Tik Shiro Car Crash Sparks Demand for Alcohol Test Inquiry

[rooster59]

California wildfire becomes largest on record in the state

 

FILE PHOTO: Firefighters keep watch on the Thomas wildfire in the hills and canyons outside Montecito, California, U.S., December 16, 2017. REUTERS/Gene Blevins/File Photo

 

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A sprawling Southern California wildfire that has been burning through rugged, drought-parched coastal terrain since Dec. 4 has become the largest on record in the state, state fire officials said on Friday.

 

The so-called Thomas fire has blazed through 273,400 acres (110,641 hectares), surpassing the previous record of the 2003 Cedar fire in San Diego County that scorched 273,246 acres and killed 15 people, they said.

 

The Thomas fire was 65 percent contained as of Friday evening and the natural spread of the blaze had been virtually halted days ago by fire crew, they said.

 

Incremental increases in burned acreage detected by daily aerial surveys since then have been largely due to controlled-burning operations conducted by firefighters to clear swaths of vegetation between the smoldering edges of the fire zone and populated areas.

 

The fire has destroyed over 1,000 structures as it has scorched coastal mountains, foothills and canyons across Ventura and Santa Barbara counties northwest of Los Angeles, officials said.

 

On Thursday, authorities canceled the last evacuation notices still in effect for Santa Barbara and Ventura counties.

 

One fatality directly related to the fire has been reported, a firefighter who succumbed to burns and smoke inhalation in the line of duty last Thursday.

 

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-12-23

[Rhys]

To all the Californians affected by the fire, be strong... all the best in 2018.

[thaibeachlovers]

Given that fires are a normal event, has the Californian government "managed" the scrubland with the purpose of limiting the effect of fires ie have they been creating firebreaks, mandating local councils institute anti fire measures etc etc etc?

[Credo]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Given that fires are a normal event, has the Californian government "managed" the scrubland with the purpose of limiting the effect of fires ie have they been creating firebreaks, mandating local councils institute anti fire measures etc etc etc?

You expect them to 'manage' 273,000 acres of scrub land, some of which is federal land during a long-term, severe drought?  

 

 

[hawker9000]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Given that fires are a normal event, has the Californian government "managed" the scrubland with the purpose of limiting the effect of fires ie have they been creating firebreaks, mandating local councils institute anti fire measures etc etc etc?

I don't think you quite grasp the scope and nature of the problem.  You're not going to firebreak a state the size of California.   The state had a "wet" winter last year which created a lot of scrub vegetation.  Then this fall CA did not have the usual rains starting in OCT.  So all that scrub vegetation dried out and became nothing but fuel.  And THEN there were some relatively intense Santa Anna's (very dry winds which blow in from the east where the desert is), first affecting LA and later moving south to San Diego.  Under these conditions it takes very little to touch off a wildfire, and they spread VERY quickly.  As long as the dry, gusty winds and very low humidity continue, it's difficult for firemen to  contain it because embers are picked up by the winds and carried ahead of the existing fire for miles.  And a single ember can ignite another flare-up or get up under the eves of a home and into an attic and ignite the house.   There ARE things homeowners can and should do to make their homes more "defensible", but that's not where these fires start, and if a big one comes your way, there's nothing much to do but evacuate. (Some homeowners do remain behind refusing to evacuate, but that's almost always ill-advised & dangerous and an extra burden on firefighters & police.)

 

I just happened to be watching the news at noontime when the "Lilac" fire started; fire trucks were there literally within minutes (the first one took less than 3 minutes - it started right next to a major interstate/state-route interchange and so was reported immediately).  But even so, with fire trucks on scene and aerial drops called it, in just ONE hour it went from 17 acres, to 50 acres, to 150 acres, to 450 acres.   By early evening they were saying 3500 acres and it went to 4100 acres before midnight.  For awhile, they were thinking it wouldn't stop until it got to the Pacific Ocean.  The Santa Anna let up though, and they were able to get a handle on it.  And THAT fire was a pinprick compared to some of the fires up in LA, such as the Thomas Fire which is @ more than a quarter MILLION acres at the moment, started Dec 4th, and firefighters expect to still be fighting it come January.

 

The snowflakes running the CA legislature are pandering morons to be sure, but they can't be blamed for this.  The problem in this case is NOT one of lack of awareness, lack of resources, lack of preplanning & preparation, or bureaucratic interference & delay.  And everyone in Southern California was well aware of this year's threat months ago and watching for it.   Even Navy & USMC helos were participating in the airdrops.

[RPCVguy]

1 hour ago, hawker9000 said:

I don't think you quite grasp the scope and nature of the problem.  You're not going to firebreak a state the size of California.   The state had a "wet" winter last year which created a lot of scrub vegetation.  Then this fall CA did not have the usual rains starting in OCT.  So all that scrub vegetation dried out and became nothing but fuel.  And THEN there were some relatively intense Santa Anna's (very dry winds which blow in from the east where the desert is), first affecting LA and later moving south to San Diego.  Under these conditions it takes very little to touch off a wildfire, and they spread VERY quickly.  As long as the dry, gusty winds and very low humidity continue, it's difficult for firemen to  contain it because embers are picked up by the winds and carried ahead of the existing fire for miles.  And a single ember can ignite another flare-up or get up under the eves of a home and into an attic and ignite the house.   There ARE things homeowners can and should do to make their homes more "defensible", but that's not where these fires start, and if a big one comes your way, there's nothing much to do but evacuate. (Some homeowners do remain behind refusing to evacuate, but that's almost always ill-advised & dangerous and an extra burden on firefighters & police.)

 

I just happened to be watching the news at noontime when the "Lilac" fire started; fire trucks were there literally within minutes (the first one took less than 3 minutes - it started right next to a major interstate/state-route interchange and so was reported immediately).  But even so, with fire trucks on scene and aerial drops called it, in just ONE hour it went from 17 acres, to 50 acres, to 150 acres, to 450 acres.   By early evening they were saying 3500 acres and it went to 4100 acres before midnight.  For awhile, they were thinking it wouldn't stop until it got to the Pacific Ocean.  The Santa Anna let up though, and they were able to get a handle on it.  And THAT fire was a pinprick compared to some of the fires up in LA, such as the Thomas Fire which is @ more than a quarter MILLION acres at the moment, started Dec 4th, and firefighters expect to still be fighting it come January.

 

The snowflakes running the CA legislature are pandering morons to be sure, but they can't be blamed for this.  The problem in this case is NOT one of lack of awareness, lack of resources, lack of preplanning & preparation, or bureaucratic interference & delay.  And everyone in Southern California was well aware of this year's threat months ago and watching for it.   Even Navy & USMC helos were participating in the airdrops.

Well explained, yet the measure of the December fires in CA is likely but a harbinger of what will happen in the years ahead. [My home just missed being hit by the Harmony Grove fire, and again was smoked out during the Cedar fire.] Yet those fires were both part of the historical "fire season." This is DECEMBER which should be the rainy season. This December's fires are completely off the charts for fires in CA.

 

What was different this time is summed up this way

"The region of the fire baked under it's hottest October and November ever. And the driest as well. The Ventura County Fire Department reported: "It has been over 250 days without any recorded rain in the area. Relative humidity is in the single digits." Eight months without any rain. Record heat. Winds gusting to hurricane strength at times." https://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/12/23/analysis/californias-thomas-fire-torches-record-books-normal-climate-burns-away

 

These conditions will be repeated in future years as a warmer planet is conducive to both more intense rains - when and where it is raining, and more rapid drying of land and vegetation when it isn't raining. For CA the current extreme is both a function of La Nina drying, but also of shift in regional weather due to less ice over the oceans surrounding Alaska.  NATURE: Future loss of Arctic sea-ice cover could drive a substantial decrease in California’s rainfall.

The same atmospheric pressure ridge also influences the intensity of Santa Ana winds.

These climatic shifts are not good, not by a long shot. The consequences are devastating - already.

[thaibeachlovers]

12 hours ago, Credo said:

You expect them to 'manage' 273,000 acres of scrub land, some of which is federal land during a long-term, severe drought?  

 

 

No, I expect a good government to "manage" land prone to fires all the time. California has lots of money, they should spend some on that.

 

If they don't, expect a repeat of same till they do start managing the land.  All the scrub will have grown back in a few years.

[MyFriend You]

16 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

No, I expect a good government to "manage" land prone to fires all the time. California has lots of money, they should spend some on that.

 

If they don't, expect a repeat of same till they do start managing the land.  All the scrub will have grown back in a few years.

Death Penalty to all fire bugs, life in prison for accidental fire starters, Acts of God ??  well, you know.

[tryasimight]

Stop listening to the greenies and carry out planned and controlled fuel reduction burns throughout the cooler months and a lot of the risk is mitigated.

[hawker9000]

On ‎12‎/‎24‎/‎2017 at 5:26 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

No, I expect a good government to "manage" land prone to fires all the time. California has lots of money, they should spend some on that.

 

If they don't, expect a repeat of same till they do start managing the land.  All the scrub will have grown back in a few years.

Well then you're expecting the ridiculous.  The State of California is not just a "big lawn" that can be mowed every once in awhile.   And a good chunk of it is actually federal land.  Yes, there will be repeats and the scrub DOES grow back when the rains come again.  That's what scrubland is.  The threat is well understood, the peak risk periods and factors are equally well understood, and the state and local governments are constantly modernizing and upgrading, at considerable cost to taxpayers incidentally, but your citing lack of "land management" is just ignorant and delusional, when talking about something the size of that particular state anyway.  And while we're on the subject, when property is destroyed on such a large scale, governments lose property and other tax revenue, and in tax-happy states like California that means there's more than enough incentive for government to avoid and minimize that destruction.  You really need to learn a little more about your subject before you start going off.