What I can never figure out is why many folks can’t figure out real danger from presumed danger. Let’s say a guy lives in a generally heavy wooded region, but there is no combustible material of any consequence within 150 yards of his particular home. Should he evacuate? Hell no! A major forest fire is likely to produce a shower of sparks that could easily catch his home on fire if he is not there to defend it with a simple garder hose.

But then you have this other nut whose home is smack up against a thick woods and he says he is prepared to defend it with his trusty hose, really! Even if he isn’t burnt to a crisp, the fire would likely suck all the oxygen out of the air around him and he will die of asphyxiation.

Worlds of difference between the two situations yet many folks would treat the two as an equal danger to life and property.