis because it's subject to cause air pollution, and erosion, wherein you will also have water pollution, the siltation of local streams and rivers. You're correct they should be burned, but they should be control burned when the conditions are more favorable! The problem is getting everyone to agree to it. There also lies in that equation however, the liabilities incurred by the state should one of those control burns get out of hand. On the other hand if they let it go, and everyone's houses burn down in a wild fire, it's not the state's problem is it. Tell Arnold to implement management strategy for the those hills as well.


EdRust: Sometimes the only way to bring about change is start it from within. And as soon as I can afford a solar powered laptop, you can be sure I'll get one. But then the gov. wouldn't get to stick it's grubby little paws into my pockets for taxes on electricity, so I suppose they'll do whatever they can to stop that from happening.

In the meantime you folks out there might want to leave a few of those hydro electric powerplants alone! You have enough problems without tearing down any existing sources of power supply.



Matauri: Who says we should give money to any of them. As far as I'm concerned, if you've taken the risk to live there, then pay the innsurance money in case something happens. Why should everyone have to foot the bill for another's extravagence?

Not my line but I'll agree with this one as well. There should maybe be a one time federal handout, for those that were supposedly ignorant. And, after it's burned down, blown away, shook apart, or washed downstream once, you're on your own. However, unless you've lived in a vaccuum all your life, you've seen the problems associated with wherever you choose to live and it really should be your responsibility to insure it, the first time around too!

Rocky

[Greyhawk]

Speaking of Arnold. It is funny how the state of California can find money to hold an election, can find money to give to people with no insurance, can find money to promote the state, but can't find the money that they owe to BC for their Hydro bill. I mean Arny you want to take jobs away from us by penalizing film companies that film up here, then pay the hydro bill out of your own pocket.

Greyhawk
Gets down off his soap box.

[EdRust]

Dave,

Sorry if my previous post here seemed too much like a personal attack. I do understand (and even agree with) some of your points.

It is just that here in the pacific northwest we have a lot of folks protesting:

Animal rights: while wearing leather shoes and belts.
Logging: while living in wooden houses.
Air Pollution: while driving old blue smoke emitting buses.
Endangered fish: while enjoying the hydro power and supporting state killing of thousands of hatchery born salmon.
etc, etc.

I am much more inclined to listen to a reasoned debate on any of these issues, when the people back up their beliefs with their lifestyle. While at the same time understanding that it might not always be easy.

Anyway I am truly sorry if I came on too personal.

[whitelightning7]

EdRust: Don't worry about it. I can totally understand where you were coming from, and honestly, would have responded the same way if the shoe was on the other foot. It's almost imposible to not be somewhat hypocritical in today's society, no matter what you believe in. I guess alls we can really hope for is being as little of a hypocrite as possible.

Greyhawk: Yeah, government out here is a joke. The funniest thing of it all, is that they report that the voter turnout for the recall was some huge number, but I don't know a single person (other than myself) that voted. It kind of makes you wonder.

Rocky1: See, we're not so different after all. ;) I just need to keep my cool in my initial posts.

~dave~

[matauri]

Matauri: Who says we should give money to any of them. As far as I'm concerned, if you've taken the risk to live there, then pay the innsurance money in case something happens. Why should everyone have to foot the bill for another's extravagence?



Not my line but I'll agree with this one as well. There should maybe be a one time federal handout, for those that were supposedly ignorant. And, after it's burned down, blown away, shook apart, or washed downstream once, you're on your own. However, unless you've lived in a vaccuum all your life, you've seen the problems associated with wherever you choose to live and it really should be your responsibility to insure it, the first time around too!

Heyy..come on guys....not like most of the worst fires are natural phenomenum, they are lit by ignorant gits throwing cigs out the window, morons throwing bottles in the bush, feral children, and psychotic pyromaniacs. Until fire is regarded as a deadly force in the courts, the govts sure can fork out for the destruction it causes. I will concede, that if the fire is caused by natural means, then you can file it in the category of owner responsibility.


Cindy

[whitelightning7]

Sorry, Matauri, but you'll never get me to agree on that one. Sure, I think that those responsible should be put away for a long time and have everything that they own taken away from them, but it is still the risk that the homeowner is taking. When I was growing up, we lived up in the dry foothills where fires were common. We had the innsurance, a sheetmetal roof, cleared away dry dead trees, and made sure to keep the grass cut low during fire season. We also had water outlets scattered over the 5 acres and during the three different fires we had up there, we got out and wet everything down. My father realized the risk we were taking by living there, and we planned accordingly.

It's just like driving a car. I don't know what the law is down under, but here, when you hop into your car and get out onto the road with other people, that is a risk you're taking. If you get struck by a hit and run driver, there is no turning to the gov. and asking for a handout, you either have insurance, or you bite the bullet.

~dave~

[rocky1]

Heyy..come on guys....not like most of the worst fires are natural phenomenum, they are lit by ignorant gits throwing cigs out the window, morons throwing bottles in the bush, feral children, and psychotic pyromaniacs. Until fire is regarded as a deadly force in the courts, the govts sure can fork out for the destruction it causes. I will concede, that if the fire is caused by natural means, then you can file it in the category of owner responsibility.

Per my comments, it was inferred that they should, after the first time, be wise enough to purchase insurance, understanding the susceptibility to potential loss if they rebuild in the same place!


Rocky1: See, we're not so different after all. ;) I just need to keep my cool in my initial posts.

Didn't say we were Dave. What I said was ~ "I would have to concurr with Menstril, that the comments there are uncalled for. (Remarks suggesting greater concern for the environment than for human life in your initial post) And,...

... you profess being a native, however the fact is, only the plants and animals indigenous to the area a million or more years ago are native.


I too have a great deal of respect for the environment and feel others should have too. However... I do not place the needs of sub-ordinate species over that of man. In the case of the Missouri River, I listen to argument of how it should be returned to a pristine state for the benefit of one or two species, however those arguing this totally ignore the catastrophic flooding incurred on this river prior to damming it. The damming of most major rivers resulting in Hydro-Electric generation had many beneficial motives in their inception. 1.) Control the River to prevent loss of property and loss of life. 2.) Provide water storage for agricultural irrigation and/or potable water use. 3.) Recreation. And, 4.) Generate Electricity

When one looks at the master plan for all of these dams, the generation of electricity was not the primary goal of their being installed. As a rule taming the river to prevent loss of life and property was! Yet environmentalists think these dams should be torn down and things returned to a natural state, and those here in ND argue it from an office that would be washed away the first big spring thaw we had. One should exercise discretion in that which they desire, for fear of undermining the logic in their request!

Rocky

[whitelightning7]

Good point Rocky, however, I would argue that many of the things that mankind does, they do from a very limited point of view. We can't possibly understand every intricacy of the natural world, but many people like to think that those making decisions actually do. I think it was you that mentioned earlier that nature is very resilient, I would say that it is not as resilient as we think it is. The world is seeing the largest extinction of species since the last great extinction.

You said it yourself, the river needed "taming," but why? Why not do as nature does, and work with the river, rather than against it? I'm not saying that everyone should become nomadic or anything like that, I'm just saying that maybe there are other solutions. Unfortunately, environmentalists seem to swing too far one way, while industry swings too far the other. I've heard of great work being done in Australia, or New Zealand, where there is actually a pannel from both sides put together so that they can find a middle ground with such problems. Mankind has removed itself too far from the natural world and we seem to think that we can fix all the problems that we create, with science, and that is just not true.

I also wonder what the true cost of the damn is when you take into acount the loss of life, habitat, and natural fertilization that I'm sure the floodings provided the farmland every year. There is probably a fish hatchery now in place as well, to try and make up for the impact on fishing. We should stop equating a things worth with its value to human use, and at least try and see the entire picture. Then, based on an understanding of the entire situation, come up with solutions that allow both sides to win out.

I don't know the issues surrounding your particular situation, but I wonder if the damn couldn't somehow be modified.

Just some thoughts,
~dave~

[minstrel]

I wonder if the damn couldn't somehow be modified.

Are you referring to the "dam"? or to the "damned" who insist on living too close to that damn dam?

:-)

[matauri]

I've heard of great work being done in Australia, or New Zealand, where there is actually a pannel from both sides put together so that they can find a middle ground with such problems.

That is why we are down to about 17% of the natural forest we had in the beginning? Not bad for a 200yr effort I would say... j/k. It could also account for roads that lead to 'nowhere' for nuke waste dumps for the US that Clinton said were put here? Or why the Great Barrier Reef is dying from silt from overlogged forests & organisms dumped by ships dumping their ballast waters. Or how aboriginals settlements in the Northern territory being poisoned by yellowcake uranium waste in their waterways.

The only improvement we have currently over the rest of world is that farmers are starting to believe that clearing practices had to be stemmed, and some of the wildlife is starting to be protected because we have lost hundreds of species to extinction.

And taking this back onto the fire thread......
If in fact we were to practice natural practices, the fires would be allowed to burn every year. Australian flora requires fire to germinate, the aboriginals used fire farming for centuries to encourage growth for wildlife to feed upon so they could feed their bellies.
Which begs the question in relation to an earlier post of yours.... Which is more important? Encouraging new growth...or... pollution from smoke ... or....feeding the masses with agricultural practices? (our ozone layer is only just in state of being renewed)

The environment isn't so cut & dry. Even without our intervention, it is a balance of trade offs within it. A fire will kill fauna & cause pollution, but, in the aftermath we have a forest blooming with biodiversity.

Also, in regards to:

It's just like driving a car. I don't know what the law is down under, but here, when you hop into your car and get out onto the road with other people, that is a risk you're taking. If you get struck by a hit and run driver, there is no turning to the gov. and asking for a handout, you either have insurance, or you bite the bullet.
Actually, you cant drive a car on the road here unless you have third party (govt) insurance. So if I am hit by a car, yes I do hold my hand out.

But, I do agree in one respect. If you live in a suspectible area, you have insurance. Because no amount of fire prepareness is going to help in a wildfire. I have no pity for those that aren't insured. That's a fools game. But insurance doesn't replace lives lost or horrific burns. Should the govt pay out for those that are trying to protect property (i.e firefighters)...your dam right they should! Like I said earlier....emergency services are severely underated & taken for granted. That is why a levy has been introduced for that very reason here.


Cindy

[rocky1]

Also I wonder if the environmentalist who wants to let em burn realizes he is ruining our environment by using the electricity to be online here, or does he have one of those new solar powered laptops?

I rest my case!

Rocky

[whitelightning7]

Rocky, that case was already put to rest.

Matauri, ok, so maybe it was NZ. ;p

Minstrel: son of a! I always get the two of those mixed up. I can keep the "their, there, they're"s straight, or the "dinner, diner" and "dessert, desert" but dam's always stump me.

~dave~