Jump to content

Any cons live in Seattle?


Recommended Posts

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/15/seattles-air-quality-worse-than-beijing-as-wildfires-scorch-eastern-washington.html

 

Air Quality worse than Beijing. This is what its like to live in a highly polluted, densely populated city with coal power.

Imagine living in this everyday.

Still support coal power?

Still against EVs?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Air Quality worse than Beijing.

I reported on this about 2 weeks ago. I made the case, supported the case, that the fires in California dwarf any exhaust emissions, power plant emissions which they claim are pouting the planet.  Because of California's over development, influx of illegal immigration and resulting water shortage, California has turned into the World's largest polluter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Skans said:

I reported on this about 2 weeks ago. I made the case, supported the case, that the fires in California dwarf any exhaust emissions, power plant emissions which they claim are pouting the planet.  Because of California's over development, influx of illegal immigration and resulting water shortage, California has turned into the World's largest polluter.

Funny thing is, you just said that California s pollution is mostly courtesy of wildfires: a natural event. 

 

IOW you managed to contradict yourself within your own post. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Funny thing is, you just said that California s pollution is mostly courtesy of wildfires: a natural event. 

No.  The wildfires are a result of the over population of a mostly desert state, California.  Also, the influx of illegal immigrants into the state further stresses that state's natural water resources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Skans said:

No.  The wildfires are a result of the over population of a mostly desert state, California.  Also, the influx of illegal immigrants into the state further stresses that state's natural water resources.

 

No, shi'tstain, the wildfires are a PROVEN DIRECT RESULT of forest MISMANAGEMENT due to the left wing envirowackos that YOU AZZHOLES SUPPORT!!!

 

The water resources has NOTHING to with NOT doing controlled burns and cutting underbrush that is creating some of THE most magnificent FUEL for fires caused by LIGHTENING you have ever experienced.

 

Are you fruitcakes THAT stupid??

 

Oh, never mind, a rhetorical question since yes, you actually ARE that goddamn STUPID.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, MidnightMax said:

 

No, shi'tstain, the wildfires are a PROVEN DIRECT RESULT of forest MISMANAGEMENT due to the left wing envirowackos that YOU AZZHOLES SUPPORT!!!

 

The water resources has NOTHING to with NOT doing controlled burns and cutting underbrush that is creating some of THE most magnificent FUEL for fires caused by LIGHTENING you have ever experienced.

 

Are you fruitcakes THAT stupid??

 

Oh, never mind, a rhetorical question since yes, you actually ARE that goddamn STUPID.

Gee max as brilliant as you are why are you not running things instead of running a sissy biz😃

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did a trip a week ago, where one of the legs was from BFI to SJC. It was smoky in BFI, and got progressively worse heading south. 

 

It's to bad I can't post pics without them going back to my picture host - I took some pics from 37,000 feet that shows just how bad things are/were. Once at altitude, the only things one could see was Rainier, Shasta and a couple of peaks in Oregon. The whole way down I was thinking how bad that air must be for everyone down there. Another interesting aspect to view was the clear boundary between the marine layer and where the smoke layer met - a white marine layer vs a dark brown smoke layer. Interesting looking from above...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, leomon said:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/15/seattles-air-quality-worse-than-beijing-as-wildfires-scorch-eastern-washington.html

 

Air Quality worse than Beijing. This is what its like to live in a highly polluted, densely populated city with coal power.

Imagine living in this everyday.

Still support coal power?

Still against EVs?

 

 

Me

 

The air quality is due to forest forest fires, not coal power. Also Seattle gets almost 90% of its power from hydroelectric dams on the Skagit River. Coal power is around 1%. We are not highly polluted. When we have air coming from the south, we get stagnat air, this is normal. When we get a marine flow, the air is cleared out with in hours. 

 

 Democrats RULE the Seattle City Council and have done so for decades. The state is run by Democrats. You have NO friking idea what you are talking about. 

 

Instead of talking out your a$$ learn something about the topic which you try to make a smart a$$ point about. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LaughinAtLefty said:

Did a trip a week ago, where one of the legs was from BFI to SJC. It was smoky in BFI, and got progressively worse heading south. 

 

It's to bad I can't post pics without them going back to my picture host - I took some pics from 37,000 feet that shows just how bad things are/were. Once at altitude, the only things one could see was Rainier, Shasta and a couple of peaks in Oregon. The whole way down I was thinking how bad that air must be for everyone down there. Another interesting aspect to view was the clear boundary between the marine layer and where the smoke layer met - a white marine layer vs a dark brown smoke layer. Interesting looking from above...

I haven't seen Rainier in over a week. Today we can't even see the foothills to the Cascades. 

 

When Canada had the forest fires last year, it was twice as bad and the smell was horrible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MidnightMax said:

 

No, shi'tstain, the wildfires are a PROVEN DIRECT RESULT of forest MISMANAGEMENT due to the left wing envirowackos

You've said this before and put some links up to support it that didn't support it at all.  There is not an ounce of truth to this...that wildfires are a result of forest mismanagement or that forests are managed by left-wing envirowackos.  Nothing about anything you have said actually makes any sense or has any basis in fact whatsoever.

 

Good one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

The Carr fire was started due to a couple getting a flat tire. So a flat tire is forest mismanagement... that's good stuff. 

 

Quote

According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), shrubs and live and dead vegetation are the most important factor in forest fires, being an easily ignitable fuel source that helps spread the flames quickly over vast distances.  For a dry and warm state prone to fires, regular clearing measures removing this vegetation should be common sense.  However, California has enacted several laws that heavily restrict such vital fire-preventing measures as logging, removal of dead trees, and clearing of dry underbrush.



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

And yet, there are thousands of acres that no one touches. Not due to laws, regulation, or them pesky liberals. Why? Hmmmm..it can't possibly be due to it being remote, desert-like, hot, etc. Nahhh...

The vast majority of states have fire mitigation policies in place.....removing underbrush, fallen and dead trees etc - California chose to legislate those practices into being non-existent by in large. States, such as our home state of Colorado are very proactive in the aforementioned.

 

Does it help? It seems to, but only to a certain extent because one cannot remove all fuels. Colorado concentrates in parks, along roadways - places where people interact more with the natural habitat and there's more opportunity for a mistake or accident. One cannot eliminate back country fires started naturally by lightning - but one can help to intervene along the more travelled paths - to the betterment of all - including the health of the land.

 

Where did this flat tire occur? I'd bet somewhere very accessible, somewhere had their been more management involved and fuels not so readily available - the fire that started may have been able to be doused before it built up a head of steam and became a full fledged disaster.

 

No one every knows about what hasn't occurred, but common sense is common sense - and Colorado's management makes a hell of a lot more sense than California's it appears...

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, LaughinAtLefty said:

The vast majority of states have fire mitigation policies in place.....removing underbrush, fallen and dead trees etc - California chose to legislate those practices into being non-existent by in large. States, such as our home state of Colorado are very proactive in the aforementioned.

 

Does it help? It seems to, but only to a certain extent because one cannot remove all fuels. Colorado concentrates in parks, along roadways - places where people interact more with the natural habitat and there's more opportunity for a mistake or accident. One cannot eliminate back country fires started naturally by lightning - but one can help to intervene along the more travelled paths - to the betterment of all - including the health of the land.

 

Where did this flat tire occur? I'd bet somewhere very accessible, somewhere had their been more management involved and fuels not so readily available - the fire that started may have been able to be doused before it built up a head of steam and became a full fledged disaster.

 

No one every knows about what hasn't occurred, but common sense is common sense - and Colorado's management makes a hell of a lot more sense than California's it appears...

 

 

It was started on the side of a road in Redding, CA. From what I have read, it was in town not on the outskirts. 

 

I just have to scoff at those who think that it is economical and prudent to do this in a state as massive as CA. There may be quite a population in CA but the Northern half has vast tracts of uninhabited country. I travel to the relatively NE corner of the state at least twice a month. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, leomon said:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/15/seattles-air-quality-worse-than-beijing-as-wildfires-scorch-eastern-washington.html

 

Air Quality worse than Beijing. This is what its like to live in a highly polluted, densely populated city with coal power.

Imagine living in this everyday.

Still support coal power?

Still against EVs?

 

 

No Conservative is going to live in Seattle. 

And what does wildfire smoke have to do with coal power?

Damn.  That's scary stupid. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, impartialobserver said:

And yet, there are thousands of acres that no one touches. Not due to laws, regulation, or them pesky liberals. Why? Hmmmm..it can't possibly be due to it being remote, desert-like, hot, etc. Nahhh...

These fires rage in areas that have been impacted by the policies of the environmental wackos who "protect" the forests and the spotted owls. 

Then the fires come...     

 

If we do not thin the forests, fire will do it for us.     That is nature's way. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Golfboy said:

These fires rage in areas that have been impacted by the policies of the environmental wackos who "protect" the forests and the spotted owls. 

Then the fires come...     

 

If we do not thin the forests, fire will do it for us.     That is nature's way. 

 

The claim being made is that it is environmental whackos are trying to save  these quite remote places east of redding (just as an example). No spotted owls there. No liberals either. I am there quite often. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

It was started on the side of a road in Redding, CA. From what I have read, it was in town not on the outskirts. 

 

I just have to scoff at those who think that it is economical and prudent to do this in a state as massive as CA. There may be quite a population in CA but the Northern half has vast tracts of uninhabited country. I travel to the relatively NE corner of the state at least twice a month. 

Obviously everything is determined by cost and available resources.

 

I believe I've shown the difference in approach between CA and CO. Sometimes heavy regulated states can be overregulated. IMO, it speaks to the politics of California, and their state governments love to be all controlling - to institute numerous regulations - on items that are of benefit to the state, taxpayer, and the environment itself. It may be driven my lack of funds, but I surmise it's "green" driven politics that instituted this legislation which is detrimental to the state, the people and the environment. CO takes an opposite approach, and while budget restrained like anywhere else - they work hard to remove fuels in areas where there is a combination of heavy human use and heavy fuel available for potential devestating fires. Our CO home is at the base of RMNP.....each spring there are massive piles of dead trees and undergrowth that are gathered from the previous year and disposed of. It seems to help - but fire ultimately is unavoidable. The goal of mitigating human caused fire is the best and most cost effective avenue of them all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, LaughinAtLefty said:

Obviously everything is determined by cost and available resources.

 

I believe I've shown the difference in approach between CA and CO. Sometimes heavy regulated states can be overregulated. IMO, it speaks to the politics of California, and their state government love to be all controlling - to institute numerous regulations - on items that are of benefit to the state, taxpayer, and the environment itself. It may be driven my lack of funds, but I surmise it's "green" driven politics that instituted this legislation which is detrimental to the state, the people and the environment. CO takes an opposite approach, and while budget restrained like anywhere else - they work hard to remove fuels in areas are a combination of heavy human use and heavy fuel available for potential. Our CO home is at the base of RMNP.....each spring there are massive piles of dead trees and undergrowth that are gathered from the previous year and disposed of. It seems to help - but fire ultimately is unavoidable. The goal of mitigating human caused fire is the best and most cost effective avenue of them all.

So what are they do with the vast tracts of dry and uninhabited land that are not close to roads, cities, parks, etc? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, impartialobserver said:

So what are they do with the vast tracts of dry and uninhabited land that are not close to roads, cities, parks, etc? 

Nothing if funds don't allow, nature will take its course. The smarter play is to concentrate available funds where there's the greatest flashpoint between fire and human activity.

 

Nullifying via legislation speaks to a mindset. In this case, I have little doubt it's detrimental to the state resources, the taxpayer - and the very lands people are trying to protect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...