Eeeeek. Los Angeles about to burn

[..]

No stupid comments about they deserve it for this or that reason.

Too many normal people are going to lose their homes and business's. Hopefully not their lives

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5152529/Terrifying-video-shows-drivers-LA-passing-hills-flames.html

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/12/06/southern-california-wildfires-force-thousands-to-evacuate-new-blaze-erupts-in-los-angeles.html

[Bighead]

I think I would be driving the opposite direction myself

[..]

I think I would be driving the opposite direction myself

 

[Robert]

While feeling sorry for the people that are affected there have been alot of calamities in California lately and maybe they should be reconsidering their values a bit.

[Chrisj CMA]

The last house my family lived in before we moved to Hawaii is in the cross hairs.  Truly sad.

Mud slides and fires are what happens in Southern California. I sure hope if this one is arson they hang the person (s) responsible.

This has nothing to do values or lack of them.

[Gryphon Rider]

While feeling sorry for the people that are affected there have been alot of calamities in California lately and maybe they should be reconsidering their values a bit.

By spending more on wildfire fighting equipment and coming up with fire-resistant development strategies?

** EDIT TO ADD: **
There is an excellent sermon by C. H. Spurgeon, delivered in 1861, discussing disasters befalling those whose values were in question. When the famous missionary to Africa, David Livingstone, died, a copy of this sermon was found in his pocket, with the handwritten comment at the top of the page, "Very Good. D.L." It's well worth a read, Robert.

http://archive.spurgeon.org/sermons/0408.php

[The emperor has no clothes]

While feeling sorry for the people that are affected there have been alot of calamities in California lately and maybe they should be reconsidering their values a bit.

By spending more on wildfire fighting equipment and coming up with fire-resistant development strategies?

I'm sure that's what he meant. Robert would never be someone to kick Californians in their time of strife.

[¿spoom]

While feeling sorry for the people that are affected there have been alot of calamities in California lately and maybe they should be reconsidering their values a bit.

Shame on you. That's what liberals said about the Houston Hurricane-that it was their punishment for voting for Trump. Why not just point out maybe there's fires burning where houses cannot be protected from fire, and let it go at that?

[_Sheffjs_]

As we see the population grow we see more affected. I so worry about here in Florida as we can no guarantee we can even get out in a hurricane, same with the fires there. 

[3fan4life]

While feeling sorry for the people that are affected there have been alot of calamities in California lately and maybe they should be reconsidering their values a bit.

By spending more on wildfire fighting equipment and coming up with fire-resistant development strategies?

** EDIT TO ADD: **
There is an excellent sermon by C. H. Spurgeon, delivered in 1861, discussing disasters befalling those whose values were in question. When the famous missionary to Africa, David Livingstone, died, a copy of this sermon was found in his pocket, with the handwritten comment at the top of the page, "Very Good. D.L." It's well worth a read, Robert.

http://archive.spurgeon.org/sermons/0408.php

This scripture comes to mind:

20 And the Lord said, “Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave, 21 I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry against it that has come to Me; and if not, I will know.”

22 Then the men turned away from there and went toward Sodom, but Abraham still stood before the Lord. 23 And Abraham came near and said, “Would You also destroy the righteous with the wicked? 24 Suppose there were fifty righteous within the city; would You also destroy the place and not spare it for the fifty righteous that were in it? 25 Far be it from You to do such a thing as this, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?”

26 So the Lord said, “If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.”

27 Then Abraham answered and said, “Indeed now, I who am but dust and ashes have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord: 28 Suppose there were five less than the fifty righteous; would You destroy all of the city for lack of five?”

So He said, “If I find there forty-five, I will not destroy it.”

29 And he spoke to Him yet again and said, “Suppose there should be forty found there?”

So He said, “I will not do it for the sake of forty.”

30 Then he said, “Let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Suppose thirty should be found there?”

So He said, “I will not do it if I find thirty there.”

31 And he said, “Indeed now, I have taken it upon myself to speak to the Lord: Suppose twenty should be found there?”

So He said, “I will not destroy it for the sake of twenty.”

32 Then he said, “Let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak but once more: Suppose ten should be found there?”

And He said, “I will not destroy it for the sake of ten.” 33 So the Lord went His way as soon as He had finished speaking with Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place. Genesis 18:20-32 NKJV

Are these fires God's punishment upon the people of California for their wickedness?

I doubt it.

But, I do fear that there will come a day when He can no longer find 10 righteous people in California.

[oldsmokey]

Just wait till insurance companies finish tallying this years pay outs. 

Then just wait for new policies for all

[Rams]

My few thoughts on this are as follows.

While I do feel sympathetic to the folks who are in danger, I can't help but think about some of the locations and situations I've been in.   Some by choice, some because I was sent some where I normally would not want to be.

There are almost always measures one can take to reduce the risks associated with an area's dangers.   Like most people (not just Californians) folks depend on big brother (government) to take care of them.    Simply put, that's not how I think.   At least as it applies to Mother Nature.

Why is all that fuel available for burning, what preventions or protections are individuals taking to protect themselves, their families and their property?   Lastly, we all choose to live where we are.   There are options.  We all make decisions that we have to live with.   Anyone here ever think about wild fires?   I have.   I do what I can to address such dangers to the best of my ability.   But then, I live in the country and don't expect the fire department to get to my home in time to do more than protect the neighbor's property.    Knowing my neighbors, I doubt they are prepared to do much more than call for help.    

[98 T]

My Sister lives on the north edge of Oxnard and works in Ventura.   They cancelled my niece's school for the rest of the week.  She works at a Ford dealer in Ventura and they shut down Tuesday already.  She, the dealership owner and general manager went there just to remove all important documents from the building in case fire came closer.  I'd imagine they moved the car inventory off site too.

She sent me a couple pictures from Tuesday AM going to work - about 1000 yards up the road from her work was a wall of smoke and fire that looked like Armageddon coming! 

Already 1 co-worker has lost her home to fire... it's pretty nerve wracking just sitting around and hoping the winds change.

At night, my sister can look up into the hills a few miles to the east and see a hellish glow all night long.

Pretty scary stuff!

[¿spoom]

My few thoughts on this are as follows.

While I do feel sympathetic to the folks who are in danger, I can't help but think about some of the locations and situations I've been in.   Some by choice, some because I was sent some where I normally would not want to be.

There are almost always measures one can take to reduce the risks associated with an area's dangers.   Like most people (not just Californians) folks depend on big brother (government) to take care of them.    Simply put, that's not how I think.   At least as it applies to Mother Nature.

Why is all that fuel available for burning, what preventions or protections are individuals taking to protect themselves, their families and their property?   Lastly, we all choose to live where we are.   There are options.  We all make decisions that we have to live with.   Anyone here ever think about wild fires?   I have.   I do what I can to address such dangers to the best of my ability.   But then, I live in the country and don't expect the fire department to get to my home in time to do more than protect the neighbor's property.    Knowing my neighbors, I doubt they are prepared to do much more than call for help.    

True, but I think that could be said about any forested area, the only variable to me, is the density of persons/property in any given area of the Country. I love love love your area and further south through bourbon/cave country all the way through TN and have considered retiring there to escape the winter excesses and tax situation for retirees here in WI, but what would happen to all those amazing wooded areas if a good fire got going. I can't see a difference other than $ amounts. I guess I'm just always stunned when folks try and connect a deity choice to forest fires, flooding, etc. Would I smirk a little if the whole SF Bay area slid into the sea? Possibly, but I can't imagine spiking a football and claiming some religious victory theory. That's already working so well in the middle east, right?   

[Rams]

My few thoughts on this are as follows.

While I do feel sympathetic to the folks who are in danger, I can't help but think about some of the locations and situations I've been in.   Some by choice, some because I was sent some where I normally would not want to be.

There are almost always measures one can take to reduce the risks associated with an area's dangers.   Like most people (not just Californians) folks depend on big brother (government) to take care of them.    Simply put, that's not how I think.   At least as it applies to Mother Nature.

Why is all that fuel available for burning, what preventions or protections are individuals taking to protect themselves, their families and their property?   Lastly, we all choose to live where we are.   There are options.  We all make decisions that we have to live with.   Anyone here ever think about wild fires?   I have.   I do what I can to address such dangers to the best of my ability.   But then, I live in the country and don't expect the fire department to get to my home in time to do more than protect the neighbor's property.    Knowing my neighbors, I doubt they are prepared to do much more than call for help.    

True, but I think that could be said about any forested area, the only variable to me, is the density of persons/property in any given area of the Country. I love love love your area and further south through bourbon/cave country all the way through TN and have considered retiring there to escape the winter excesses and tax situation for retirees here in WI, but what would happen to all those amazing wooded areas if a good fire got going. I can't see a difference other than $ amounts.

OK, an example right here in KY.   A friend has a 160 acre forested property.   They built a very nice home and shop on the place.   Had a (approximately) 3 acre pond built, cut back the forest enough to give him a chance to battle any blazes that might happen.  IOWs, the home is not in the trees.   Additionally, he is able to pump water using either his electric pump or his tractor mounted pump.  He keeps the scrub cut back so that if there is a fire, he only has to deal with grass.   Will that save his home?   In most cases, it would.   But, the point is, he's cut the amount of burnable fuel a fire would utilize and he has a water source should he need it.   He is fully aware that if there is a fire, the fire department will most likely get there in time to douse the left over coals.

I know this isn't the answer for those living in a city setting but, that's a decision they make and a risk they have decided to take.

Edited:   Oh Yeah, feel free to come on down for a visit, we'll do something even if it ain't right.   

[0leman]

I worked for over 30 years in the forest for the Gov. I fought my share of forest/brush/grassland fires.  My wife grew up in timber country and always wanted a home in the trees.  I fought this idea for all our lives, we still don't live in the trees, though do have some 15 trees on our property.

I have always maintained that sooner or later most forest in the west will burn, it is the way mother nature works.  It also applies to some of the forest areas on the other coast and in between.  This is true for the brush covered areas in CA.  In fact according to what I have read, the normal burn period for the brush areas was every 7-9 years, that is before folks decided the area was great for living in.   You put folks in areas where fires happen, they will get burned out.  I do feel for these folks, but they did build where fires have happened and will continue to happen, just like folks who build in flood plains will continue to get wet.

If you do as mentioned by Rams above, remove trees/woody vegetation around your place, thin trees a ways back, build home so it is as fire proof as you can make it, you might escape the fire that runs thru.  Or if it is wind driven wall of fire coming at you, you are screwed.

[Rams]

I worked for over 30 years in the forest for the Gov. I fought my share of forest/brush/grassland fires.  My wife grew up in timber country and always wanted a home in the trees.  I fought this idea for all our lives, we still don't live in the trees, though do have some 15 trees on our property.

I have always maintained that sooner or later most forest in the west will burn, it is the way mother nature works.  It also applies to some of the forest areas on the other coast and in between.  This is true for the brush covered areas in CA.  In fact according to what I have read, the normal burn period for the brush areas was every 7-9 years, that is before folks decided the area was great for living in.   You put folks in areas where fires happen, they will get burned out.  I do feel for these folks, but they did build where fires have happened and will continue to happen, just like folks who build in flood plains will continue to get wet.

If you do as mentioned by Rams above, remove trees/woody vegetation around your place, thin trees a ways back, build home so it is as fire proof as you can make it, you might escape the fire that runs thru.  Or if it is wind driven wall of fire coming at you, you are screwed.

Agreed.   Never understood those folks who live in fire prone areas,  down on the river or on the beach.   They complain about mother nature, floods, hurricanes and beach erosion and then expect the taxpayer to restore their loss.    Ya makes yer decision and live with it, it ain't my fault.

[..]

Their Christmas sucked and 2018 is going to get off to a crappy start.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/wildfires-scorch-california-earth-and-its-air-1514300400

[Gryphon Rider]

Their Christmas sucked and 2018 is going to get off to a crappy start.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/wildfires-scorch-california-earth-and-its-air-1514300400

I couldn't read that article without signing up, but I found another one that talks about the poor air quality.  I'm glad to read that the California wildfires are now 88% contained.

[phideux]

Hell, they think banning guns and bullets will stop crime, they should just ban fire and be good to go.

[¿spoom]

Hell, they think banning guns and bullets will stop crime, they should just ban fire and be good to go.

It is kind of ironic that the state that had some communities banning bonfires on the beach because of air quality is burning entire woodlands, instead. Maybe they'll pay for the wildfire rebuilding by having CARB heavily fine it's own State? Kind of like their having sanctuary cities while suing the military for lax reporting of infractions that would/could make gun ownership illegal for some. I 100% the DOJ getting off it's collective ass and following the law, but not a penny of it's budget better go to a State that so mocks Federal law itself.