E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Bryan Oller / AP
A utilities worker walks through homes destroyed by the Waldo Canyon Fire in the Mountain Shadows neighborhood of Colorado Springs, Colo., on Monday. So far, the blaze, now 45 percent contained, has damaged or destroyed nearly 350 homes.
As firefighters continue fighting the devastating Waldo Canyon blaze in Colorado, FBI agents are investigating what could have triggered the blaze, which forced more than 30,000 people from their homes.
Elsewhere in the state, lightning was to blame. But more typically, humans start wildfires. In 2011, humans started six times more fires than did lightning, scorching 5.36 million acres, according to government statistics.
Cigarette butts tossed in the dry grass and improperly extinguished campfires have started fires. But railroads, climate change and gun ranges have also noted as causes for wildfires.
In Utah this summer, fire officials said shooters started 20 wildfires, according to the Salt Lake Tribune. The Christian Science Monitor reported that the Dump fire 40 miles south of Salt Lake City started when a bullet hit a rock, emitting a spark. Strong winds and dry vegetation allowed the fire to spread, resulting in 2,300 evacuation notices.
Firefighters came face-to-face with flames that shot 100 feet into the air as a wall of fire barreled down the hills in Colorado Springs. NBC's Miguel Almaguer reports.
“Now is not a good time to take your gun outside and start shooting in cheat grass that’s tinder dry,” Utah Gov. Gary Herbert said, according to the Christian Science Monitor.
Waldo Canyon, 55 percent contained, still burns hot
Target shooters also triggered a fire near Saratoga Springs that burned 5,600 acres, the Monitor reported.
Railway saws have also stirred controversy. In 2008, Union Pacific Railroad paid the U.S. government $102 million to settle damage from a 2000 wildfire in Northern California that burned 52,000 acres. Union Pacific maintenance workers had allegedly not used spark shields to prevent hot pieces of metal from flying into the grass.
In 2009, NBC affiliate KING5 found that 234 fires in Washington state were attributed to railroads. Forty-two of those fires scorched two or more acres.
At the time of the report, Burlington Northern Santa Fe spokesman Gus Melonas said that railway saws keep tracks smooth and safe, adding that they’re equipped with water tankers to prevent fires.
On Tuesday, six of the air force C-130's were back in the air after being grounded following Sunday's fatal air tanker crash. NBC's Miguel Almaguer reports.
Red Cross volunteers in the trenches for wildfire in Colorado
"We invest everyday through technology, through training, through equipment to make sure we aren't starting fires," Melones told KING5.
Climate change may also contribute to wildfires, according to the Christian Science Monitor.
The Monitor compared this summer’s hot, dry weather to 1910, when a unseasonably warm spring turned into a scorcher of a fire season. In that summer, known now as the Big Burn, fires destroyed three million acres of forest in Montana, Idaho and eastern Washington.
Climate change may explain the modern fires that burn tens of thousands of acres; after all, warmer summers dry up vegetation, creating fuel for spreading fires.
Colorado wildfire relief: 'Beginning of the long haul'
Researchers examined tree rings and 34 years of western U.S. wildfire history and found a marked increase in large fires in the 1980s, Science Magazine reported in 2006. Wildfire seasons are longer than they were before; the researchers attribute that to increased spring and summer temperatures and an earlier spring snowmelt.
Additionally, wildfires contribute billows of carbon themselves.
“If the average length and intensity of summer drought increases in the Northern Rockies and mountains elsewhere in the western United States, an increased frequency of large wildfires will lead to changes in forest composition and reduced tree densities, thus affecting carbon pools,” the Science Magazine report said.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Inmate serving life sentence won't be charged in killing of another prisoner
- Independence Day irony: PTSD has many vets dreading, avoiding fireworks
- Could you pass the US citizenship test?
- T-shirt fundraiser for wildfire relief takes off
- Video: Casino seeks machine gun range
Follow US News on msnbc.com on Twitter and Facebook
Leave a Comment:
Well, NRA? What do you have to say for yourself now? Not only do guns kill people, they also start fires!
you are about as stupid as they get.
Careful there friend. Today I have been accused of being mistaken, crazy or a liar for saying basically the same thing. I live in Utah, we have had 400 wildfires so far this season, approximately 20 of them were caused by irresponsible gun owners firing guns in dry fields.
you are second in line
The key phase is irresponsible gun owners,, is it not??????
Well Joe, I'm for banning God for starting the fire's by lightening.
I think ill submit to myth busters to see if they can get lead to spark
joe
Stupid is kind to describe your thoughts
Should include the Tobacco industry along with the NRA
how bout the ones that put out all the small fires, letting fuel loads build up to the point where anything goes.
then people that build in tracks. Notice how all the houses burn but some trees in the middle of all the burned houses are untouched
joe let me add to what kill people, fires caused by idiots who leave camp fires unattended, which consist of dummies who think the nra started these fires, lightning kills people, guns do not kill people, I have never seen a gun get up and go shoot some one, they are a tool that is used to protect and serve the innocent, they are used to fight wars, they are used in target practice, they are used in the olympics, knifes are tools, shovels are tools a car is a tool alcohol is a drug does alcohol kill people I think not. all of these items which when used by different sick minded individuals they cause harm and possible death to people. dont blame the nra for your hate, blame your self for not getting educated enough to understand who used the gun to do the job of killing, rather than a knife, car, etc. I think you get my point.
Someone should tell Isolde Raftery, Guns dont kill people. I do. And I use knives and baseball bats too.
Two non-ferrous metals (copper and lead) will not make a spark. Try opening a book and learn something. If anything, I would be willing to bet that the shooters dropped lit cigarettes.
So, you see no common denominator in the 'human intervention' factor?
If guns kill people, then forks make people fat.
'irresponsible people with guns not following the ten basic rules for guns'.
Look:
Liberals are morons!
Isolde Raftery is an idiot! He says: "Climate change may explain the modern fires that burn tens of thousands of acres; after all, warmer summers dry up vegetation, creating fuel for spreading fires", even a moron would know that it is because of regulations that don't allow them to do controlled burns to get rid of the fuel for fires.
You dont need 10 commandments, although that was a nice page from Remington.
I cut this from the story of the kid who shot himself a few weeks ago.
Lack of discipline and education with firearms, disaster. Every time.
There are procedures for the handling of firearms. They were developed with a reason.
Rule zero, no alcohol.
First rule is never point a firearm where you do not want a bullet. (your head is a fairly good starting point).
Always assume a weapon is loaded and ready to fire.
Never transfer a loaded weapon to another person, or accept one, always visually inspect for an empty chamber.
Never deviate from these procedures.
There you go, no accidental gun incidents. All the rest are acts of will or irresponsible people who have never had training, disrespecting the power of these tools. That is all they are, we are supposed to be smart enough to use tools.
P.S. Automatic feeding weapons once cycled have a round in the chamber, dropping the clip does not render the weapon safe. Important safety tip, Thanks Egon.
It would seem very sensible to outlaw outdoor shooting during times of high or extreme fire danger. The NRA does not, in fact, run our nation, we can set sensible rules around guns.
even a moron would know that it is because of regulations that don't allow them to do controlled burns to get rid of the fuel for fires.
Sitting outside 20 minutes in the sidewalk at 1:30 PM anywhere where the temperature is above 105, doing time out for writing that, will make you apologize.
Controlled burns are done at at the discretion of each park. Many parks have done them, and they still are on fire because of the reasons STATED IN THE ARTICLE ABOVE.
I don't see how guns could have started a wildfire, considering all the guns with any real firepower have already been shipped over the border to the Mexican drug cartels.
See what happens when you arm bears? Geez.
Oh dearie me, I think the Gun Crazies have been offended. These proud Americans, defenders of the faith, noble warriors who go forth each day to do God's work, these selfless heros are uh, well beer swilling imbeciles mostly.
And sorry to contradict an above poster but sadly the NRA does indeed run our government or at least the GOP half of it.
Ozzie, where does all this hostility towards gun owners come from? Why do you look down on people who are simply exercising their natural right to defend themselves? Could it possibly be that you are trying to mask feelings of inadequacy because you are either not capable of or not willing to defend yourself or your family, and so it would make you feel more adequate if everyone was forced to behave as you do? You are free to believe that when you or your family is in danger that the police will arrive just in time to save you, but that is a fantasy that some of us do not have the luxury of believing. Relegating the responsibility to protect you and your family to someone else does not make you enlightened or intelligent, it makes you a selfish coward. Do you think so highly of yourself that you feel it is beneath you to protect yourself, and that someone else should risk their life to protect you because you were too lazy or scared to prepare yourself? I understand that it is easier to tell yourself that anyone who is willing and able to defend themselves is a barbarian who is far below you on the evolutionary ladder, but at some point you need to confront your feelings of inadequacy and deal with them.
The NRA is just another clique that collects money from people who think they actually do something. They had nothing to do with starting fires...
Irresponsible gun owners are the ones that give responsible gun owners a bad rap. It has NOTHING to do w/being an NRA member, a Conservative or a Liberal, a Democrat or a Republican, so cut the political crap.
Just like the dumb @!$%# who throws their lit cigarette out onto dry grass, or leaves a smoldering camp fire, there are those that just don't have the brains or compassion God gave 'em.
Recently a woman was hit from a falling bullet. The dumb @!$%# that shot his gun up into the air must be related to the dumb @!$%# that may have helped in causing this fire, no matter how it was done.
I love how they throw in climate change as a cause of fires. Climate change cannot possibly start a fire. It may contribute to the increased number of fires, but those fires were caused by something else. Journalism like this is what fuels the skeptics.
Shooting guns is more fun than sex... with tedious, self-righteous, utopian pacifist anti-gunners.
Have a nice day. :)
Good to know that guns do not kill people, and that they can't start fires. Please let Issa know, so he can stop wasting my tax dollars investigating how guns kill people in Mexico and on the border.
Oh, and bullets also defy gravity: what goes up does not necessarily come down.
No, I am not a Democrat. I was a member of the NRA at 7, learned how to shoot with my dad. Only an idiot would think that guns are not dangerous. If you do not respect them, they will kill. The NRA is out of control and people are dying over Stand Your Ground, now that it lets you chase people down, pick a fight, and then shoot them in their own yard.
Since 1910 there have been burn bans. How many centuries does it take for you to get it through your thick skulls that they don't work????
Burn bans cause wildfires. Fires cannot be prevented from starting, so reduce the fuel. How difficult can that be to understand? Do away with burn bans, encourage people to start fires when the wind isn't blowing hell-off-the-cross and it isn't too dry. Great day in the morning, folks, we've started the second century of stupidity.
Dave and all the others that say a gun can't start a fire
I'll take you up on that bet! This is what the news tonight. Said they used to start the fire "WITH THEIR GUN"!
Watch this:
http://youtu.be/e107SMxvdCg
PS.
It was on your beloved flox news.
Note how the liberals at MSNBC discuss guns FIRST as the cause of wildfires. No agenda here, folks, just keep on reading our garbage.
But I'll bet if they actually looked at the numbers, gun ranges would be WAY down the list of causes of wildfires, when compared to lightning, unattended campfires, and idiot smokers who pitch their lit butts wherever.
Guns without alcohol? Thats kinda like football without goal posts ain't it? Baseball without hotdogs? Government that works for the people? Or East coast folks with to many laws taking way their rights and it's ok by them. You easterners should come out west and see the last of the free.
So dead timber doesn't cause fires? I guess I'll chalk it up to all natural..
The article states that 'gun ranges' are a source of the fires.
I say: 'Hardly'.
It's people who opted not to go to a firing range but to improvise one out in the wilderness somewhere where they felt comfortable that no one else was around. On top of that, they're probably blasting away at whatever they fancy using Russian or similar military surplus ammunition with steel core bullets and quite often (albeit extremely soft) steel jackets. Steel absolutely does spark when it strikes something harder, like rocks. Dry vegetation does not usually burst into flames, but when it is extremely dry and the temperatures are quite high, a good spark or two landing in the wrong place can get a blade or two of dead grass to start smoldering. The shooter sees no fire, no smoke. They think all is okay as they pack it in for the day and leave. Five or ten minutes later, that smoldering may erupt into something much more serious.
There would be several reasons not to go to a range. Not having one nearby would be one. Not belonging to the club who operates the nearest one and that club not being overly keen to let the general public just show up and use their range would definitely be something that induces people to not use a range. Understanding that what one is wanting to do is a violation of the range rules would be another reason one may choose to go 'make their own range'. Many do not allow more than one round per second to be fired, and some people get a thrill out of seeing how fast they can empty a magazine full of cheap surplus ammo. Other ranges will sometimes prohibit use of steel core or jacketed bullets because they are or are believed to be overly destructive to the range's backstops. If you've got a case of several hundred 5.45mm or 7.62mm cartridges for your Kalashnikov type rifle and nothing else to shoot in it, you're probably not headed to an established range to fire it if you know they'll be asking you to leave.
Those folks who pinned it down as irresponsible gun owners are absolutely correct. Anyone who spends any time at all outdoors in those southwestern states should be fully aware of how dry it gets and how bad wildfires can be and take every precaution to not be the cause of one.
DCS
Watch the video: http://youtu.be/e107SMxvdCg This is what flox news said started one of the big fires that burn 18,000 acres.
Those damn conservatives!
Unless you are shooting tracers, incendiary rounds, or solid steel armor piercing rounds, bullets won't start a fire. They only spark in the movies. Copper and lead will not spark. Excessive muzzle blast of unburnt powder from a muzzle loader maybe, but very near the shooter. I simply defy the claim that 20 fires were started this way. Target shooters are rarely shooting tracers and most shooters are smart enough to know they could potentially, under the most ideal conditions, trigger a fire with these. No one in their right mind is shooting hardened steel armor piercing rounds either, because they will quickly destroy a barrel. And we're talking about rounds not commonly available and quite expensive. These are not the kind of rounds people use for target practice and absolutely not in 20 separate cases in the same State in a short period. This is simply made up by someone who has no clue and obviously no education in science.
Likewise. a "falling bullet" isn't about to kill anyone either. Simply not enough mass at terminal velocity. It will hurt like hell, but it doesn't have enough energy to kill someone. Again, a case of some clueless, uneducated person making a claim. Now a bullet fired at a slight upward angle will take a ballistic trajectory and it may be "coming down" in that ballistic trajectory but it is the forward velocity that has the energy that could potentially kill. This is not a "falling bullet" though.
It never ceases to amaze me how totally incompetent people have become in simple sciences. This kind of thing gets reported and half the country believes it because they simply don't know any better.
Now rail saws? Possible. These are abrasive "grinders" on steel. They will produce sparks and a lot of them. What is worse is that the hot steel which initially can be close to nearly 3000 degrees, retains it heat better because it is "mixed" with the burning resins used to bond the grinding wheels together. I might add that the steel on steel fiction from a train wheel on the track can produce some small sparks. But it is rather unlikely for them to retain enough heat to start a fire even if they fall on fuming fuel. Walk a track sometime and you can smell the fumes from diesel that sometimes gets spilled or leaks in small amounts. We don't see railroad tracks catching fire on a regular basis.
Dry vegetation is pretty flammable, but it takes about 350 degrees sustained long enough to light it. It is not gasoline or diesel fuel. It doesn't produce volatiles that can become a stoichiometric mixture that ignites in an explosion. Now once a brush fire is burning hot enough, it will produce some flammable gasses, particularly when it involves pine trees. Carbon monoxide will burn in the right mixtures. But that's not the situation we're talking about here.
This business about sparking bullets is someones speculation. Someone who obviously doesn't know any better. For the record, I am a Progressive and a gun enthusiast. More than likely a fire started at a location where someone had been target shooting. The odds are that it was a discarded cigarette or even the hot catalytic converter of an idling car someone sat in with the air on to cool down. "Sparking bullets" didn't start any of these fires and I defy these claimants to duplicate it in an experiment, I'll even let them soak the brush in gasoline first if they want to. They will not be able to do some because it defies physics.
flnobody,
Plausible, but not a bullet hitting a rock. Anybody with with even minor intelligence wouldn't shoot these in a flammable area. These are special shotgun shells marketed as "flame throwers". Dragon's Breath shells are pyrotechnic rounds and they are about $5 or more apiece and are illegal in some places.
1newday
read this:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/03/guns-blamed-for-starting-wildfires-in-parched-west/#ixzz1zcjBxHQg
Obviously if somebody intentionally fires an incendiary shell into dry grass for the purpose of starting a fire, there can be a fire. But that is arson, not just an accident from casual shooting.
jerryb,
You are correct and blaming 20 fires on "sparks from bullets hitting rocks" is completely BS. That is what the original CSM article says and what the Governor repeated. That simply can not happen.
A special shot gun cartridge that is a glorified piece of fireworks, emulating a flame thrower, it is an incendiary round. it is not what the claim in the article was about.
flnobody,
I stand by my statement. I didn't say that no one was stupid or that nostupid gun owners existed. What my post was about was debunking a claim that is scientifically impossible. And likewise, with the few potential mis-interpreted exceptions, it was extremely improbable for twenty separate fires to be started this way. The Fox news article is full of hearsay by people of at best, questionable expertise. If the single report of one fire being caused by an incendiary round is true, it doesn't in any way make the rest of the claims true.
This is part of what is wrong with this country today. People take one little piece of data completely out of context and draw broad, far reaching conclusions from it. We are fast becoming a society of idiots with no basic knowledge or analytical skills. We eat garbage because that's what the TV markets to us. We vote for idiots because they sell us on outlandish and emotionally appealing claims that have nothing to do with reality. People tend to believe what they want to hear because they don't know any better or don't care to learn. Just because one person says something and a thousand people repeat it, doesn't make it credible. You need to do your own analysis and research, but if you use YouTube and/or Fox news as a credible source, you can't count that as research. Anybody with even minor intelligence wouldn't believe most of what Fox News reports.
1new
Utah Sports Shooting Council, Fire Marshals are all idiots. And you are an expert because? I know, fire marshals have never been able to figure out where a fire started or how.
Clark Aposhian, chairman of the Utah Sports Shooting Council, said that perhaps 5 percent of the wildfires in the state have been caused by target shooters this year. "I don't know how much of a problem it really is," he said
Utah officials believe steel-jacketed bullets are the most likely culprits
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/03/guns-blamed-for-starting-wildfires-in-parched-west/#ixzz1zgVwHxYy
A few things for you guys to keep in mind here:
Steel is not just used for AP rounds! Yes, those have steel cores, but they're hardened steel, often with tungsten alloyed in. They do occasionally turn up as surplus, especially in mixed lots that get repacked. When this sometimes happens, you may buy, say, 100 cartridges, and 95% will be ball and the remaining five may be a mix of tracer, AP, or a few other possible things. I think this mostly happened in the past, which is good, because most of this ammo (tended to be 7x57, 7.92x57, etc.) was antiquated junk many decades old, stored under very poor conditions in third world nations, and quite often not really safe to use due to split case necks, very loose adherence to design specifications, poor quality primers and propellants, etc.
Most surplus ammunition showing up today is fairly decent stuff, sealed in tins or battle packs, often still in the shipping crate. It's generally quite safe to use, though the priming may be corrosive. The thing is, a lot of it is steel cased, steel cored, and steel jacketed. Very little to no lead or copper in these. Cases and jackets may be copper-washed, (otherwise, they're probably lacquered), but they're still steel. Steel is cheap and plentiful. In its normalized state, steel is also extremely soft. You can just about scratch it with your thumbnail. It doesn't take much, and I've put considerable nicks and gouges in tool steel I was machining quite by accident, merely dropping the workpiece or dropping a tool on it, for instance. After it's been hardened and tempered, then it's a whole new ballgame. Steel used in ammunition that isn't Armor Piercing (AP) is, by design, dead soft.
The US has used steel, mostly during WWII, to help alleviate shortages of copper and other non-ferrous metals that were also used for things besides ammunition. The Germans were big users of steel ammunition for this reason as well, and the Soviets seem to have used it all along. So, our ammo was brass cases holding copper jacketed lead bullets, and was Boxer primed so it could be reloaded. European stuff was mostly steel and used Berdan primers making it not readily reloadable. For battle ammunition, that makes perfect sense! An infantryman isn't going to stop to pick up his empties in the midst of a firefight, and left to rust, those empties will be gone in a year or two. Not exactly littering the environment, really. And that steel is cheap, abundant, and strong enough that shells can be made very thin. A much wiser use of resources, no? I'll never understand why the US hasn't also been doing that, other than perhaps we can afford to shoot up a lot more ammo in training where the cases can be recovered and sold for reuse or scrap while other nations perhaps can only afford to train a little bit and save most of their ammunition for future combat use.
Now, again, steel sparks when abraded. A bullet is not going to cause a shower of sparks when it hits a rock, and the shooter probably isn't going to be able to see any spark unless it's at close range and in low light. I have watched empty Freon cylinders shot with steel jacketed .50 Browning machine gun rounds, and I can tell you they absolutely do spark upon impact! The range was less than 50 feet, and it was an exhibition where you could fire this thing for $5 per round. I don't remember what it was, but it was a bolt action .50 BMG rifle of some sort that had frequent issues with the hard primers on this foreign surplus (possibly Greek) .50 ammo the guy had a case of.
Now with the assault rifle calibers, also using steel jacketed ammo (again, we're probably talking about 7.62x39mm and 5.45x39mm), the sparks are going to be much smaller and much less frequent. However, a lot of rounds fired from a fair number of people out there shooting up the backwoods areas is going to add up to a fairly significant risk exposure. And the key here is that it is DRY. We're talking absolutely BONE DRY. It's dry where I live right now, too, but NOTHING like they get out in Utah, Nevada, and other such states. And the people who live out there know, or else absolutely should know, all about that. It's just part of living there. They get wildfire season every year.
Ideally, if someone wants to shoot, especially that kind of ammunition (which is, admittedly, very attractively priced compared to the standard commercial stuff), they could do so at an established range. But if that doesn't work out, I think it would only make sense to either wait a while for things to return to normal a bit first, or else carefully set up your target(s) and backstop, do your shooting, then wait around very near the target area at least a half hour or so after the last shot is fired with a few gallons of water handy. Problem with that is that the folks who are doing this probably are also trespassing and strive to leave ASAP after emptying a mag or two so as to not get caught, or else they're people who are prohibited from owning firearms, or perhaps think they might have a warrant or two with their name on it somewhere and are avoiding law enforcement officers at all costs. Which would be another reason they're not at an official range: a fair number of shooters also happen to be cops! A shooting range is not a good place to go to avoid law enforcement officers...
Steve: "Good to know that guns do not kill people, and that they can't start fires. Please let Issa know, so he can stop wasting my tax dollars investigating how guns kill people in Mexico and on the border."
RIGHT ON!!!! It never ceases to amaze me how they all claim "guns don't kill people" but then suddenly guns DO kill border guards! Enough to waste our tax dollars investigating how a F&F gun killed one border guard. But nowhere else do guns kill people. The hypocrisy is amazing!!!
Hey, @Flnobody; did you even READ my post? Are you able to comprehend the English language?
I didn't make any claims that there were or weren't fires started at gun ranges. I just groused about the fact that that guns and gun ranges were the first things discussed, despite the FACT that far more fires are started by lightning, careless smokers, or unattended campfires.
It just shows yet again the media's preconceived agenda and vendetta against gun owners.
DCS
Did you read my post? No! Did you look at the reference link? No! Did you see where it was from? No!
You said, "Note how the liberals at MSNBC discuss guns". I pointed out a link from FLOX news that says the same thing as MSNBC did. Have you got my point yet? Do I need to point it out to you? Here is a simple question for your very simple mind. Now take your time and try to think for a change. IS FOX NEWS A LIBERAL MEDIA OUTFIT? Come on, you can do it.
I think that even apiece of glass that reflects the sunlight in certain way could start a fire right now. It's very dry and dangerous. People should just be ready to accept the fact the THERE IS GLOBAL WARMING!
Yes, this pesky sun of ours just won't work the way we want it to.
Doesn't the sun realize that humans believe they're going to exist 'forever and ever' into the future?
Doesn't the sun realize that humans believe they're going to exist 'forever and ever' into the future?
Even if what you say it's true! in 5 billion years the earth is going to crash in the middle of the Milky Way galaxy. Sorry...Start packing.
I'll believe in 'man-made' global warming when someone explains to me how Mars is ALSO warming. Could it be a secret colony of humans that migrated there without telling the rest of us??
Global warming is caused by solar warming. You see, the sun is very very hot.......
Its easier to blame someone or something else. The government couldn't find their asses with both hands in a hallway of mirrors at high noon.
kold
Damn, we have a new believer! Read below.
Mars has the giant red dust storms holding in the heat. WE here on earth don't have those dust storms like on mars. We Just have all that crap, that MAN puts into the air.
“In particular, the slight increase in surface air temperature is similar to climate variations seen on Earth, even though the processes involved are significantly different,” added Fenton.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/2007/marswarming.html
Honestly, top of the page, big type and what for... a lame article that doesn't say anything. Is there nothing more important to report than piece together this article. Shame on you MSNBC for allowing this and shame on you Isolde Raftery for pretending this is a story worth printing
Honestly, top of the page, big type and what for... a lame article that doesn't say anything
It says that half of the US is burning. It is NEWS for some people that care about their homes and their forests. I guess it would only be important if it was near where you live, and your couch was in danger of going up in flames.
Ahhhh dude......I live in Detroit! We have burned for years. Geesus can you be a tad more paranoid? I know people here in Detroit with rentals smelling like meth labs. Hmmmm Detroit.....hmmm Democratic rule.....hmmmmm lets see Kwame Kilpatrick. google is your friend.
I live in Detroit! We have burned for years. Geesus can you be a tad more paranoid?
The kind of "burn"that you are talking about is different. That is mental. This is about REAL FIRES.If you own a TV, and the news hit Detroit -maybe not- you will see WHAT I MEAN.
Seems like we've got at least 3-4 more fires starting every day out here. Be careful and smart! So very many of our fires here in Utah have been caused by target shooting. You just cannot safely do that out in the brush in these hot dry conditions this year! It's not worth risking another fire. Please let's exercise our freedom to be smart, and put the guns away for now!
Or carry the guns and use them for self-defense, but be responsible rather than stupid.
The only fire started with a gun is the one where the idiots were shooting incendiary shotgun rounds just for the hell of it. I challenge the Christian Science Monitor, MSNBC, or any other idiot who claims that the fire was started by a bullet hitting a rock to please post a video on youtube with whatever rock this is, and make a spark come off of it with lead or copper. Lead and copper or brass will not create a spark, which is why they are used in tools and fittings for gas lines.
anonymousintheaffirmative, just because the lying liberal mainstream media is telling you bullets cause fires don't mean you have to be so naive and dillusional. Use your intellegence for once. Have you ever seen video footage of any kind proving that bullets cause fires. This guns starting fires are nothing but hypothesis. None of it is true.
Mention guns in any capacity for anything or any reason, and some real wacks come out of the cracks. Read what some of these "gun enthusiasts" post, and it's no wonder why gun regulation is considered.
Case in point: Consider the serious in-your-face attitude issue with this guy. Picture him with a 6-pack and a .38. Get my drift?
What is your point? He is right, bullets don't cause sparks, do some research and come back and try again.
Chill Moose. It's the attitude, not the content of the post (for which I agree).
From a Salt Lake City news story:
Say's who? Say's frickin WHO? The news media, The cops, Forest service, WHO??? I did a little experiment the other day. I have a small pile of 6 month old dead weeds, the "ones" that ignite quickly. I put a match to a small handfull and " POOF" I threw a cigarette into the pile, it went out. Now im NOT saying cigarettes don;t have some play in this, but everytime someone or agency can't figure out the cause, it seems to be cigarettes or guns.
Feed up: "Now im NOT saying cigarettes don;t have some play in this, but everytime someone or agency can't figure out the cause, it seems to be cigarettes or guns."
Or now we have Feed up doing experiments with dead weeds and cigarettes. Thanks for the warning!
Conservatives will continue to deny that guns could possibly cause fires. They would rather disparage the professionalism of those who use fire science to determine the cause of the fires.
Why is it that so many people, particularly conservatives, so eagerly attack the opinions of highly educated scientists? They refute the Theory of Evolution because it conflicts with some of the most magical aspects of their religion. They refute the theory of human-caused global warming because any action taken to reverse climate trends would affect their lifestyle. They reject the idea that homosexuality is not a choice because it is easier to deny rights to gay Americans if they continue to believe homosexuality is a choice. The list goes on.
Rational conservatism is a reasonable point of view and progressives can work with them on solutions to the important issues facing this country. Irrational conservatives will not compromise because to do so would require them to think.
News flash Don... the THEORY of Evolution has NEVER been proven... that's what makes it a THEORY. If it were true, there would be many species in the act of evolving all around us today. Ask yourself, why did the apes stop evolving into humans? Where is the lizard growing wings to fly through the air? Why did the "theory" seem to stop evolving millions of years ago for everything on the planet?
I'd challenge you to demonstrate a bullet starting a fire. It's nice movie effects, but in reality, it does not happen.
The theory of evolution is proved everyday a conservative opens their mouths. It's clear as day that they're not as evolved as liberals.
Ok the one fire was started by idiots shooting incendiary rounds in a shotgun at a bachelor party, which is just stupid and they should be held accountable for it. As for the claims that these fires were caused by a bullet hitting a rock, anyone claiming this is just showing your ignorance. Copper and lead will not cause a spark, this is not like hitting steel on a piece of flint. If you shoot a rock with a copper and lead bullet all you will get is a bunch of pieces of bullet and rock fragments, but no spark.
Good post don, and Steve just proves your point. LOL.
Tracer rounds. Can't say that a hollow point or FMJ would create a spark. Although, there are a lot of strange folks out there doing strange things with guns. Plinking combustibles comes to mind.
AND, Sarah Palin believes humans rode T-Rex' five thousand years ago. Go Simple Sarah!!
Palin/Bachman 2012. OR, Bachman/Palin 2012. Don't really care, just so I can ride a dinosaur!
The theory of evolution is and always will be a theory because that is the way science works. Facts are measurable; explanations are always subject to refinement.
Darwin's work has been refined and revised continuously over the past 150 years and has become stronger as a result. The science of genetics and the discovery of DNA fit very nicely into the Theory of Evolution. Contrast that with creationism, which does not even rise to the level of a theory. Creationism (or intelligent design) has absolutely no evidence to support it.
Think about it, Steve. The structure of the atom is also a theory. The cell theory of biology is a theory. Plate tectonics is a theory. Gravity is explained by a theory. All scientific explanations of the way nature works are theories. Creationism, on the other hand, is a crock.
Dyermoe, I just can't believe ALL conservatives fit your description. Just those who buy into the teabagger/anti-evolution/anti-union/carry-a-gun-to-a bar paranoid types. Ops, covered about 80%.
Don, it is unbelievable that you question theories. Let’s look at the differences of evolution
vs. creationism: evolution-- apes are related to humans; the bible -- men are from dirt and women are from a rib. I think if we were to look at which one makes more practical sense, I would vote on an animal that has 48 chromosomes and we have 46. To educate you a little, a chromosome must have two reference points on the ends. The second chromosome has reference points in the middle and the ends versus only on the ends. It is science that figured this out. So if apes have 48 chromosomes and human have 46, but the second chromosome two sets of chromosome data that proves Darwin was correct. Educate yourself and it becomes a wonderful place to live when you understand how the body has evolved. Remember, humans evolved from apes or humans evolvedfrom a pile of dirt and a rib from a man.
Guess where I stand?
Joe
It's unbelievable that you think that I question the validity of scientific theories. I don't think you read carefully enough. Try again. I was responding to Steve's statement that evolution has not been proven. Theories are good. I believe in theories.
Don, sorry I was just trying to add some facts to that arguement of creationism vs. evolution. Joe
Nothing short of a tracer round is going to start a fire...
...or a bullet ricocheting off a rock, causing a spark...
@Boom Try looking up ferrous and non-ferrous metals, and learn why a bullet will NOT make a spark...
There is no point arguing with these idiots dave, they saw it in an action movie before so it must be true. They don't understand that copper and lead will not spark. I guess they should call their local pipe fitters union immediately so they can quit using these materials on gas lines and fittings before they blow something up.
Moose, you may want to consider the possibility of steel core rounds, Eastern European FMJ rounds with copper coated steel jackets (to reduce barrel wear), and the imported Chinese 7.62 x 39 rounds of the 90s (steel core that could "possibly" penetrate body armor).
So, in retrospect, there are rounds out there that could produce a spark on ricochet. Thus, both sides of this issue can be quite correct.
Shoot a shotgun in front of some tall, dry grass and see what happens. When the three feet of flames fly out the end of the "fire" arm, it will kindle the grass and (possibly) set the woods ablaze. Yes, guns can and do cause fires sometimes. I know that some gun owners want to act like guns never, never cause any harm of any kind, but that is just not true. Why do you feel so threatened by the truth? Nobody is trying to take your precious toys away simply because some irresponsible asses caused a fire by mis-using guns. But denying that people who mis-use guns can cause fires does nothing but make people question the intelligence of the people who deny the truth.
Some fires were caused by gunfire. That's the truth. Get over it.
That would be well and good if the story claimed that the fires were caused from muzzle blast, as that would be possible, but the story clearly states that the fires were started by bullets hitting rocks and causing sparks, which is next to impossible. Even with steel core bullets, the core would have to be exposed, which could only happen if the core was exposed on initial impact and then struck the right type of rock on a secondary impact. Even if this were the case, how would they have discovered this at this point in time? These fires have either just been put out, or are still burning, talk about finding a needle in a haystack, how about finding the exposed steel core of a bullet in 40,000 acres! So while the odds of a spark coming from a bullet are very very slim, the odds of finding a fragment of the bullet that caused the spark in thousands of acres of land that has been on fire for days is even slimmer, hence the reason for my skepticism.
I love it when people make comments in such a cocky matter, only to be completely incorrect. Sorry, but either can spark.
Physics.
@shandril; shotguns don't fire bullets.
I don't think that most people could start a fire with a gun if they tried. Something is wrong with that idea.
Black powder makes one hell of a flash.
LMAO..OK..sue them all ....if no insurance we the taxpayers will pay as always...no sweat!
Last time mother nature was in court she won galore!!
The federal governemnt is responsible for all of these fires.The EPA instittuted a "let fires burn" policy shortly after Obamy took office.It was mandated to lands on Native American,Federal lands and even to privately owned forest.One ridiculous reason was fires allowed to burn would cause less air pollution all around than if the fires were suppressed.Can anyone believe this crap.Earier this year,the EPA demanded farmers map out in details the flow of cattle waste matter on their lands.Extensive maps were required under penalty of stiff fines in order to better understand how the manure could possible get inot the ground water even though in many cases all available water had to be pumped in from distant sources! Next we are going to have to file charts on our daily flushing so they can get a better picture of our waste matter.Wake up people,all this crap manifest itself into high and higher water,gas,food,electric cost!
Hey mas098 the let it burn policy has been in effect a lot longer then Obama even thinking about running for President. Do you remember the Yellowstone fire in 1988? That was another let er burn policy. If you want to blame someone blame the right people and that would be the Bloody Tree Huggers. It is 100% the fault of the Tree Huggers policys that have put our forest's in the wasted condition they are in now.
AVCM is right,but there's an even more important cause - poor land management. Most wildfires start in Federally-owned lands that nobody bothers taking proper care of because there's no money in it and it's difficult to cut through the red tape to build firebreaks or cut down trees and scrub. The downside of preserving natural beauty is that you preserve natural "beauty", including but not limited to wildfires.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I find it very hard to believe that guns caused any fires unless some idiot was shooting an incendiary round through a metal target or something. Bullets used by hunters and sport shooters are simply not hot enough after travelling through the air to ignite fires, and even if they were, they bury themselves in the ground on impact anyway.
It's technically possible for a bullet impact on a hard surface to generate a very short-lived spark, but I think the much more likely cause is a much more likely cause - like a campfire or a discarded cigarette butt - you can't really be punished for an accidental wildfire if a random bullet strike generated it, but you can sure as hell be punished for the latter causes. Odds are, some jerk went out shooting and did something stupid and tried to blame it on the bullet, which a lot of anti-gun types are all too eager to believe.
Similarly, I can hardly believe that the railroads caused any kind of fire. While train wheels can generate sparks due to friction between a misshapen rail and/or wheel, the sparks would be hard-pressed to make it past the mounds of ballast extending between four and six feet on either side of the track. Additionally, we maintain track sensors to detect heat in the trains wheels, and if one goes off the train must immediately stop. Since trains typically depart from terminals and sidings with sensors positioned near them (to detect brakes that have accidentally been left on, as well as the aforementioned issues) and not wilderness, it is again technically possible but extremely unlikely. Even if we did start a fire, our crews would report it as soon as they saw it, and we don't hear about a lot of trains running smack-dab into wildfires that blanket the tracks because we have enough prior warning from other sources to stop the trains. Again, probably not us doing this.
I invoke Occham's razor on this one. Most of this speculation about what could have caused the fires is driven by government investigators who are just trying to think of every possibility because they have no clue, but can't be seen doing nothing if they want to stay funded, and can't blame themselves for not implementing good land control policies for the same reason.
If you want to prevent wildfires, let private industry manage the preserves, parks, and protected areas under a contract that guarantees these areas remain as such. Give them a little freedom to put in a few attractions or a few buildings as a resort or whatever, let them charge an admission fee (which will be reasonable if they want any business), and they will "magically" fix most of this problem because they have an actual incentive to do something about it - nobody is going to pay to go to a burned-down wasteland or a potential hazard area.
Granted, I don't know if a successful business model can be built upon privately-managed national preserves on a large scale, or even if all of them would be attractive to business (maybe some less-popular parks can't attract investment). What I do know is that there are a lot of resorts that do a spectacualr job of managing land by virtue of the fact that they control hiking trails. Yes, hiking trails. Not the stuff around them, just the trails.... and anyone can use them, customer or not. The land is federally protected, but the companies provide immediate response to anything that goes amiss because they monitor the trails. Couldn't we kind of move more in that direction and not in the "government must protect land for us" direction? Wouldn't it be worth at trying, at least?
Retired ACVM: Next time you're hunting, please take a moment to thank God for those "Bloody Tree Huggers" who fight tooth and nail to save your hunting grounds.
These conservationists work hand in hand with hunters and politicians, alike. Without their efforts, many of our treasured hunting grounds would be rolled over by self-serving corporate types. Give em a break.
Sorry, @JK, but most of the "tree-huggers" I know are adamanatly opposed to hunting.
Heck, I don't even hunt. I fly fish for trout, strictly catch-and-release, and I've had some of those @$$wipes chase me off the stream, throwing rocks and screaming obscenities at the pain I cause those "poor little fishies". In their minds, only vegans are acceptable.
And once they make eating meat illegal, then they'll start in on preventing pain to plants. "Stop the senseless sapshed! Plants have feelings, too!" Oy . . .
The problem was the feds telling people they couldn't maitain certain aspects ot their land or keep some old roads open or clear brush or some other unknown EPA or Land Management ruling.
Also here's an article about problems that can be causing worse fire problems.
http://americanfreepress.net/?p=1269
Cloud Seeding Water Wars the Cause of Eco-Disasters?
yeah right a gun started that fire. you morons will say anything to blame a gun for a crime. This one takes the cake. maybe the fire was started by dry weather and ripe conditions for fire, I do not see that scenario anywhere in your lame blame game. what a bunch of stupid arogant idiots to blame a gun for starting a fire. How many times in history has a gun started a fire. uh lets see Never to my knowlege, Just like a1 jet fuel melted steel right.
Well the one fire was started by a bunch of idiots shooting incendiary rounds out of a 12 ga, and they should be in jail for it. Other than that, yeah pretty much what you said.
What propels a bullet down the barrel? Fast burning gunpowder. What happens if the gurnpowder does not all burn up by the time it is ejected from the end of the barrel? You figure it out. By the way I am the NRA.
Yes Gun Smoke, and the powder that is not burned up will never make it to the ground in solid form. Sometimes the difference between a 20" and 22" barrel is all that is needed to maximize powder ignition, so any powder that is not ignited before leaving the barrel will never make it to the ground before being turned into a gaseous state. You could take a handful of gunpowder and ignite it as it was falling 3 ft above the ground and it would never hit the ground. However, this is not the source of the fires according to the article, the source of the fires according to the article is bullets hitting rocks and causing sparks, which is a one in a million chance.
At least we can agree that cigarettes and lightning cause fires.
You're delusional.
Moose, good points but remember we hunters take a lot of shots through cover or in prone position and then move without looking back. However, I look at the "guns start forest fires" hoopla as just another jab at gun owers by the liberal, sissy, city boy media. Also, I wonder how anybody knows how a huge forest fire ever got started? I mean all the evidence is burned all to hell (literally), so was it a bird carrying a cigarette butt to its nest; a campfire that didn't get put out properly; random sparks from a wilderness rider's horse shoes; lightning (which strikes everywhere, all the time); OR, consider this statement from Wikipedia never mentioned by the media: ". . . large areas of woodland, shrubland and grasslands during periods of dry hot weather are known to be capable of SPONTANEOUSLY COMBUSTING" (from SPONTANEOUS COMBUSTION article). So, even if hunters or shooters happen to be in an area where a fire starts, its jumping the gun (sorry, couldn't resist the pun) to say they started it.
Most gun owners will never start a fire during shooting. They're much more likely to do it via an unattended campfire or a carelessly thrown cigarette butt.
@Optimist --- A non gun owner and non NRA member couldn't do the same thing? While you're at it go ahead and blame George Bush too.
NC vet, suffering from PTSD.
I would blame libtards for forest fires....Due to all the hot air in DC and White House it is contributing to global warming and dry conditions in our forests
I will believe trains, cigarettes, lightning, but not guns. What do they think people do; shoot with the muzzle in the ground? What tripe! Just more anti-gun rhetoric. Check out the UN weapons treaty that supposedly will be ratified on 27 July. I'm glad others believe in the second amendment.
You do realize that Obama never made any effort to control guns, and that it was merely a political trick to rally support played on the GOP base by their own leaders, right?
Hell, Obama is completely against gun control -- just look at Fast and Furious!
actually according to several pro-gun forums online, bullets can indeed cause sparks. check out defensivecarry.com and thefiringline.com
Just "fast & furious", which was to get these guns into the hands of the cartels, so Obama could blame 'lax gun laws' to start an anti-gun campaign nationally.
Chicago is the worst place in the nation for law-abiding firearms owners.
I never once heard President Obama say anything truly positive about the Second Amendment, but who knows what Obama might've said as a Professor?
Steel ammunition is the only kind of ammunition that can produce a spark, and that is mainly used in competitive shooting competitions.
I just flagged most of the comments on this board.
You cannot simply say "you are a moron" or "I kill people" those comments have no value and the people that made them have no value.
Please keep your thoughts to yourself, until you actually have something worth saying.
By the way, absolutely beautiful in Vermont every day of the year. That is God's gift to us for embracing gay marriage. God is very much in favor of Gay marriage, you know. It is the right wingers she hates.
Hey, Vemont Wise; you want to practice a little of what you preach? YOu want others to stop the politics, might work better if you did so yourself.
Typical Liberal -- do as I say, not as I do.
Gasoline starts fires, BAN ALL GASOLINE before we all DIE!!!!
Vermont Wise,
Now thats two guys with loaded guns that can't control themselves. Geez.
@@Vermont Wise --- Sir, you may not be the stupid and moronic idiot I think you are, but you certainly are an thought controlling elitist progressive waste product strongly resembling a paid troll of the Peacock Network.. Who died and left you in charge anyway?
Let's ban cigarettes, guns, campers and lightning. We could do it, because the Chief Justice says so, under the taxing powers of the US, which now seem to be limitless. .
Ah yes, your new found "traitor".
Blame can also be placed on poor forestry practices but we don't want to disturb the birdies and bunnies, do we?
Loggers are not allowed to cut the wood but it ok just to let it waste and burn in a dangerous fire storm!
Last week it was only guns that caught fire wonder why now other things are causing fires.
When will someone get up enough nerve to ask the Obamy administration why the EPA cancelled a contract for 40 water dropping,fire fighting airplanes.The western United States were left with a total of 10 such airplanes .The new policy of the administration is to let fires burn in an effort(supposedly) to end up with a pristine and more diverse environment equally fit for all animals,except man,of course! I know if I had lost a house and ll my belongings to one of these fires I would be sitting on my congressmanss neck demanding answers.Remember,this is a transparent administration and getting through to someone in the EPA that can help you should be a walk in the park!
Want to see the "fire science" that can unequivocably attribute fire to a gun. You know, some real science unlike the global warming hoax.
I love it when a person's name aptly describes them, dumb and dumber. Thanks for making my day!
Guns and dummies do not mix
Guns start fires ? I call B.S.
Obama blames Bush, Sarah Palin and Fox News.....
And the right continues to beat that dead horse. I blame stupidity.
As soon as I saw the article I just new Bush was responsible. No wait, got that
wrong, I knew that someone would blame him, yep that’s it.
I heard it was a bear smoking a doobie
It's all Al Gore's fault.
Well I think AlGore said that he invented fire
I stand corrected , you are right.
I blame meteorites for the fires. Planes were grounded because of meteorites.
You're right, I saw it all happen when I got lost in the ozone again.
Okay, first of all I'm neither conservative or liberal. I believe in the Constitution and The Bill of Rights as worded by our forefathers. I believe it is a great disservice to the people who fought and died to preserve our rights to continually chip away at our freedoms. Articles like the above mentioned are a perfect example of how the media sways the uninformed to get them to believe one way or the other. I have personally fired thousands of rounds in all kinds of conditions and have never once started a brush fire. Let common sense prevail. Unless, like mentioned above, a tracer round was fired into VERY dry brush or an incendiary round of some sort was used, the likely hood of a lead or copper jacketed round sparking off a rock and starting a fire is pretty much null in my opinion. Sounds like a job for The Mythbusters.
I heard it was a bunch of dumb ass liberals sitting around a fire in the woods and letting it get out of control just like the stinken Communist did with the spending!!! We are over seven trillion in debt Gentlemen. You want to blame guns on that one also?
Space aliens beaming information into your head doesn't count as reputable sources.
The NRA will use this to get their peabrain disciples to go out and buy more guns and ammunition. Suckers. Lol..Go find a dictionary and have someone read you the definition for gullible.
Pass out the "foil caps".
PS: Dumbass Liberal is an oxymoron.
The sad reality is that many forest fires are intentionally set by firefighters either for the very lucrative overtime (see 60 minutes piece about some guys working for a few weeks out of the year) or for the thrill. Forest fires can be spotted via satellite in their infancy and readily extinguished. The forest service has repeatedly turned down outside help in order to prolong the fires(see forest service turns down FREE help from huge Russian fire plane). See how states fight over the fire funds during a fire, its almost comical what a scam forest fires are
How can we "see" what you're saying if you don't provide sources?