111–120 of 163 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. Why even have voters?
To have some accountability for people who are supposed to make tough decisions and resolve tradeoffs in some responsible way. Notably this isn’t a direct democracy, where direct democrats have an unfortunate tendency to demand freedom from the consequences of the policies they themselves enact, and ask for the irreconcilable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the biggest problems with managing bushfire in Australia is having the fire "jump the line". Where embers fly ahead of the main fire, starting spot fires that unless dealt with just extend the reach of the fire. Currently a lot of spot fire management is attempted using helicopters with water buckets, but this is both expensive and bloody dangerous. Being able to use semi disposable drones could assist dramati…
> - The airspace around a bush fire is a particularly hostile environment. This is a good point. Bushfires are also largely caused by high winds that are unpredictable. It makes drones carrying heavy fire retarding payloads a very difficult proposition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the biggest problems with managing bushfire in Australia is having the fire "jump the line". Where embers fly ahead of the main fire, starting spot fires that unless dealt with just extend the reach of the fire. Currently a lot of spot fire management is attempted using helicopters with water buckets, but this is both expensive and bloody dangerous. Being able to use semi disposable drones could assist dramati…
The Australian bush needs fire to germinate new plants and trees too.
The reason we have such terrible fires now is that we keep putting out fires when they're small. Nature builds up too much burnable matter over time. Small fires would burn it in small, localized areas. But if the small fires don't happen then we get the massive fires that destroy towns, cities, and cost lives. I am not impressed by a new way to put out small fires, because that just ensures bigger fires in the long…
I'm very intrigued by the potential for new wildfire tech but as someone who lives in wildfire land in Montana i have my doubts about this video... detecting putting out a campfire is a pretty idealized case. Most fires in our area seem to be started (either by lightning or an improperly extinguished campfire) and then exist as an undetectable underground smolder for quite a while until hot, dry, windy conditions eme…
You have some good points and questions here. I spent 3 summers as a wildland fire fighter and have seen lightening strikes/small fires up to massive 100k acre affairs. I will speak from that experience, but keep in mind it was over a decade ago and it's been a while since I had to think about any of this. As you point out, a tree struck by lightening can smolder for a long time. This can go on for weeks until it exp…
I missed the 40 acres part, thats ludicrous. I live about a mile from the 3.6+ million selway bitterroot / frank church wilderness complex ... you would need a lot of drones just to cover the parts near towns.
I do think there would be some merit in a system that could detect a smoke plume quickly and slow them enough to give crews time to safely get there especially on days with multiple starts.
Does it alter the food chain through herbivores and, in turn, alter the vegetation pervasive, such that it's more combustable?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the biggest problems with managing bushfire in Australia is having the fire "jump the line". Where embers fly ahead of the main fire, starting spot fires that unless dealt with just extend the reach of the fire. Currently a lot of spot fire management is attempted using helicopters with water buckets, but this is both expensive and bloody dangerous. Being able to use semi disposable drones could assist dramati…
Wow, that's a really great point. If we have these sorts of drones helping to contain and manage the allowed fires, in an automated fashion, we can reduce the effort needed to do so, or perhaps even control larger fires. Maybe I was too pessimistic.
The reason we have such terrible fires now is that we keep putting out fires when they're small. Nature builds up too much burnable matter over time. Small fires would burn it in small, localized areas. But if the small fires don't happen then we get the massive fires that destroy towns, cities, and cost lives. I am not impressed by a new way to put out small fires, because that just ensures bigger fires in the long…
More mushrooms means more water retention, less fuel that's less dry overall, and a niche in the ecosystem is filled , expanding activity in the adjacent niches, which in turn speeds the disappearance of biodegradable mass.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, we should definitely put out small fires in August and let (or force) bigger ones to burn in March. Wild how little critical thinking gets put behind these meme ideas like 'historic forest management is the only problem and we should let everything burn'.
Instead of snark I'd suggest doing some research. The science on this has been solid for about 50 years now. The political will is the problem.