The preventive fire outside the LANL western boundary burned very close to the Lab's Emergency Operations Center. Firefighters conducted the burn to remove fuel available to the Las Conchas Fire. The fire started on Sunday, June 26, 2011.
According to the article where the link to this video was: "Also delayed is work on projects ranging from extending the life of 1960s era B61 nuclear bombs". That's just pure evil as far as I'm concerned. Nuclear weapons aren't just poisonous to the environment and human health but an instrument of mass destruction that shows the lack of conscience of it's creators and their evil intent on mankind. These people have no shame and show the worst of humanity. Disgusting.
@retropetsgirl The point of a backburn is to remove the huge quantities of dead-and-down trees and thick underbrush from the path of the advancing fire, as these are the driest fuels and the most likely to catch fire if wind-borne embers manage to make it into this area. If you notice, the backburn isn't burning any of the green growing timber, which is much less likely to catch fire. There's just too much of this fuel to make hauling it away a viable option.
I'm sure this is an ignorant question... that said: Why is it better to burn the area than to clear it by cutting down the trees and shrubs? Is it a matter of then having to cart the trees away, etc.? or...? Just trying to learn. Thanks :)
some great inforamtion here thanks
rodswebdesign 1 month ago
good work here
staranjela 1 month ago
According to the article where the link to this video was: "Also delayed is work on projects ranging from extending the life of 1960s era B61 nuclear bombs". That's just pure evil as far as I'm concerned. Nuclear weapons aren't just poisonous to the environment and human health but an instrument of mass destruction that shows the lack of conscience of it's creators and their evil intent on mankind. These people have no shame and show the worst of humanity. Disgusting.
yolanda2014 7 months ago
@bribri2763 - thanks for the info! makes sense :)
retropetsgirl 8 months ago
@retropetsgirl The point of a backburn is to remove the huge quantities of dead-and-down trees and thick underbrush from the path of the advancing fire, as these are the driest fuels and the most likely to catch fire if wind-borne embers manage to make it into this area. If you notice, the backburn isn't burning any of the green growing timber, which is much less likely to catch fire. There's just too much of this fuel to make hauling it away a viable option.
bribri2783 8 months ago
I'm sure this is an ignorant question... that said: Why is it better to burn the area than to clear it by cutting down the trees and shrubs? Is it a matter of then having to cart the trees away, etc.? or...? Just trying to learn. Thanks :)
retropetsgirl 8 months ago