Reply to Palisades Fire

Forum Index » Off-Topic

Reply to "Palisades Fire - Los Angeles"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The fire chief in a press conference stated the electricity shut off led to pumps stopping this no water for hydrants.

Risk is not some code phrase for "it will happen".  There are varying levels of risk.  If one chooses to build in the sand when the tides in water hits your house - well that's a higher risk than building on dry land for your house to wash away.  You all get that right?  So when we say people in the Palisades (less Pasadena/Altemeda) should not be there, we mean that the fire catastrophe risk of living there is high. So when we suggest parts where nature dominates humans historically may not be suitable for homes.  The statement - well where should people live if nowhere is safe - totally misses this point.  It's about practical and logical decision making.  If the risk is really high you don't want to be there.  Period.  
That is all.  You find another place.  You just do.

You can manage risk - so living in parts of CA isn't the same as living exactly where wildfires will likely engulf your house one day given enough opportunity for the right conditions.  Talk to any meteorologist or climate scientist and they all are saying this was completely foreseeable.  Whether you want to take note of this fact is your choice.  [b]The same is true in FL and honestly anywhere in the MW as well. [/b] I personally never moved to CA as much as I love the beauty there because they will have an earthquake and I don't feel like being there.  Now of course many dumbasses will say - hah you can be in an earthquake anywhere like DC had one -  but - we all know the size and scale of what a CA big earthquake will look like.  Other dumbasses will say - you gotta live your life and can't be scared of it.  And I say to that - if you know it's coming and you do it anyway, it's totally on you.  [b]There's a lot of other beautiful places to choose to live that are much less riskier.  [/b]

So risk is real but it's variable.  People who cannot grasp that some locations are riskier to live safely than others are just plain asking for tragedy. It's not that I am not heartbroken for all who lost everything in this tragedy but just saying - there's also a reason why it's like $4M to live there - it's drop dead gorgeous every day.  But you are in danger every day there.[/quote]

Name the places that are beautiful but a much less riskier. Be specific here.

You’ve already correctly eliminated the entire Midwest and Florida. [b]I want to know where else in the US you want all residents of the Midwest, California, and Florida to move. [/b][/quote]

Californian here, now in DC:

They need to move to places with abundant natural water, but not severe storms. The lack of water is the big issue that's going to really hurt the Mountain West and Southwest and Texas. Too much water in the form of hurricanes is going to make parts of the Southeast uninhabitable.

The Mid-Atlantic has beautiful spots and plenty of year-round water. Same with the Upper Midwest (MN, MI, the Dakotas). I actually see more people going back into Illinois and NY if things get bad enough elsewhere. Aside from an occassional horrible blizzard, these areas do not suffer from acute drought, hurricanes, tornados, or earthquakes.

In other words, people will have to suffer a bit of cold in order to have a stable life. The dreams of Florida or California are quickly becoming a fiction for anyone except the insanely rich who can write off a destroyed home with ease. [/quote]

So what about all the states where we know there is a likelihood of an extremely powerful earthquake and those states have done almost nothing to prepare? That includes the mid-Atlantic states. That earthquake is a predictable and known outcome: should people leave those states too? And where should they go?

And your list of locations is pretty deluded IMO. The upper Midwest has been absolutely impacted by both fire and extreme weather. You don’t know much about the area if you think it’s immune from climate change and can absorb all the people from California, Florida, and the Midwest. The same is true of the Mid-Atlantic states: the storms are getting much worse. Also, available water will quickly become an issue if millions from California, Florida, and the Midwest migrate in short order into those states, which is what you seem to be suggesting should happen.

I genuinely do not understand how people like you think. Like are you seriously suggesting that millions and millions of Americans from some of the most populous states in the US should move to Maryland and North Dakota? [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics