On 09/09/2017 09:52, Bod wrote:
On 09/09/2017 09:47, JNugent wrote:
On 09/09/2017 07:15, Bod wrote:

On 09/09/2017 00:02, JNugent wrote:
On 08/09/2017 23:43, Rob Morley wrote:
On Fri, 8 Sep 2017 20:37:52 +0100
TMS320 wrote:
On 08/09/17 16:58, Bod wrote:

Another thing that many idiots do, is to build wooden houses in the
middle of forests in areas that are prone to wildfires and then
wonder why their houses get burnt down.
Many of these houses are burnt down on a yearly basis in parts of
America and Australia etc.

But they're cheap and easy to rebuild. It might be a good thing if we
got out of the sentimentality of the slow to build, overpriced brick
rabbit hutches we have in this country.

Scandiwegians seems to do OK with wooden houses.Â* I suspect there's a
tendency to think they don't fare well in our lovely maritime climate,
but modern materials and techniques seem to work pretty well, and with
less environmental impact too.Â* We should remember when discussing
forest fires that they are usually a natural and necessary part of the
ecology of the areas that they affect.

Shakespeare's Birthplace (Henley St, Stratford) is timber-framed,
and seems to be still in good condition. I expect that the thatched
roof needs constant attention, but timber can be a durable building
material, as you suggest.

Is it in the middle of wildfire prone forest (which was my
point)?.....NO.

What does that have to with the durability of timber-based buildings
in Europe (including the British Isles) and on the majority of the
North American continent? I was responding to the sensible points made
by Rob Morley.

In any case, and bearing in mind that your objection was to wooden
houses ... in areas prone to wildfires", you must surely be aware that
building houses of brick, or even natural stone, in such locations
does not protect the occupants, the contents of the buildings or their
structure.

Once again, your policy seems to be that there are large parts of the
Earth's surface where humans should not inhabit. And you haven't even
started on places prone to earthquake yet. Should Los Angeles be
permanently evacuated too?

Er, where have I mentioned "permanent evacuation"?

That's why I am asking you.

Your view seems to be that no-one should live in the sub-tropics or
anywhere subject to huricane or wildfire. That latter rules out southern
California on its own, but then there's the little matter of the San
Andreas Fault.

Really, the only safe place, with relative geological stability, low
susceptibility to violent storms and plenty of rainwater to keep down
the risk of woldfire, is Lancashire, isn't it?