wild fires..think these homes could have been saved??

wild fires..think these homes could have been saved??

smorizio
smorizio

June 30th, 2012, 6:14 am #1

http://www.break.com/index/the-colorado ... se-2340597

do you think these homes could have been saved if places that are in wild fire risk zone did a few things to protect there homes??
one thing i noticed in the video is a lot of the homes have tree's and bushes and burnable items right up against the homes. I did see one home owner in the video that had stones around the home. also why does the town or state not put in a dirt street or dirt area from the bottom of hills to the first row of homes?? do you think that hoes should use metal roofing and cement so that in a fire like the video is showing that more homes would not burn from hot ash on roof and wood.
Quote
Share

Hans
Hans

June 30th, 2012, 3:13 pm #2

I've seen brushfires jump a highway that's two lanes each way, wide shoulders left and right in both directions, with a 50ft wide grass median. We're talking about a 200ft wide are it jumped, and the fire I saw wasn't anywhere near as big. The energy they release is incredible, and what it wants to burn WILL burn. Once a fire like that gets going, all you can do is TRY and steer it, only mother nature can put it out.

There are ways to mitigate it of course, such as material choices, but even with proper precautions those houses most likely would have still burned. I don't recall if there is any seisemic reason they don't use more concrete/brick construction out there, but I do recall seeing quite a lot of tile roofing last time I was in Colorado Springs. They also do a lot of 'veriscaping', due to the naturally dry conditions, meaning they do rock gardens and such instead of grass lawns. Laws are you can't irrigate or water your lawn, unless you have 35 acres, then you are allowed to irrigate ONE acre.

-Hans



Quote
Share

Bergman Oswell
Bergman Oswell

June 30th, 2012, 6:45 pm #3

http://www.break.com/index/the-colorado ... se-2340597

do you think these homes could have been saved if places that are in wild fire risk zone did a few things to protect there homes??
one thing i noticed in the video is a lot of the homes have tree's and bushes and burnable items right up against the homes. I did see one home owner in the video that had stones around the home. also why does the town or state not put in a dirt street or dirt area from the bottom of hills to the first row of homes?? do you think that hoes should use metal roofing and cement so that in a fire like the video is showing that more homes would not burn from hot ash on roof and wood.
I remember reading about it, it was down in California. The research project built this prototype house out of ultra-modern materials, with air filtration, cooling systems, a yard with nothing flammable in it, etc.

The couple living in the house phoned in after the area they were in was issued a wildfire evacuation order, and the project guys told them they could evacuate if they wanted, but not to worry about the house, it ought to be fine despite the fire. So the couple ignored the evac order.

The house was right smack in the (heh) line of fire. The fire actually washed over the house, passed on both sides, flames licking over the roof, etc. The couple could see walls of flame outside all the windows. The house didn't even get warm inside, and neither of them ever smelled any smoke. And then the fire was past, and the house was untouched.

The house was a LOT more expensive than a conventional design, but it definitely proved it could survive a wildfire...
Quote
Share

CF
CF

June 30th, 2012, 9:17 pm #4

I have abetter one: Many moons ago, during one of the ObSoCalFires, the news 'copter was focusing on a neighborhood going up in flames -- that is, except for one house which had:

-- Tile roof
-- Stonework and brickwork exteriors on all visible facings
-- Surrounded by rock, gravel, and the harder-to-ignite evergreens (*LOTS* of iceplant)

Entire neighborhood went away -- except for that house.

I hate to be this blunt, but: The folks whose houses burned got what was coming to them -- they built with the wrong materials; they insisted on surrounding themselves with flammables; they built in nature's wind-tunnels; and I somehow doubt they did very good jobs of clearing up the yearly deadfall. And the real bitch is: There's is exactly zero chance any of these cross-eyed nitwits will learn the lesson. I shed no tears for them.
Quote
Share

wolf13
wolf13

July 1st, 2012, 3:48 am #5

http://www.break.com/index/the-colorado ... se-2340597

do you think these homes could have been saved if places that are in wild fire risk zone did a few things to protect there homes??
one thing i noticed in the video is a lot of the homes have tree's and bushes and burnable items right up against the homes. I did see one home owner in the video that had stones around the home. also why does the town or state not put in a dirt street or dirt area from the bottom of hills to the first row of homes?? do you think that hoes should use metal roofing and cement so that in a fire like the video is showing that more homes would not burn from hot ash on roof and wood.
Fire management is all about energy management. A major fire like that in tall standing trees, fueled by a decent wind, is going to jump most fire breaks if that is all there is. Not only that, a major fire like that literally creates its own weather at the fire front, drawing air into the fire and throwing sparks a long ways.

However, if you can break the energy of a fire by eliminating fuel, eliminating velocity and laying the fire down, it becomes controllable. That means pushing the trees farther back and giving a fire more time to loose its velocity. In this case, there really wasn't any place to lay the fire down and break its energy, and that fire had a lot of energy. Thats what makes these fires so hard to fight is you can't ever attack them directly, you work on the flanks, cutting into the intensity until you can stop it at breaks.

those trees and shrubs next to the houses were just tinder. Yeah, had those houses been stone and non flammable roofs without trees and shrubs, many might have survived, especially in the center and far side of the division.
Quote
Share

Bergman Oswell
Bergman Oswell

July 1st, 2012, 6:04 am #6

I have abetter one: Many moons ago, during one of the ObSoCalFires, the news 'copter was focusing on a neighborhood going up in flames -- that is, except for one house which had:

-- Tile roof
-- Stonework and brickwork exteriors on all visible facings
-- Surrounded by rock, gravel, and the harder-to-ignite evergreens (*LOTS* of iceplant)

Entire neighborhood went away -- except for that house.

I hate to be this blunt, but: The folks whose houses burned got what was coming to them -- they built with the wrong materials; they insisted on surrounding themselves with flammables; they built in nature's wind-tunnels; and I somehow doubt they did very good jobs of clearing up the yearly deadfall. And the real bitch is: There's is exactly zero chance any of these cross-eyed nitwits will learn the lesson. I shed no tears for them.
Depending on how long ago that video from the news copter was, that might have been the house I was talking about.
Quote
Share

Snowtroll
Snowtroll

July 1st, 2012, 11:00 am #7

I have abetter one: Many moons ago, during one of the ObSoCalFires, the news 'copter was focusing on a neighborhood going up in flames -- that is, except for one house which had:

-- Tile roof
-- Stonework and brickwork exteriors on all visible facings
-- Surrounded by rock, gravel, and the harder-to-ignite evergreens (*LOTS* of iceplant)

Entire neighborhood went away -- except for that house.

I hate to be this blunt, but: The folks whose houses burned got what was coming to them -- they built with the wrong materials; they insisted on surrounding themselves with flammables; they built in nature's wind-tunnels; and I somehow doubt they did very good jobs of clearing up the yearly deadfall. And the real bitch is: There's is exactly zero chance any of these cross-eyed nitwits will learn the lesson. I shed no tears for them.
If the temperature in the flame wall gets high enough, it will penetrate tile and brick, and cause whatever flammable materials inside to self combust.

And in those natural wind tunnels... FLAME ON!

I have no sympathy for anyone building in those areas, in areas with clay in the ground, on flood plains, in cities located below the waterline or on fault zones...

Building on active volcanoes...
I think that's just about the only bl**dy stupid thing they don't do in mainland USA?
Quote
Share

Hans
Hans

July 1st, 2012, 2:57 pm #8

The historical lava flow paths from Mt.Rainier go right through the heart of downtown Seattle and Tacoma, in Washington State. Hawaii is effectively nothing BUT active volcanoes.

It's a bit difficult to avoid any chance of natural disaster here in the US. Pretty much everywhere in this country is subject to one or more type of large disaster at some point. The entire western coastline is essentially an earthquake zone. Most of the central areas of the country are flood plains, but that's also where we grow food. The entire coastline from the Mexico/Texas border in the Gulf of Mexico, all the way around Florida and up to New York is a hurricane risk. I don't think there's a place anywhere in this country that's safe from everything, it's just a matter of picking what type of disaster you want to deal with.

It's not exclusively an American issue though. Just look at Holland, a good part of the country is below sea level. London and the Thames has always been an interesting relationship. Japan is essentially a string of volcanoes, and always at risk of Tsunami. The Yangtsee cuts a path of death through China. Don't even get me started about farming in the Nile flood plains.

Just a fact of life. You want to create the things needed to survive, particularly food? Then need to be near things that can potentially kill you.

-Hans



Quote
Share

CF
CF

July 2nd, 2012, 2:12 am #9

If the temperature in the flame wall gets high enough, it will penetrate tile and brick, and cause whatever flammable materials inside to self combust.

And in those natural wind tunnels... FLAME ON!

I have no sympathy for anyone building in those areas, in areas with clay in the ground, on flood plains, in cities located below the waterline or on fault zones...

Building on active volcanoes...
I think that's just about the only bl**dy stupid thing they don't do in mainland USA?
Hence the non-flammable perimeter.
Quote
Share

MephitMark
MephitMark

July 2nd, 2012, 4:07 am #10

http://www.break.com/index/the-colorado ... se-2340597

do you think these homes could have been saved if places that are in wild fire risk zone did a few things to protect there homes??
one thing i noticed in the video is a lot of the homes have tree's and bushes and burnable items right up against the homes. I did see one home owner in the video that had stones around the home. also why does the town or state not put in a dirt street or dirt area from the bottom of hills to the first row of homes?? do you think that hoes should use metal roofing and cement so that in a fire like the video is showing that more homes would not burn from hot ash on roof and wood.
And it is probable this fire will have to either run out of fuel, or a long heavy rain to stop this monster.

I have been attempting to see if the DOD could use C-130s as water bombers. Not just one or two, but ten or more. But so far I have not gotten any one to listen to me.

But did any one else notice at the very end of the video there was a house, just left of center, that had water sprinklers watering the lawn?
Quote
Share