• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Calif politicians are too stupid to do the logical thing about fires

Logical1

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2018
Messages
7,394
Reaction score
2,307
Location
Nebraska
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
It is a I told you so. About a year ago I suggested that the 4 western states with heavy forest and brush, buy up a fleet of 10 to 20 out of service 747s.

More and more airlines are taking their 747s out of use and going to 777s. Calif, Oregon, Washington, an Nevada could go together and buy up those planes. Then instead of one or two air bombers, when a fire first starts fly a squadron of fully loaded 747 water bomber over the fire and douse it before it gets big.

BTW a 747 has a payload of 250,000 pounds. So say if 15 747 water bomber flew over a fire that was just reported, they could bomb the fire with 1875 TONS OF WATER.
 
Last edited:
It is a I told you so. About a year ago I suggested that the 4 western states with heavy forest and brush, buy up a fleet of 10 to 20 out of service 747s.

More and more airlines are taking their 747s out of use and going to 777s. Calif, Oregon, Washington, an Nevada could go together and buy up those planes. Then instead of one or two air bombers, when a fire first starts fly a squadron of fully loaded 747 water bomber over the fire and douse it before it get big.

747 are not really designed to carry and drop water. Water bombers that can scoop water from large lakes or the ocean are much better
 
If those retards would clear the forests of dead brush, maybe these fires wouldn't be so bloody ass severe.
 
Additionally I would suggest that when you consider the cost of prolonged fire fighting and the loss of property and taxes lost, the cost of that squadron of 747 would be paid off quickly.
 
747 are not really designed to carry and drop water. Water bombers that can scoop water from large lakes or the ocean are much better
The 747 could be modified to have water tanks on board. Few if any water bombers started out that way.

Large water bomber are filled, they do not scoop water out of a lake.
 
If those retards would clear the forests of dead brush, maybe these fires wouldn't be so bloody ass severe.

But in some cases, they have laws against that.

BTW I love your tag line.
 
If those retards would clear the forests of dead brush, maybe these fires wouldn't be so bloody ass severe.

Yes they should be out there everyday with rakes like Trump said...:lamo
 
It is a I told you so. About a year ago I suggested that the 4 western states with heavy forest and brush, buy up a fleet of 10 to 20 out of service 747s.

More and more airlines are taking their 747s out of use and going to 777s. Calif, Oregon, Washington, an Nevada could go together and buy up those planes. Then instead of one or two air bombers, when a fire first starts fly a squadron of fully loaded 747 water bomber over the fire and douse it before it gets big.

BTW a 747 has a payload of 250,000 pounds. So say if 15 747 water bomber flew over a fire that was just reported, they could bomb the fire with 1875 TONS OF WATER.
If only they would just listen to you and Trump. :roll:
 
If those retards would clear the forests of dead brush, maybe these fires wouldn't be so bloody ass severe.

You think that raking the forests is a good idea?
Donald Trump: Finland president confirms forest chat in raking controversy amid California fires

The 747 could be modified to have water tanks on board. Few if any water bombers started out that way.

Large water bomber are filled, they do not scoop water out of a lake.

They cannot use water bombers in developed areas.

The calls for investment in more and bigger aerial water bombers rather than in effective pre-emption of bushfire damage is a classic demonstration of misinformed people making foolish proposals. Every experienced fire fighter in Australia (and in the USA and Canada) knows that water bombers can never control an intense forest wildfire.

Consider these factors:
* Firstly, because of atmospheric turbulence and smoke, water bombing aircraft cannot get at the seat of a rampaging forest fire; they must stand off from the head, and then the drop is evaporated by radiant heat well before the flames arrive;
* Secondly, in tall, dense forest, the water drop often cannot penetrate the canopy in sufficient volume to make a difference – it is intercepted by the tree crowns. This occurred over and again in the recent fire in ash forest in the Otway Ranges in Victoria – the water simply did not get to the ground.
* Thirdly, water bombers cannot (or do not) operate at night and under high winds, the very conditions when the most damaging forest fires occur. Three of the last four towns to burn in WA, and both towns that burned in Victoria in 2009, burned at night.
* Fourth, water bombing is extremely dangerous for aircrew as the aircraft are operating at low altitude, in uncontrolled airspace with poor visibility. It is only a matter of time before there is a shocking accident and an aircrew fatality.
* Water bombing can also be dangerous to people on the ground. If the drop from a Very Large Air Tanker is made from only marginally too low, the huge tonnage of water is capable of smashing houses and vehicles and killing firefighters;
* Fifth, water bombers use vast quantities of fresh water, probably one of the most precious resources in Australia, especially in Western Australia where the current drought is over 30 years in duration and reservoirs and ground water aquifers are drying up. Sea water could be used, provided the tankers have access to it, but dropping salt water onto catchment areas or farms would only add to the problems caused by the fire.

The role of water bombers – Bushfire Front
 
Last edited:
If those retards would clear the forests of dead brush, maybe these fires wouldn't be so bloody ass severe.

Tell the retard-in-chief that most of the forests are NATIONAL forests, his responsibility.
 
Yes they should be out there everyday with rakes like Trump said...:lamo

So what's your prevention idea?

Or do you not have one and all you have is to toss out Anti-Trump spitballs?
 
So what's your prevention idea?

Or do you not have one and all you have is to toss out Anti-Trump spitballs?

I do not have a degree in forest managment do you? I do know that raking is not a practical solution for 1000's of acres of forest though. It made Trump look like a moron....yet again
 
It is a I told you so. About a year ago I suggested that the 4 western states with heavy forest and brush, buy up a fleet of 10 to 20 out of service 747s.

More and more airlines are taking their 747s out of use and going to 777s. Calif, Oregon, Washington, an Nevada could go together and buy up those planes. Then instead of one or two air bombers, when a fire first starts fly a squadron of fully loaded 747 water bomber over the fire and douse it before it gets big.

BTW a 747 has a payload of 250,000 pounds. So say if 15 747 water bomber flew over a fire that was just reported, they could bomb the fire with 1875 TONS OF WATER.

The ignorance in this post has just opened a tear in the space time continuum.

This is child's thinking. I remember watching a news segment in which a local grade school held a poster contest for the best idea on combating pollution. One child submitted a drawing of Superman flinging a giant ball of garbage into outer space. That idea was as stupid as the OP's.
 
Last edited:
If Calif and the other western states refuse to do the logical thing, they can burn.
 
Back
Top Bottom