On 09/09/2017 10:20, Bod wrote:
On 09/09/2017 10:09, JNugent wrote:
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?
Â*
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?

I've nothing against wooden houses and have never said they are a bad
idea, just not very sensible to build one in a wildfire prone forest.
BTW,Â* I live in a wooden house.

"House losses and unnecessary deaths will continue to increase in
Australia if we keep building homes in bushfire-prone areas."

http://theconversation.com/which-hom...e-season-20072