Irene wrote on Feb 16, 2007 1:47 AM:What does it tell you that "Shelter in Place" exists NOWHERE on the books in the entire United States of America EXCEPT in San Diego County? It is a marketing gimmick used by developers to lend an air of credibility to dense fire-trap developments. Shelter in Place is an utter sham and a hoax when applied to protection against wildland fire. Shelter in Place is only a measure of last resort, a desperate makeshift improvisation when all else fails. It is most certainly NOT the primary strategy upon which to base an AS-YET-UNBUILT development. A house cannot protect its occupants from the deadly effects of a wildland fire. The point is always missed that even if the house remains standing, the occupants inside can be killed by radiant heat (transmitted through the windows) and by smoke. In the 2003 Cedar fire, a family who was away from their house at the time of the fire came back to find their house still standing. So grateful and relieved, they went inside only to find their puppy (who was left behind in the house) dead. That was a perfect example of the failure of Shelter in Place. To subject thousands of people to such a macabre experiment seems beyond the pale. It is plain common sense to GET OUT ahead of a fire. That has been the public service message for decades: "Evacuate early; your possessions can be replaced, your life CANNOT." If a proposed development cannot provide for adequate evacuation and it is being situated in a high fire-severity area to boot, it should not be approved, period. Since when did human life cease to matter in San Diego County? What has happened to our values when the economic gain of a developer trumps human life??

Roger wrote on Feb 16, 2007 1:57 AM:Shelter in Place was meant for hazardous material spills released into the air (like tanker spills, or biological or chemical accidents). It was never intended for fire. To pretend that people can stay inside their houses in the midst of raging wildfire is so outrageous that it is hard to imagine that our County Planners are even considering it. They have lost all credibility and respectability as a public agency. They have truly become the shills of developers.

Bobby wrote on Feb 16, 2007 2:18 AM:What is this nonsense about "fire resistant" construction? Are we living in a magic kingdom with magic houses? Aren't these simply wooden structures with some stucco smeared on, double-pane windows (oh boy), roof tiles and a few more "magic" ingredients? Even houses built out of SOLID CONCRETE BLOCK which survived the 2003 fires in Julian still had their ENTIRE INTERIORS BURNED OUT! Anyone who would have sheltered-in-place (nobody did, they were too smart) would have been dead. Who is pushing this crazy idea anyway? Greedy land speculators eager to buy up cheap land (cheap because it's too dangerous to build on), and then get the County to change the zoning rules and allow them to build thousands of houses without providing a means to evacuate. That's a neat criminal scheme, with the government an accessory to the crime. If San Diego County persists in making this "Shelter In Place" thing an option for developers, they are setting themselves up for the biggest liability in the history of our nation. The next big fire that hits, the County will be DEAD ON ARRIVAL.

George wrote on Feb 16, 2007 6:58 AM:Do you realize THERE HAS NEVER BEEN AN ACTUAL experience of a planned community sheltering-in-place during a wildland fire anywhere in our nation's history? When authorities say that many of the 16 people killed during the 2003 fires died in their cars trying to drive to safety, THESE SAME PEOPLE (AND MANY, MANY MORE) WOULD HAVE DIED IN THEIR HOUSES if they had decided to stay home. They died on the road only because they tried to evacuate too late. EARLY EVACUATION is the only sane strategy when it comes to wildfire. Remaining in one's house is PURE INSANITY. Developers in this County have the unbelievable gall to suggest it---and our County government has the corruptness to aid and abet them by trying to make this official policy. County of San Diego planners and government officials: Hang your heads in shame. Your actions are a disgrace.

Sure wrote on Feb 16, 2007 7:21 AM:When it's not YOUR butt sitting in a house with a raging brushfire all around you. Geesh. How about we do an experiment and have all these people advocating "Shelter in Place" try it out? I wonder how long they would survive with the heat and smoke inhalation? Stupid plan, stupid people for seriously considering this as a "good idea". We can give all the people who actually stay in their houses during a brush fire a posthumus "Darwin Award". Common sense, not so common anymore.

Emma wrote on Feb 16, 2007 7:37 AM:The County Planning Director Ivan Holler claims: "We are going to have some of the strictest policies in the state," yet the County is going to allow Shelter In Place if a proposed development can't manage to provide adequate access roads. The County will let 'em build anyway and then condone a totally untested, deranged idea called "stay in your house during a raging wildfire and pray." That's strict all right, Mr. Holler. Who do you think you are kidding? This is so over the top that it is breath-taking (just like the wildfire will be literally for those poor souls who lose their lives "sheltering-in-place." It is so reassuring to learn that the County (the strict taskmaster that it is) will require permanent funding for "public education" from the developer. Will the education include lessons on how to breathe without oxygen?

Pauline wrote on Feb 16, 2007 9:19 AM:Saving HOMES and saving LIVES are two different things. People cannot withstand the smoke, heat, radiant energy, whereas homes built to new "firewise" standards sometimes can. Sometimes cannot. When I visit LLCFIRE and see the Younger's home in the cedar fire, top of the line, sprinklered, proper landscaping, burned to the ground, I refuse to take the chance. Free cremation is not on my agenda.

Poirot wrote on Feb 16, 2007 9:21 AM:The Dolt of the Year Award goes to the next government official who calls Shelter-In-Place "another tool in the toolbox." It's another tool in the toolbox just like strychnine is another medicine in the medicine cabinet. IT IS DEADLY. IT IS A LAST-RESORT IF YOU HAVE NO WAY OUT. Why is the County approving developments that have inadequate evacuation? Whatever happened to the idea of NOT building in areas that are unsafe for dense development(such as mountains that will go up like torches in the event of a fire)? Do you think the touted 225-foot setbacks will mean anything when in 2003 the fires easily jumped across 16-lanes of freeway? Any fool knows there is something very wrong with what the County is trying to do. It's not hard to figure out WHY.

Wrong Answers wrote on Feb 16, 2007 10:31 AM:Shelter in place is dangerous and will lead to loss of many lives. Put an end to this concept immediately.

Georgia wrote on Feb 16, 2007 2:16 PM:The Board of Supervisors has to stop this tragedy in the making. Its the smoke stupid. So what if the structure survive? Chaos and deaths will occur. Policy makers should be liable for the greedy, self-serving measures they allow. San Diego cannot afford another scandal. Let our politicians do the right thing for a change.

Relax wrote on Feb 16, 2007 4:40 PM:No one is proposing shelter in place as the plan for handling wildfire in this development. There are multiple public roads in and out and one emergency road. No one is proposing SIP as the #1 solution to wildfire mitigation anywhere. Anyone with access to the internet and a cause can fan the flames. Do your homework, get the facts, don't just visit a slick website which doesn't deliver what it promises.

Beylish wrote on Feb 16, 2007 6:58 PM:TO MR. RELAX: First of all, the website to which you refer is about the County's proposed adoption of Shelter-In-Place. Yet right out of the box you write: "No one is proposing SIP...in this development." WHAT development?By "this development" can we assume you've got the Stonegate development on the brain? Ah, yes, that must be it. If that is the case, yes, the Stonegate development was in fact PREDICATED AND BASED on the concept of SIP because of the developer's acknowledgement that evacuation would be impossible. Public pressure on County officials made the developer remove those words "Shelter-in-Place" from the final Fire Plan, yet nothing replaced it conceptually (unless, of course, you want to mention the memorable invention of advising people TO GO OUTDOORS in search of shelter in "predesignated safety areas such as a PARK/commercial area" (I kid you not, this is in Stonegate's plan). This would be COMICAL if it weren't TRAGIC. As far as multiple access roads go, do you really want to go there? OK, you asked for it. The Stonegate development(2,700 units which will house 10,000 to 13,000 people) has only two internal roads which both lead to the SAME external road, Deer Springs Road. Deer Springs is a failing road at today's traffic levels. Add 5,500 hundred cars trying to flee when a wildfire strikes and conservative evacuation estimates come up with 3 to 4 hours to accomplish the task. Given that a wildfire on Merriam Mountain is predicted to go from base to top in 10 to 15 minutes, that's going to be one whopping crematorium. Oh, and before I forget, the "emergency only" exit road in the north goes right through the heart of what the County itself has called "an identified danger zone," i.e., the wildlands where the fire will be raging. Mr. Relax, pack up your bags and speculate on land somewhere else where you won't kill people. As far as that website delivering what it promises, I believe that commodity is called the TRUTH.

Not Amused wrote on Feb 16, 2007 7:09 PM:Relax is right on. I am opposed to the Stonegate development on several levels. However, the anti-stongate circus is engaging in fear-mongering, half-truths, and outright distortions that sould be more than apparent to anyone wishing to be educated rather than fed NIMBY hysteria. The whole anti-Stongate traveling circus would rather shout down someone they disagree with than substantiate their exaggerated claims with documented proof. They don't seem understand the basic physics of wildfire propagation. Hundreds of deaths in Stongate? Nonsense. It's not the smoke, Georgia. I would challenge anyone to verify their claim that 80% of wildfire deaths are due to smoke inhalation. Simply not true. Not even close. Makes you wonder why they do not seem to be in Escondido's face over SIP like they are the Deer Springs Fire department.

To Not Amused wrote on Feb 16, 2007 9:06 PM:I hope you are not a physician who takes care of patients suffering from smoke inhalation. The published literature does indeed document that up to 80% of deaths in fires are due to smoke inhalation. But how would you know that? I do agree with you, however, on one point. When you write: "Hundreds of deaths in Stonegate. Nonsense" - you are right. It won't be hundreds...it'll be THOUSANDS. One giant Santa Ana wind-driven fire on that mountain (as the CDF predicts) and it's curtains for the trapped residents. How can you be so blind that you don't recognize the most dangerous development proposal ever to hit San Diego County? What must your vested interests be to keep you so blind?

accurate facts please wrote on Feb 17, 2007 2:21 AM:Please cite an authoritative document stating that 80% of documented deaths in WILDFIRE are due to smoke inhalation. Please, autopsy reports or other official documents. If you would take the time to actually read the literature, you would be aware that virtually all autopsies for wildfire victims show massive thermal injuries. If you don't know what that is, it means they burned to death. Cedar Fire deaths were almost exclusively people who were evacuating too late and succumbed to thermal injuries. Any smoke particles found in their bronchii at autopsy, proved only that they were breathing while they burned to death. Acute smoke exposure can kill by triggering an asthmatic attack or a heart attack. However, these are rare events in a wildfire, and certainly, not 50% to 80% of all wildfire deaths. I am strongly against Stonegate, but prefer to use logical factually based arguments.

not funny clown act wrote on Feb 17, 2007 2:37 AM:to Not Amused 2/16 7pm. I agree. Wish the anti-Stonegate circus would become a travelling circus and leave town. Their fact-free clown act would be amusing if it wasn't like shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. This circus is dangerous to our health and safety.

Not Amused wrote on Feb 17, 2007 6:36 AM:I am well aware that 80% of deaths in fires are due to smoke inhalation. My arguement is with the deliberate distortion of that statistic to say that 80% of all deaths in WILDLAND fires are due to smoke inhalation. That claim is unsupportable. If it were even remotely accurate, fire fighters would be dropping dead on the fire lines and, thankfully, that does not happen. Please re-read the second sentence of my previous post. I certainly am not blind to the potential dangers. My only vested interest is in blowing the whistle when the magnitude of those dangers is deliberately distorted - either direction.

Edgar wrote on Feb 17, 2007 11:43 AM:Seems like the pro-Stonegate lackeys have come out in force to defend the evil empire. You folks are pathetic. Don't you know that when the theatre IS on fire, it's time to SAY so (and not just sit there mum, with one's hands behind one's back). This quibbling over whether it's going to be death-by-fire or death-by-smoke is pathetic indeed. The end point, however you decide to cut it, is DEATH. That's D-E-A-T-H. With the close packing of the Stonegate development (almost 60% of Stonegate's 2,700 units are three-story multi-family attached and semi-detached housing), when one unit catches on fire, the adjacent units (above, below, and to the sides) are going to ignite also (even the single-family houses are packed together like sardines). You'll wind up with a RIPROARING URBAN FIRE IN A WILDLAND SETTING. That is the worst of all possible worlds, because the firefighters who will be coming to fight this fire (the CDF) have NO experience fighting urban fires, just wildland fires. The firefighters will be lucky (or unlucky) to ever even get in, as the thousands of panicked residents stampede for their lives on the meager roads. You people pushing this Stonegate deal are a sorry lot indeed. The public-at-large has caught on to your game and the word is spreading like WILDFIRE.

Wondering wrote on Feb 17, 2007 3:41 PM:The above argument about 80% BURNED TO DEATH vs. 80% SMOKED TO DEATH is somewhat irrelevant. The existing data on wildland fire deaths doesn’t apply to the proposed shelter in place issue. There probably isn’t enough data to show how the majority of people would die while sheltering in place, if any. Frankly I’m not willing to sign up for either manner of death. Furthermore there probably isn’t any real data that shows how many people would die in a Southern California wildland fire with a major housing development that can’t be evacuated in a timely manner. How many would die in their cars in the inevitable traffic jam? How many would loose faith when the house gets too hot or smoky and leave, only to die in their cars? How many would die in their homes? Is there any real applicable DATA about survivability for PEOPLE in their homes (not just the homes themselves surviving) in such an event? I have heard that the Australians use shelter in place in the outback, but that they have hardened air-tight bunkers to retreat to inside their homes or nearby below ground. The Australian data wouldn’t apply unless their conditions were to be replicated. Could you sell homes that had restrictions against trees and bushes and that had fire survival bunkers built in? I don’t know the answers to most of these questions, and guess that nobody else does either. Now for my two main questions. 1. If the county has the data to show that fires are survivable and that people wouldn’t “run for it” anyway, why didn’t they share it when proposing shelter in place? 2. If they don’t have the data, how do they sleep at night?

Fireman wrote on Feb 17, 2007 4:50 PM:Hey Edgar. I'm not a Stonegate lackey. Just a firefighter. Insulting CDF firefighters by saying they have NO experience fighting urban fires is just plain wrong. Please think before pecking your blog, or maybe even ask an actual CDF firefighter if he or any of his buddies or his captain have experience fignting urban fires.

To Edgar wrote on Feb 17, 2007 6:13 PM:Edgar, you really need to get out more. To say that CDF only fights wildland fires is maliciously incorrect. CDF firefighters are well trained in all aspects of fire fighting and drill constantly. Get your facts straight (if you really want to) before maligning a dedicated bunch of professionals.

Edgar Ally wrote on Feb 18, 2007 5:07 PM:To “Fireman” and “To Edgar”: How about some facts for a change? Edgar never maligned the CDF or CDF firefighters. What he DID say is that CDF fights WILDLAND fires, or in the words of CDF itself: “CDF is dedicated to the fire protection and stewardship of over 31 million acres of California’s privately-owned WILDLANDS. The CDF responds to an average of more than 5,600 wildland fires each year. Besides its wildland firefighting role, CDF also contracts with local governments to provide emergency response involving medical aids; swift water rescues; civil disturbances; search and rescues; hazardous material spills; train wrecks; floods and earthquakes." The above defines CDF's sphere and role. The fighting of urban fires is done by urban fire departments which are under the jurisdiction of city governments. That is NOT the CDF. Pretty simple to understand. The hostility of the previous bloggers makes me doubt they are truly firemen or even a friend of firemen. Their accusation of "maliciousness" and “maligning” is a low blow and a wild swing that has nothing to do with what was written.

Carl wrote on Feb 18, 2007 8:24 PM:It seemed to me that the real question here is if CDF responds to urban fires. So I spent nearly an hour poking around their web site and my opinion has changed. When you dig hard enough they are really a full service department and do provide fire protection in urban areas. They even supply life guards to Pismo beach. That's a long way from the forest.

To Edgar Ally wrote on Feb 18, 2007 8:56 PM:FACT - "Edgar" said: "the firefighters who will be coming to fight this fire (the CDF) have NO experience fighting urban fires, just wildland fires." The FACT is CDF firefighters from Deer Springs Fire Dept. fought the Escondido condo fires. THAT IS DEFINITELY URBAN FIRE FIGHTING. That does not sound like "NO experience". Therefore “Edgar” is wrong. "Low blow" to whom? "Wild swing" at what? What is your agenda? Get a life.

HAZMAT mitigator wrote on Feb 18, 2007 9:47 PM:Wow, I was just Googling for recent information on shelter in place. I'm interested primarily in chemical spills/releases but SIP in wildfires is an interesting concept. This SIP related blog appears to be a community in uproar and I must investigate the efficacy further. However, the latter posts regarding CDF piqued my interest. I don't have a dog in this fight as I'm now residing in Utah but I have worked with CDF in the past on HAZMAT incidents and don't understand the statement that they only respond to vegetation fires. The biggest towns in some of their remote districts are 3,000 people and could hardly be called urban. But other areas served are growing urban areas. It's really the remote rural areas that have extended response times due to geography that might have something to gripe about.

Bunker Buster wrote on Feb 19, 2007 12:03 AM:Dear Wondering: You might be interested in the following response I got from a fire safety official in Australia in answer to your question about SIP bunkers: "I have not heard of such bunkers, and the approach used here specifically warns against hiding. The emphasis is on proactively defending the shelter (the house) from inside as the fire front passes, and then outside as well. Bunkers are likely to become very hot and in at least one case people have died when they sheltered passively in garage under their house. Some people might have sheltered in caves or mineshafts, but that would seem to be quite different from what your man is referring to. I have passed your request on to a fire agency representative who might like to comment as well."

Craig wrote on Feb 19, 2007 7:33 AM:When asked how much experience, in his 28 years of firefighting, he had in protecting the residents in a shelter-in-place community during an actual wildland fire, the Deer Springs CDF Fire Chief stated that he had NONE (videotaped in public session on 2/14/07 and distributed throughout the community). When asked to elaborate, the Chief said it has never been done. That is coming from the CDF Chief. And some people (with obvious motives) are proposing the adoption of Shelter-in-Place, a macabre experiment on human guinea pigs. A blogger above jeered at opponents of this insanity and wrote "Get a life"? By jove, he's finally got it! That's EXACTLY what we're trying to do - get lives instead of lose them. It's been true from day one and it's still true now that people don't die in fires if they can evacuate from them. If people are trapped, either the smoke or the radiant heat or the fire itself will kill them. This is not rocket science. All of the proponents of Shelter-in-Place, if they are so convinced it works, should volunteer their services to test it out. Do I have any takers? (or undertakers, is more like it). There will be NO problem in getting the funding for a test demonstration.

cdf facts urban & wildland wrote on Feb 19, 2007 1:06 PM:from the CDF web fire.ca.gov/fire_er.php "Responding to all types of emergencies on a daily basis is the role played by most of the CDF workforce. Those emergencies take the form of wildland fires, residential/commercial structure fires, automobile accidents, heart attacks, drownings, lost hikers, hazardous material spills on highways, train wrecks, floods, earthquakes - the list is endless. CDF's firefighters, fire engines and aircraft respond to an average of more than 5,600 wildland fires, and answer the call more than 300,000 times for other emergencies each year. CDF crews and equipment are a familiar sight throughout the State with responsibility for the protection of over 31 million acres of California's privately-owned wildlands. In addition, they provide emergency services of all kinds within 36 of California's 58 counties through local government contracts. The information provided on these pages depicts the challenges CDF's dedicated, well-trained, emergency response forces face each day, and how they meet those challenges."

Mae wrote on Feb 19, 2007 6:00 PM:Shelter in place is A SURE DEATHTRAP. Smoke has cyanide, carbon monoxide, poison! The heat would cook anyone inside is the poison smoke didn't kill them first. Only an absolute idiot, blind and deaf, would stay in the house during a wildfire! The realtors and others advocating this horror put money in front of human lives. Too bad an IQ test isn't required of some of the respondents advocating SIP, as they would surely flunk! They are either very stupid, or very murderous and uncaring humans.

Bubba wrote on Feb 19, 2007 6:04 PM:When a top "protector of our lives" was asked how he would handle the SMOKE of wildfire, he could only stutter and say HEAT RISES???? I GUESS SMOKE DOES TOO???? GOD FORBID THIS IS THE TYPE OF PERSON IN A HIGH RANKING POSITION, IN CHARGE OF OUR SAFETY! LLCFIRE DOT COM SHOWS WHO YOU CAN WRITE TO ABOUT THIS MURDEROUS PLOT TO MAKE PEOPLE "STAY IN PLACE" WHEN WILDFIRE IS FACING THEM. EVEN A DOG WON'T "STAY IN PLACE" WHEN A FIRE IS COMING, AND HOPEFULLY HUMANS ARE SMART ALSO. LET THE COUNTY SUPERVISORS SHOW US HOW THIS IS DONE, WHILE WE BURN THEIR HOUSE? WE NONBELIEVERS NEED TO SEE IT TO BELIEVE IT. OK?

Facts are hard wrote on Feb 20, 2007 3:14 PM:to come by on this blog. Shelter in place is a tested and proven approach to making a neighborhood of people safe from fire. Most people that die in wildfires die on the roads trying to escape (because they didn't receive adequate notification of the impending fire...ala Cedar Fire). Homes that are built with Class A non-combustible roofing and stucco siding are dramatically more fire resistant than homes that are not. Again, the Cedar Fire is proof of this. Less than two dozen of the 2,000 homes that burned down during the Cedar Fire will built after the county adopted fire resistant construction standards in 1997--in other words the vast majority of them that burned down were built without any Class A roofing or other protections. It's perfectly reasonable to be skeptical of concepts like "shelter in place," but understand the facts before making outrageous claims and assertions.

New addition - fire storm ! wrote on Feb 21, 2007 7:37 AM:This 'shelter-in-place' myth is just that , a myth. Maybe the fire-retardant home shells will remain standing, but the occupants inside will have all of their oxygen sucked away by the fire-storm that occurs during a wildfire ! What happens when oxygen is deprived - WE DIE ! The shells which were our houses are still standing, but every living being will be suffocated ! How's that for all of those who say that the people who died were the late evacuees ? Those people tried to save their homes and possessions from destruction and waited too long to get out. That is just it, they NEEDED to GET OUT ! Shelter-In-Place is a great concept for a toxic waste spill, but NOT for one of our wildfires, which become INFERNOS. If people cannot get out safely, if there are inadequate escape routes, then the development should not be allowed. How long could any of you live WITHOUT OXYGEN ? Has anyone ever heard the term BRAIN-DEAD ? This whole concept is unbelieveable !

To: Fire Storm... wrote on Feb 21, 2007 8:03 AM:I guess every one of the professionals failed to mention what you hit upon. When wildfire burns, it does SUCK OUT OXYGEN, that is what fuels it, as well as brush. Without oxygen, fire dies, and WITHOUT OXYGEN, WE DIE ! Why in the world would anyone even consider shelter-in-place (suffocate-in-place) ? Who is going to stand up and put an end to the purposeful MASSACRE of thousands. What County Supervisor has the guts to stand up for what is right ? Probably none of them today, but there was a time when they all would have ! TOO BAD FOR THE VICTIMS !

"Assigned Risk" Fire Insurance only wrote on Feb 21, 2007 9:08 AM:It appears that, from the developers standpoint, shelter-in-place is just great. They don't have to build additional roads for traffic, and they will be able to build anywhere. Goody for them. I wonder what the fire insurance companies will have to say for this great concept ? I bet they will not insure the residences, once they learn that inadequate safety procedures have been followed. Of course that does not matter to developers. They will have gotten their money. The homeowners will be stuck with uninsurable properties, except under 'assigned risk' which is very, very expensive.

Heat+No oxygen= ? wrote on Feb 21, 2007 9:38 AM:How long can anyone hold their breath ? If you can't get enough oxygen, you cannot live ! A raging fire consumes the oxygen in its path. If we did not need oxygen, then possibly this concept might work - and then only if people were in concrete shelters, because the heat would kill them. It is impossible to believe that anyone could even consider this concept - shelter-in-place ! It is fine for certain disasters, but DEFINATELY NOT FOR FIRE ! Let's get some medical experts to talk about the effect of EXCESSIVE HEAT and NO OXYGEN ! Until then, someone should put a stop to this !

To: Fire Storm...+ wrote on Feb 21, 2007 9:45 AM:Why haven't the experts for the fire experiment called shelter-in-place mentioned the lack of oxygen ? Aren't they professionals ? Have they been pursuaded to look the other way ? Your "Suffocate-In-Place" hits the nail on the head ! Have the developers got this much power ? If they didn't, why would this concept be pushed upon us ? And yes, WHAT COUNTY SUPERVISOR will put a stop to this ?

Profit must be the reason wrote on Feb 21, 2007 1:00 PM:So now builders/developers are willing to risk the lives of residents in their projects - and it will be county-wide ? Isn't life dangerous enough today, without the worry about your future home being the only place you can be in a fire emergency, since the officials did not see to it that adequate safeguards were put in place so that you have an escape route ? So they have to build additional roads and there are some places that remain unbuildable. At least human beings are not put at risk for the sake of profit, which is the only motive possible for "Shelter-In-Place", or as somebody previously said "Suffocate-In-Place" That is what it will be and WHO WILL BE TO BLAME ?

NANCY wrote on Feb 21, 2007 3:50 PM:DO YOU THINK THE COMING RECESSION WILL PUT A STOP TO THIS BUILDING CRAZE AND STOP "INFERNO ESTATES" PROJECTS? HOMES CANNOT BE FINANCED WITHOUT INSURANCE ON THEM. WHEN PRICES PLUMMET TO 40% OF WHAT THEY ARE ASKING NOW, PEACE WILL FILL THE PLANET. ALCOA ALUMINUM SOLD TO AUSTRALIA, SO AMERICANS ARE SELLING COWS TO BUY MILK? WHEN THE DOLLAR IS DEVALUED, IMPORTS WILL SKYROCKET. THERE WON'T BE MONEY FOR THESE "CREMATORY HOMES". OUR SUPERVISORS WANT TO KILL US? I THINK SO.

SMOKEY wrote on Feb 21, 2007 4:04 PM:(1) DO YOU THINK THE POISONOUS SMOKE WILL NOT ENTER THE HOUSES? (2) WHAT TEMPERATURE DO YOU THINK THE INTERIOR OF THE HOUSES WILL BE? (3) ARE YOU COMPLETELY NUTS? NO ONE WILL STAY INSIDE, BUT THEY WILL BLOCK THE ROADS SO THAT WE ALL DIE!

Who will be liable ? wrote on Feb 21, 2007 4:41 PM:What are the County Board of Supervisors thinking ? Have they lost all sense of reason ? This is a county-wide thing they are planning. We have had enough trouble with homes in outlying areas obtaining fire insurance, so by the time the anyone notices, we will have fire-storms raging again in our county, and what hit us last time will be nothing to the result of the new "Suffocate-In-Place" ! Just exactly WHO will bear the liability of this ?

Richard wrote on Feb 21, 2007 5:42 PM:To Facts are Hard: Since you are convinced that Shelter-in-Place works, how about volunteering for a demo? We'll supply the house, the matches, the gasoline and the fans. Of course you will first have to sign a waiver of liability and a "hold harmless" letter. We don't want to get sued by your heirs when your moustache gets scorched and your butt gets smoked (or french-fried).

Experiment in Laboratory only ! wrote on Feb 22, 2007 7:09 AM:An experiment is done in a LABORATORY with test subjects (animals) , not on HUMANS. This is outrageous ! That the County of San Diego could even CONSIDER this without testing it first is risking the lives of people ON PURPOSE. Somebody, or better yet, some group, should put a stop to it before the County COOKS PEOPLE. Unbelieveable that it would even be considered for a moment in time. Didn't the Germans do something like that in World War II to get rid of people ?

To: Facts Are Hard wrote on Feb 22, 2007 7:16 AM:Okay, tell us where and when this "Shelter-In-Place" has been used successfully ! Don't just write about it, support it with facts ! Of course it is successful in a tornado (if you have a bunker or basement), or during a toxic spill, but just exactly WHERE have they required thousands of people to stay within their homes during a raging wildfire ? Where, during a fire-storm ?