Comments by "SmallSpoonBrigade" (@SmallSpoonBrigade) on "Bill Burr Shreds Conspiracy Theorists Lying About LA Wildfires" video.

I wish there'd be more understanding. The point isn't to clear out the brush, the point is to clear out the stuff that is tall enough to bridge the gap between the bottom layers where the trees are pretty well protected against catching on fire and the canopy where there's far less protection due to needles and leafs not being particularly resistant to fire. Some species even require fires in order to release more seeds. Doing controlled burns right next to housing is a very risky thing to do, but if there were a routine every few years effort to just burn a portion of those areas that are as close as practical to the houses during a period where the fire activity is light, they could figure out where their containment needs to be first, and account for the weather over the next few days. There does need to be changes to the building code though to make the houses a bit more fire resistant. It's worth noting that most likely, there would be a combination of thinning the forests next to the city and burning the brush, between the two practices there's a significant reduction in the risk of this happening again. Especially if the stuff that gets built to replace the burned out structures is harder to catch on fire. From what I can tell, the averaged size of a prescribed burn was about 40acres in 2019. As in, about 1/16th of a square mile. Which means that when conditions are decent, a fire can be set and put out pretty quickly.
3
The issue tends to be the result of different factors. We do need more brush management in these areas, we do need a satellite monitoring where fires are starting, we do need improvements to the building code in areas that are at risk, we do need for the equipment and water supply to be in better working order. But, at the end of the day, there is only so much that can be done.
3
Sort of, the trees are dry and the vegetation was able to bridge the vertical gap between the forest floor and the canopy, and when that happens, you get fires that are a lot hotter as the trees are much easier to set on fire from the top where they have little proteciton versus the ground where it's a lot harder to burn through the bark. The idea behind prescribed burns is that you burn that stuff while it's still short enough to not reach up into the canopy and set the trees on fire. But, typically, you'd also want to thin out the trees as well so that the density of them that could light is lower, which in turn makes it harder for the remaining trees to catch on fire. This stuff gets even more complicated as LA has issues with the winds. Around here, fires can travel under ground for a bit and pop up where you're not expecting it.
1
@ It's not, it's legitimate forestry practice and literally required that bushes and anything flammable not be too close to the buildings. The water is a bit less clear cut, but given the failures to thin the trees and vegetation near the buildings to help prevent the fire from spreading into town, that should have also been a consideration. It was bad enough when it was just the right-wing that was anti-science, now the left is doing it too.
1
There were rumors that some of it was irresponsible people partying on New Year's, but we'll have to see what the results are when they figure out where it started.
1
The main issue with that is expense and that you need far more of them to replace the capacity, due to the decreased ability to cool the lines when they're under ground. It can also be somewhat problematic in case of an earthquake, but that's the case no matter what you do, earthquakes tend to take out power infrastructure.
1