Why are the fires so big and out of control? How are the fires being fought?
I've seen the movie Always, but that's the extent of my fire-fighting knowledge. Does anyone else know or have links that could tell me?
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fires need 3 things to burn: 1)Spark 2) Fuel 3) Oxygen.
California has had a very, very dry year. This leaves millions of acres very dry and easy to burn--the Fuel.
The weather is dry, with strong dry winds blowing almost constantly. This gives a combination of Oxygen needed to keep the fire going, and it moves the sparks to the next area for the fire to spread too.
The fire can spread/move almost as fast as the wind blows the sparks to the next dry grass. Hence the grow fast and spread out faster than an organized responce can get to them.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would add that usually we get a lot of small, fairly controlled brush fires each fire season that create kind of natural fire breaks. We had a big fire early this season, and a few small ones, but really not nearly what we usually have in a year this dry. So there is more fuel around than usual, and this late in the season it's very, very dry and ready to burn. The fires also started closer than usual to highly populated areas, and that's a problem, because the firefighters are trying to protect property while at the same time keeping it from spreading.
An iconic image that you see a lot during big fires in CA is how firefighters protect people and homes. They evacuate the area and then park the trucks, hook up the water, and basically they stand there and face the fire and try to control it enough to turn it away from areas where it will harm people or property.
I am crying as I type that because it really is an amazing thing they do. They put themselves literally between the massively destructive fire and people and their homes for no other reason than that is their job and what they have chosen to do.
That is why when the kids and I are out and see firefighters on break somewhere, we go up and thank them for doing what they do.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I forgot to add the helicopters. They also have helicopters that fly dangerously close to the fire and dump water on it, then go back, re-load, and do it again. Often the pilots that do this are members of the local search and rescue or other people who are not necessarily firefighters.
Sometimes if a fire is close enough to blow sparks and ash but not mandatory evacuation close, you will see people out with garden hoses hosing down sparks that fall on their (and their neighbors') roofs and lawns, trying to help keep it from spreading into their neighborhoods.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, really, they don't have that many options. They create fire breaks by digging or doing controlled backburns (although they are very cautious about that and won't do it when it's this windy) and the helicopters, and the hoses.
There's not much else they CAN do. And with manpower spread as thin as it is, it's hard to do that. That's why neighboring states have been sending trucks and personnel to help.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
I don't think they can do much to actually fight the fires at this point. The winds are just too strong for some of the firefighting aircraft to even be in the air. They can only do their best to protect structures at this time. You'd think I would know more having multiple family members in or retired from the firefighting business, but that is the best I can do for now.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fires are so big because of specific weather conditions in SoCal. First, large portions of California do not receive rain during the summer months. In the (South) Bay Area, it would almost never rain between mid-May and mid-September. In SoCal, it hasn't rained in nearly ten months (which counts as a drought for them). So the land is very dry.
Second, there's significant portions of the area with lots of brush. The Coastal Range runs along the coast (thus the name ) and is quite hilly. People don't live there much, and those hills get covered in dry grass. The area isn't very accessible, either, which was a major problem in the Oakland fire in 1991, for instance.
Finally, there are dry winds this time of year. In the Oakland fire, it was called the Diablo wind, and in SoCal it was called the Santa Ana wind (they're actually formed via different processes, but the effect is the same). The wind right now is particularly bad, and once a fire gets started, it will create its own wind.
As to how one fights these - with water, and tactical clearing of vegetation - sometimes a wide highway, for instance, can restrict a fire, as the fire can't "jump" it (helps if there's firemen around to put out anything started by floating embers. Mostly, though, you just wait until the weather conditions change; it'll be very hard to put out anything until the winds die down. Right now most firefighters are just doing triage to minimize the devastation.
posted
I'm trying to google for it, but all I'm getting are news stories about thousands of fire fighters being called up but no info on the tools at their disposal.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I guess they stomp and beat out little sparks as they see them, too. But that's not much help when fires will jump freeways and such.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: What do they do to fight them?
They often use tanker aircraft (as in the film you reference) to drop fire retardant on the fire. It is usually easy to tell if there is a sizable fire in the mountains near my area, because I can watch the planes as they take off and fly off toward the mountains, as I live a couple of miles from an airport where the CDF planes stay.
If the fire is near a body of water and conditions are such that they can get helicopters in the air, they often also use the 'copters to scoop up water to drop on the flames. I saw pictures on tv today of them doing that with the Malibu fire, since they have a pretty big reservoir (aka the Pacific Ocean) right there next to the fire.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
The article reminded me...where's the temple? *goes off to google some more*
So, tools: 1. water from hydrants 2. helicopters with water tanks 3. helicopters with flame retardant 4. deliberately-set fires to get rid of fuel so fire can't spread 5. waiting for rain
posted
They also have to be choosy about when to dump retardant and when to dump water. Because the retardant and water can both, if the fire is hot enough, actually fuel the fire, but at different temperatures. So they monitor that pretty carefully and drop it strategically around the cooler edges of the fire instead of in the central raging inferno.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Temple is in West L.A., almost Santa Monica. It's a way south from Malibu, but not too far south.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
(If you look at Google's fire map, look to the left of the fire. Find the 5 freeway, then find La Jolla Road. The Temple is south of where they intersect. It's right in the area with all the evacuation shelters.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: KQ, do you have a link with specific information about the flame retardant and water and when to dump them?
*hanging out on wikipedia*
No, that information is from my second cousin once removed, who is almost finished with her firefighting internship with the Parks Service, having got her degree in some kind of science and certified as an EMT, she is hoping to work as a firefighter (well, get in the training program) for Santa Barbara when she completes her internship.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is a link to a .pdf that has some information from the CA Dept. of Forestry that might answer some of your questions.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
It's my reaction to stress. I just want to know how, exactly, to fight the things that are stressing me.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Several of the articles I've read have had the SD fire rep saying at the moment they are focused on saving lives rather than attempting to extinguish the fire. In San Diego county, there have been something like 3 houses destroyed per firefighter on the scene, those are really crappy odds even without the surrounding hundreds of thousands of acres that have burned / are burning.
Last report I saw was that 16 of the 47 people injured so far have been firefighters, so that should illustrate how dangerous a condition this is, even for trained professionals. At the moment, they options for tools they can use has been reduced to one: water, hopefully from pump trucks if the water system still has pressure, from tankers if it doesn't.
What's making the current condition so bad is the 70 mph gusts of very dry breezes. Helicopters and planes require very low elevations to drop water and retardant, or else it simply spreads to thin to have any effect or evaporates prior to reaching the ground. With strong winds, flying through mountains, through fire created turbulence would effectively be suicide. The winds also mean that the more specialized hot shot teams can't deploy quickly in front of the fire to attempt to redirect its path.
Tack onto the above that 70 mph winds make fire lines and breaks completely useless. You'd need a fire line likely a mile or more across to prevent burning embers from landing in fuel. If even a couple of sparks makes it across and light up, often the break is rendered useless. The castle that burned yesterday wasn't in the direct path of the fire, and wasn't evacuated because it wasn't at risk from the main flames. The wind was able to lift burning embers high enough that they landed well beyond what would be considered normal behavior for the fire.
To answer your original question, you wait for the most favorable conditions that feed the fire to fade, then you aggressively attack the area in front of the fire. They need several of the following: cooler weather, clouds, humidity, and winds no stronger than 15-25 mph before they can get the fires a majority contained. A wind shift of 180 degrees would be the best case scenario since it would not only bring humidity, but also push the fire into land it has already charred, that is very low on fuel effectively starving it to death. Rain would also be a welcome site to be sure, though unless it is slow and soaking it wouldn't put the fire out (and likely the lightning would start even more).
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
They have to be very careful about areas that have burned long after the main fire has torn through the area. The ground beneath the fire can actually continue to smolder for days afterwards, so what looks like an area that has already burned still has monitored, and like Smokey the Bear says, they have to dig in, dump water on it, and stir it up to make sure the fire is completely put out.
They're also using converted airplanes to use massive quantities of flame retardant on fires. They fly at treetop levels and dump the stuff right on the fires.
This was bound to happen this year. This is one of, if not the most, driest year on record. Firefighters try to create firebreaks so the fire will be more controlled, but the winds are so extreme that fires are jumping 16 lane highways (seriously, you guys have SIXTEEN LANE highways and STILL some of the worst traffic in the nation?).
After the last big round of home destroying fires a few years ago, residents in fire prone areas were told to cut back brush on their properties to reduce the risk of the fires getting to the homes. But when the fire is this size, it spirals out of control very fast. The bigger the fire grows, the more oxygen is sucks in to keep it fed, and that's what creates such strong winds, which just pushes the embers out more to create more, smaller fires, until it can reach hurricane force windspeeds. All you can do at a certain point is throw every man and hose you have at it and pray for something to break your way.
This is going to become extremely commonplace in the very near future. Some would say "brush fires already ARE commonplace in CA," and they are right. But when was the last time a half million people had to evacuate their homes in America? Well, it was during the Civil War (civilian evacuation anyway). This is unprecedented drought right now, in the west and the south. And you're going to see this happen more and more as underground aquifers are sucked dry, rain fails to come, and states and cities further upriver start to cut back on the amount of water that makes it down river. SoCal is only going to become drier. Lucky for California, they are in a unique position to create desalinization plants via solar power.
Forestry maintenance has been a bit of a fight between the USDA Forestry Service, the EPA and the Bush Administration in the last few years. Pres. Bush's "Healthy Forests" Initiative is labelled by him as a way to clear out the small brush that is the perfect fuel for fires just like this, but environmental groups call it a giveaway to lumber companies, which it is. The truth of the matter is, scientists will tell you that most forests require forest fires like this for their natural lifecycle. Many trees reproduce only when fires crack open their seeds so they can grow.
Part of the problem nowadays, though not necessarily with this fire specifically, is that builders are putting houses right up against forests, and sometimes IN forests. That's like adding really expensive kindling to the fire. Americans by and large aren't really big fans of living WITH nature, we like to conquer it. Doesn't look like nature is taking it lying down though.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But when was the last time a half million people had to evacuate their homes in America? Well, it was during the Civil War (civilian evacuation anyway).
Not to nitpick, but Hurricanes do this fairly routinely. Anytime one heads for the Florida peninsula, or Houston, or... well, New Orleans in the past. I'm not sure they could produce 500,000 people to evacuate anymore.
I agree with the healthy forest act you mentioned. Drought, disease, and massive undergrowth contributed to a fairly massive fire near Tucson that destroyed a small town. The fire personnel thought they had it protected, the winds shifted 90 degrees unexpectedly and less than 15 minutes later the town was in flames. Regardless of what the EPA, President, Congress, Conservationalists, and Environmentalists say, forests will purge their underbrush and dead trees. If we insist on preventing the smaller fires routinely and not removing the fuel, a massive purge is going to occur.
I'm betting that the homes the firefighters are attempting to protect are the ones that followed the recommendations to prevent being caught up in a wildfire. Keeping a clearing around your house free of easily combustible materials makes it more easily defend, and also a fair bit safer for firefighters to protect. It's a cold thing to say, but if you have to choose which houses to protect then you should choose the ones who made it easier for you.
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to three separate news stories I've seen on three separate stations, this is the largest single civilian evacuation in the US since the Civil War. It seemed odd to me, considering how many were displaced by Katrina, but I'm not sure on the specifics of the numbers. I'm just relating what I've heard.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am a pretty big wuss. I have so much fear about environmental disasters that I don't think I will ever live in a region where anything is likely to happen. Tornadoes, wildfires, earthquakes, hurricanes: they all freak me the heck out. I doff my cap to all of you living where there's a risk, and I hope it comes out well in the end.
I wish I had something to add to the knowledge of fire-fighting techniques, but I've learnt a lot on this thread. So thanks.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: According to three separate news stories I've seen on three separate stations, this is the largest single civilian evacuation in the US since the Civil War. It seemed odd to me, considering how many were displaced by Katrina, but I'm not sure on the specifics of the numbers. I'm just relating what I've heard.
Shame on those reporters...
RE: Hurricane Rita
quote: The poll is consistent with official estimates that about 2.5 million people left the area, Stein said.
Though, they're up to 1 million estimated evacuees for the fires, so it might get to the largest level soon if the winds don't cooperate.
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Where do you live? I'm sure I can find something your area is prone to.
Toronto area. We get the occasional baby tornado, and every now and then a magnitude 3 earthquake makes the news.
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
You might have me there, I can't think of any major natural problems in the Toronto area, or anything that might hit you in the near future, other than the fact that the Leafs suck Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
All of California needs to raise more goats to control all that underbrush that fuels the fires.. Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
When they had the rather huge Big Creek fire in northern Sierras in the summer of 94, my family and the neighborhood were evacuated from our summer homes up there.
A major way that the fires were fought was by fire-trenches and chemical dumping. It was a woods fire, which left open the possibility of containment by burning the brush in the containment area and doing controlled burns and cutting of the surrounding woods in order to contain the fire.
These strategies seem easier in a low population area where the housing is confined to tracts specificially designed to be defensible from forest fires. There are fire and logging roads all over the sierras that were made with this purpose in mind.
containment in an urbanized area would preclude quite a few of these defenses. You can't bulldoze whole neighborhoods unless the situation is profoundly serious and out of control. With the dry weather this past summer, it seems unlikely that there would be any way of stopping the fire on a large scale.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Whenever I see that on TV, I wonder what the long-term impact is on the ecosystem. What kinds of chemicals do they use that they are mass-spreading in hopes of killing the blaze? How does it affect plant and animals growth?
(of course, still better than fire possibly, but just wondering how it affects long-term)
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do they ever do any controlled burns in CA, to clear out some of the brush? I imagine they would have to. I actually saw a controlled burn at the teeny tiny wildlife refuge near my house, once.
Posts: 1805 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
Whenever I see that on TV, I wonder what the long-term impact is on the ecosystem. What kinds of chemicals do they use that they are mass-spreading in hopes of killing the blaze? How does it affect plant and animals growth?
(of course, still better than fire possibly, but just wondering how it affects long-term)
What's bad for the fire doesn't have to be bad for the earth as well. If I recall, the retardant agents do one of two things after they're dropped. They're decomposed (not sure if this the right phrase here) by the sunlight into more inert materials, or in some cases I believe the powder / solution used actually acts as a fertilizer in addition to a fire retardant.
No sources on this other than some articles I read during some of the past fire seasons here in AZ. And that was a year or two again...
Posts: 1368 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Whenever I see that on TV, I wonder what the long-term impact is on the ecosystem. What kinds of chemicals do they use that they are mass-spreading in hopes of killing the blaze? How does it affect plant and animals growth?
(of course, still better than fire possibly, but just wondering how it affects long-term)
What's bad for the fire doesn't have to be bad for the earth as well. If I recall, the retardant agents do one of two things after they're dropped. They're decomposed (not sure if this the right phrase here) by the sunlight into more inert materials, or in some cases I believe the powder / solution used actually acts as a fertilizer in addition to a fire retardant.
No sources on this other than some articles I read during some of the past fire seasons here in AZ. And that was a year or two again...
What about their effects on humans?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) and is quite hilly. People don't live there much, and those hills get covered in dry grass. The area isn't very accessible, either, which was a major problem in the Oakland fire in 1991, for instance.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
