On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 9:15 AM, Doug LaRue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ** Reply to message from Andrew Lentvorski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Mon, 05 May
> 2008 22:46:03 -0700
>
>
> > I'm still watching this one.
> >
> > However, one plus that Sanders has in his corner is that he got the fire
> > handling right. Yeah, it wasn't all Sanders, and he is benefiting from
> > the hindsight of the Cedar fires. However, it was a model of
> > competency--he had the right people in the right positions.
>
> ah, because we no longer send out the large majority of our fire fighting
> personnel and equipment without the ability to recall them and Sanders
> gets credit for this?
Guys, guys. The way you deal with fires is to prevent them from
getting big. Now almost everyone thinks this is not possible.
I disagree.
The way to stop large fires is to find them when they are very small
and put them out in a hurry. Once you let them grow for ten to thirty
minutes it is going to be too late in the dry windy fire season. Early
detection and very rapid response is the path toward a solution. We
could do two things that would dramatically reduce the likelihood of
these huge fires.
1) Instrument the back country with fire detection systems. Such
systems are used in dry forest of Spain to good effect. Then have
rapid response systems targeted at high risk areas. If you
are interested then email me offline for more details. I tried
unsucessfully to get a tiny amount of funding for this approach
after the Cedar fires but was not successful. There is (as always)
a huge vested interest in the status quo.
2) Identify those areas where the fuel buildup is reaching explosive
levels and reduce the amount of fuel in those areas. Controlled
burning during the low risk (rainy) season is one of several ways
to do this.
> I"m sorry but I remember well the weekend of the Cedar fires and I
> remember the weather reports leading up to that weekend where it
> was often labelled a "Red Flag" event. When I heard the CDF called
> off helo water drops when they were already enroute and then that
> we had much of our heavy equipment up in Riverside country and
> couldn't get it back....it showed how poorly qualified the people
> running the show were. But some obvious things were exposed and
> procedures corrected.
It was a chinese fire drill and media circus. An opportunity to
witness just how truly stupid our species is.
> I would not give Sanders an ounce of credit for any of this as anything
> he might have actually done has be reactionary at best. Surely there
> is something else worthy of reason for re-election?
Got me I don't know what it is.
I am for Floyd Morrow. He has a chance for the same reason
that Donna Frye did. Sanders and Francis will split the
conservative vote in the primary. Morrow could get the
liberal/working class vote ... then if he makes it past
that hurdle it is a whole new ballgame.
See http://morrowformayor.com/
Onward,
BobLQ
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
