Possible power outage for next two days

joecoulson

afterburnt wrote: »

motorhead43026 wrote: »

^^ yep, don't forget the hurricane prone areas of the right coast and gulf. May be they should build houses on stilts where it floods....lol.

How come no one politicises those areas?

People that want to live in flood zones should be required to build their houses underground too.

Yes - especially those on the "other" side of the aisle

Jstas

motorhead43026 wrote: »

^^ yep, don't forget the hurricane prone areas of the right coast and gulf. May be they should build houses on stilts where it floods....lol.

How come no one politicises those areas?

You laugh and make jokes but that's exactly what's been happening since Hurricane Sandy rolled through. At least in NJ it has.

Everything was re-zoned with staged coastal flood zones. If your house was in any of the re-zoned areas from like zone 1 through 5, rebuilding mandated that you had to sink pilings down like 18 feet and have your construction foundation platform 9 feet high, at least. No living areas or utilities could be lower than 9 feet off the ground. Any walls below the 9 foot mark had to be break-away. Also, you need a reinforced concrete column that has a tub in the bottom that is water tight and connects your utilities to the county systems. That column has to extend to like 10 feet high and your utilities like heaters, AC, water, electrical and gas connections all run up that column and into an utility area that is essentially a fireproof room. No more septic systems either.

If you were zone 6 or 7, you weren't allowed a slab, still had to build on pilings but only 5 feet up. Zone 8 you weren't allowed to have a basement, had to be an anchored slab so it couldn't be floated in a storm surge. Anything farther from the shore is not considered a significant coastal flood risk.

Lotsa people were pissed off and screamed and yelled about not being able to afford it. NJ made big efforts to help both regulatory and financially but people still complained and even tried to sue NJ and the insurance companies. But the response they got was "You chose to live in a coastal flood zone. You knew the risks when you settled there. The State is not responsible for your assumption of risk."

I'm guessing that's why no one "politicises" those areas.

Except maybe New Orleans where everything is below sea level, at the shoreline, and it's just a dumb place overall for most of the city.

steveinaz

There's not much timber to clear in the Gulf of Mexico. Hey, if you don't mind watching your state burn down, oh well. Must not matter much to you, otherwise you wouldn't keep defending the way things are (not) done.

afterburnt

But you can't beat the weather

kevhed72

Perhaps the immigrants everyone is so worried about could be recruited to help fight the fires. You have to admit, these people generally work their tails off compared to the average American.

afterburnt

do they have water-dropping helicopters?

mrloren

Gee it's not about politics it's about stupid policy.

Power lines in high wind areas need to be kept clear, they are not.

Fire roads and 100 yard fire breaks need to be cut.

Need to resume controlled burns in the winter. Cal Fire did a few in San Diego last winter then got sued to stop.

Other thing to look at is funding, Since the 2003 fire look at how much more funding has gone to Cal Fire and local fire departments.

F1nut

motorhead43026 wrote: »

^^ yep, don't forget the hurricane prone areas of the right coast and gulf. May be they should build houses on stilts where it floods....lol.

How come no one politicises those areas misfortunes.

Most of those areas now require homes, etc. to be elevated above flood levels. Of course, New Orleans is a different story. The next time it floods and it will, they should either leave it or call the Dutch for help.

Mikey081057

Florida's New building codes are very good. I had 0 damage from IRMA. Older homes built before the new code are subject to catastrophic failure and cost 3 to 4 x as much to insure.

Many newer homes on the coast ARE built on stilts and some are required. After a few bad hurricanes coastal Florida addressed it pretty well.

When you saw photos of the destruction in Mexico Beach from a year or so ago you could see the diff between the old code and the new code.

The old wooden structures got mangled. The newer concrete block and roofs withstood the storm.

motorhead43026

Houston is like one of worse areas for flooding now. They destroyed the natural buffer zones being the salt marsh areas and built on them. And those are right at sea level I believe.

Viking64

motorhead43026 wrote: »

Houston is like one of worse areas for flooding now. They destroyed the natural buffer zones being the salt marsh areas and built on them. And those are right at sea level I believe.

At least they got to lose the World Series.

tonyb

Doesn't matter if a red or blue state, public safety it seems gets pushed down for money and agendas in all of them. California just happens to be a shinning example of it.

Steve made a good point , you can't fix a problem if you can't honestly look at the cause. Which should transcend politics when public safety is involved.....should....but never does. I don't think one among us would argue that when it comes to public safety politics should be left out of the solutions. We just can't seem to get that message to those making policy for those solutions.

Really shouldn't be hard , we all use problem solving skills in our everyday lives. You look for the common denominators and start eliminating one by one until it becomes obvious.

First one must admit that a problem even exists. Then must have the will to solve it. Then, not let outside influences determine the solutions. Not sure California has moved beyond the fist step.

mrloren

Red, blue, left or right. just doesn't matter.

For CA it's more the enviro ****. They keep law suits every time they start clearing or doing the right thing.

I have two friends that live in the back country of San Diego. They both clear their land at least 200' away from their home. Almost every year they get fined and have to go to court. Every time they win. Some enviro **** sees them clearing and files a complaint, county has no choice but to site them.

Viking64

So much for "the next TWO days".

lightman1

Yup. Nothing on fire where I'm at.

daddyjt

tonyb wrote: »

Doesn't matter if a red or blue state, public safety it seems gets pushed down for money and agendas in all of them. California just happens to be a shinning example of it.

Steve made a good point , you can't fix a problem if you can't honestly look at the cause. Which should transcend politics when public safety is involved.....should....but never does. I don't think one among us would argue that when it comes to public safety politics should be left out of the solutions. We just can't seem to get that message to those making policy for those solutions.

Really shouldn't be hard , we all use problem solving skills in our everyday lives. You look for the common denominators and start eliminating one by one until it becomes obvious.

First one must admit that a problem even exists. Then must have the will to solve it. Then, not let outside influences determine the solutions. Not sure California has moved beyond the fist step.

One more thing that seems to be preventing us from getting to the root cause of these types of issues now, is the fervor to assign everything to “climate change”. The contortions that politicians and media put themselves through to ignore facts and drive their narrative is head scratching to say the least.

nooshinjohn

So much for global warming... it’s another ice age.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7631115/Explosion-sea-ice-levels-spark-ice-age-time-2-MILLION-years.html

F1nut

It's fall and getting chilly outside......yep, it's climate change time again.

polrbehr

F1nut wrote: »

It's fall and getting chilly outside......yep, it's climate change time again.

I predict another ice age will be coming soon too. Say, in about 3 more months??

steveinaz

When we can stop 1 damn tornado, come talk to me about how we're going to change the entire "climate."

pitdogg2

steveinaz wrote: »

When we can stop 1 damn tornado, come talk to me about how we're going to change the entire "climate."

We can Steve but the fall out and destruction from the thermonuclear device is frowned upon.

tonyb

Revert back to my previous post.....you can't control nature, we just have to live in it's world. Climate change puts forth the idea that somehow by sending money to politicians and giving them more control over our lives, that will stop the Santa Ana winds from blowing, volcanoes from erupting, earthquakes will settle down and hurricanes will never happen again. Polar ice will stop melting/freezing, oceans will stop rising/falling, blizzards will be a thing of the past, and our climate will be the same, year after year, decade after decade.

….and if you believe that to have merit, maybe a padded room is in your future.

I think many confuse pollution with climate change. Pollution in general is a real thing that every country needs to address on their own abilities. Like we discussed before, Asia isn't going to let anyone push them around, nor is Russia, India, and many South American countries. The main polluters come from Asia, India.

Most western cultures have taken steps to at least try and be better stewards of the planet....yet it is western cultures which take the brunt of the criticisms. Nobody is marching in India, China, Russia in protests. Why is that ?

The fires in California are once again being used for propaganda to serve an agenda. Actually solving the problem using common sense solutions doesn't appear to be on the radar.

The people are upset that they pay so much in taxes and get so little back for it. They blame the state partially for not allowing brush clean up, tree's trimmed. The state wants to blame the utility companies, the utility company blames the state for over regulating them to the point they have no wiggle room to invest in modernizing their equipment. PG&E has filed for bankruptcy protection earlier this year, so don't expect them to be throwing tons of cash at this problem.

Took what....100 or so years for your ancestors to build up California from a wilderness, and now in a few decades they seem bent on trying to return it to a wilderness. I'll be the first to applaud them for their conservation efforts, but when that get's in the way of public safety someone has to say wait a minute here.

The very first duty on any local/state/federal government is to keep the general public safe as best they can. Safe from disasters, crime, murder, safe water to drink, air to breathe, roads to travel on. Safe schools, safe workplaces, safe air travel. Just to name a few. Some states put more safety concerns into sidewalks than we do wildfires.

If I lived in California, I'd be demanding they fulfill their duty of safety for the general public first and foremost.

Viking64

tonyb wrote: »

Asia isn't going to let anyone push them around, nor is Russia, India....

India is in Asia. So is 77% of Russia.

joecoulson

steveinaz

Let's for the sake of argument, pretend that there is some sort of climate crisis. All of the money, resources, participation, and protests on the planet wouldn't change a damn thing---and if the Earth did have a catastrophic event, there isn't a damn thing you could do about it.

Let's stick to the realistic. Lower pollution, use renewable energy where feasible and COST EFFECTIVE, put more pressure on other countries to do better. EVERYONE want's a healthy environment, clean water, beautiful forests; but if we are chasing "ghosts" all that money could have been far better spent. See: California wild fires. Since the CA politicians still ignore that there IS a fire season, mother nature will continue to thin the trees for them---just in a FAR more violent, expensive, and damaging way.

Politicians don't like REAL solutions, because the money stops flowing when things work. Do you understand that? Tell me you're not that naïve.

tonyb

LOL, your correct, should have been more specific and state SE Asia, like China, Malaysia, etc. Doesn't change the point though.

Viking64

tonyb wrote: »

LOL, your correct, should have been more specific and state SE Asia, like China, Malaysia, etc. Doesn't change the point though.

Maybe we should split it up into different types of food?

daddyjt

Somehow, those in charge have convinced themselves that it’s more feasible to upend the entire energy system in the world, thereby bankrupting thousands of businesses and plunging millions into poverty, than it is to dig some trenches and/or cut down some trees and clear some brush. Funny how securing the power transmission lines is an insurmountable task, yet being “carbon free” is a dream that can somehow be realized within a decade or two...?

Further, isn’t it ironic that there never seem to be any adverse environmental impacts when a sprawling wind farm or solar farm are proposed? I mean really - we can’t bury power lines for fear of disrupting the (insert vague but virtually biologically identical to 100’s of other species life form) habitat, but we can build a 1,000 acre wind farm, and there’s magically no environmental impact?

Viking64

joecoulson wrote: »

My mother is a retired teacher, so we got one of these for her.

tonyb

steveinaz wrote: »

Let's for the sake of argument, pretend that there is some sort of climate crisis. All of the money, resources, participation, and protests on the planet wouldn't change a damn thing---and if the Earth did have a catastrophic event, there isn't a damn thing you could do about it.

Let's stick to the realistic. Lower pollution, use renewable energy where feasible and COST EFFECTIVE, put more pressure on other countries to do better. EVERYONE want's a healthy environment, clean water, beautiful forests; but if we are chasing "ghosts" all that money could have been far better spent. See: California wild fires. Since the CA politicians still ignore that there IS a fire season, mother nature will continue to thin the trees for them---just in a FAR more violent, expensive, and damaging way.

Politicians don't like REAL solutions, because the money stops flowing when things work. Do you understand that? Tell me you're not that naïve.

I don't think anyone is that naïve Steve, policy is always made around those with a fistful of dollars. I shouldn't say "anyone", because obviously some are.

"Since the CA politicians still ignore that there IS a fire season, mother nature will continue to thin the trees for them---just in a FAR more violent, expensive, and damaging way."

Truth bomb right there. Once the season is over, the problem goes away...until the next season. Hasn't that been the scenario for a hundred years out there ? They think the problem will just go away after the season is over, so why address it .

If LA was on fire, or San Fran, policy would change more quickly. All anyone could ask, and should demand, is that they do the job their elected positions dictate they should, keep everyone safe as humanly possible. If they refuse, then change those elected officials, or live with fires every year. It isn't any more complicated than that.