[HN Gopher] LA wildfires force thousands to evacuate, NASA JPL c...
___________________________________________________________________
LA wildfires force thousands to evacuate, NASA JPL closed
Author : rntn
Score : 115 points
Date : 2025-01-08 21:40 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theregister.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theregister.com)
| zokier wrote:
| I was wondering why JPL website was not working, I guess this
| answers that.
| carabiner wrote:
| It's working fine.
| zokier wrote:
| https://downfor.io/ssd.jpl.nasa.gov
| carabiner wrote:
| https://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/jpl.nasa.gov
| mulmen wrote:
| Why would this answer that?
| edm0nd wrote:
| wat
|
| https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/
| KoftaBob wrote:
| Are you under the impression that their website is hosted on-
| premises? This ain't the early 90s
| Twisol wrote:
| As an ex-JPLer, it would not have surprised me for this to be
| the case even in the early 2010s.
| mrbluecoat wrote:
| JPL would be a national loss. I hope it doesn't come to that.
| Stay safe, SoCal folks!
| fidotron wrote:
| No joke.
|
| I hope these days it's more spread out and backed up, but at
| one point they did a lot of phyical archiving related to space
| exploration there, including huge amounts of transparencies.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| I hope nothing will be damaged! Those are priceless
| treasures.
| throwup238 wrote:
| All the big campuses here like JPL and the Getty are built for
| this (it's more or less standard now for insuring anything high
| value). They have landscaping designed to slow down fires,
| dedicated water systems, and firebreaks all around the
| buildings. The civilian evacuation order is because the area
| south of the fire is densely built up with single family homes
| without much in the way of defenses and JPL has to comply with
| that.
|
| Thankfully the wind has died down significantly from last
| night, so we're in a better shape, but there are still high
| wind warnings till 6pm and the fires are 0% contained.
| cindycindy wrote:
| Will look into options for supporting these folks. Thank you
| for the level-headed and informative response.
|
| I prefer HN over some other news sources, which seem less
| concerned about presenting information to the degree the news
| article can vouch for. Media literacy is a two-way street and
| we need better reporting standards. If reading and writing is
| a lot like parsing, then anyone who spreads misinformation is
| just a parsehole.
| bragr wrote:
| The Getty Villa has reported that some landscaping burned,
| but the buildings and collections are safe.
|
| https://www.sfgate.com/la/article/getty-villa-threatened-
| pal...
| kaycebasques wrote:
| Map of evacuation zones:
| https://protect.genasys.com/Search?z=9.689266971108566&latlo...
|
| Looks like 3 independent fires?
| 0xffff2 wrote:
| Yep, 3 separate fires. The first in West LA blew up late
| yesterday afternoon and blew through a bunch of residential
| areas by the looks of it. From watching Flight Radar, it seems
| to be getting most of the air resources, although that could
| just be because wind conditions are favorable on that fire
| today. The second fire near Pasadena started yesterday as well,
| but really blew up overnight. The third fire up North I think
| started overnight.
|
| There's been a huge amount of wind throughout So Cal today and
| yesterday that is driving the rapid spread of these fires.
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| I saw a video of of it burning down down houses and commecial
| building Altedena, unlike newscasts where the lip flappers
| are blabbing over everything you could hear the wind howling
| and see streams of embers blowing down the street and
| overhead.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| The lip flappers, as you call them, are providing valuable
| information to people who lived and/or worked in the areas
| where the fires are occurring.
|
| As I type this, ABC7 is providing intersections-specific
| location information for their reporters-on-the-ground so
| that people can track the progress of the fire and
| hopefully determine the status of their houses.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| With much of California, Texas and Florida property damage is
| concentrated where folks built where they shouldn't have [1]. (At
| times nudged on by subsidised insurance [2].)
|
| Is that true in this case, too? (Being so close to LA, it doesn't
| strike me that it could be.) If not, is my general thesis off?
|
| [1] https://www.npr.org/2023/11/06/1204923950/arizona-
| california...
|
| [2]
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09218...
| Dalewyn wrote:
| Deserts are generally uninhabitable by their very nature, but
| these persistent fires are primarily due to lack of proper
| underbrush care and other preventative measures.
|
| California fires are a classic case of _" We tried nothing and
| we're out of ideas!"_, speaking as a former Californian I
| honestly think the faster solution at this point is for enough
| of the state to burn down that pretending the problem doesn't
| exist is no longer good enough.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Deserts are generally uninhabitable by their very nature_
|
| Deserts don't have wildfires. (EDIT: They do!)
| annoyingnoob wrote:
| https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-07-31/york-
| fir...
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| I stand corrected! I guess the rains caused the desert to
| burn?
| rurp wrote:
| Lightning strikes and humans are probably the most common
| causes for fires in the desert.
|
| Most desert areas in the US are a lot more lush than the
| blank sand dunes many people think of as desert. Usually
| there are a lot of bushes and grasses, and higher
| elevations can pine, juniper, oak, and other trees.
| hparadiz wrote:
| It's complicated. More rain creates more natural plant
| growth which inevitably dries out. Some fires are natural
| (lightning strikes) but humans setting fires increased
| the wildfire cadence so the fires are more frequent.
|
| Not really sure what the solution is. We can't really
| just kill all the natural growth during the wet season. I
| imagine we could create wet forests resistant to fire
| with better water management but that could also have the
| exact opposite effect (create more fuel). I'd love to
| know what agriculturally knowledgeable folks think the
| best approach here is.
|
| I own property in the area and I've seen torrential rain
| here the past three winters but this winter is extremely
| dry. I've also had a hurricane here bring east coast
| style humidity in the middle of summer for 3 days giving
| the area a random few inches of rain in the middle of our
| dry summer. The climate here can be two extremes.
| rurp wrote:
| Deserts absolutely have wildfires, and are even pretty
| common in California deserts. The second largest fire in
| the state for 2023 was the York Fire in the Mojave
| Desert[0]. There have been many other sizable desert fires
| in recent years as well.
|
| As with many other landscapes, climate change, drought, and
| aquifer depletion have made deserts increasingly vulnerable
| to large wildfires.
|
| [0]https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2023-07-31/york
| -fir...
| linotype wrote:
| As a current Californian we really don't need that right now.
| grumple wrote:
| Your thesis is way off, and people didn't understand climate
| back when these areas were settled. And really, we still don't
| know how to or can't politically manage wildfires well.
|
| Part of climate change is that this man-induced change is
| making previously hospitable areas much less so.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _people didn't understand climate back when these areas
| were settled_
|
| Agree on Palisades. My original thesis is about new
| construction in Florida and Houston and in _e.g._ the middle
| of the California woods. That is settlement done when we did
| know the risks.
| downrightmike wrote:
| And all the maps are political, like houston is no where near
| correct, its all flood zone
| esalman wrote:
| They've actually stopped permitting new builds or rebuild of
| burned houses in Santa Ana mountains since last year's airport
| fire.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Huh, I'm actually surprised a high-risk area is that close to
| LA. (Santa Monica, no less.)
| xoa wrote:
| To start with the last first, I would argue your general (and
| not uncommon) thesis is off in one key respect: it's not
| primarily (though in some percentage it may be) a matter of
| people building _where_ they shouldn 't have per se, but that
| they built _what_ they shouldn 't have _where_ they did. Ie, it
| 's 100% feasible as a matter of
| architecture/engineering/construction to build a structure that
| will shrug off a Cat 5 hurricane including storm surge. And
| while it adds a real premium, it's also not at some impossible
| cost either. People have done it, and it works. Same with most
| other natural disasters. It's "only" a matter of cost and
| standards. It's worth noting too in many cases societies have
| indeed done exactly that, like with earthquakes, or in areas of
| high risk tornadoes. Building standards have been set to match
| the risk. There is plenty of low hanging fruit that can
| severely diminish the impact of a lot of the disasters causing
| massive damage if it's just standard upfront.
|
| Also, there's the complete polar opposite approach: build
| something "disposable". In the "old days" (including with my
| extended family) there was a style of "summer camp" for example
| that was ultra simple. Some small single floor deal,
| uninsulated, maybe some power but often not even that,
| composting/pit toilet, some simple wood furniture, that's it.
| People bring their own everything, be there for a few
| weeks/months a year, and then go home. Such a structure can't
| survive much of anything but that doesn't matter because it's
| so cheap, if it burns/blows down/washes away once every 5 years
| or whatever so be it. It's a problem though when people convert
| what should be cheap into some full fledged thing, but then
| don't take environment into account.
|
| I think this distinction is super important, because a lot of
| these places are beautiful and desirable much of the time, and
| a blanket "no you shouldn't build there ever" isn't likely to
| be heeded and does not get to the root actual problem, which is
| that the true costs of doing so aren't being priced in. The
| reasons for that distortion are myriad, but that's the actual
| issue. I think it's much more productive and convincing to the
| public to say "it's fine to build where you like, but it's not
| fine to hit other people up for money to cover it or cause
| unreasonable costs to safety services/environmental damage
| (homes burning or floating away means massive pollution), you
| just need be responsible in how you build."
|
| FWIW to specifics:
|
| > _With much of California, Texas and Florida it seems pretty
| clear people built where they shouldn't have._
|
| In some cases sure but in others I guess it'd be reasonable to
| say that things built long enough before anthropogenic global
| warming really kicked off can't be reasonably blamed for that,
| particularly if they correct gauged the risk for themselves
| (ie, someone built something 50 years ago as a life thing and
| it did indeed last the remaining 40 years of their life, well
| you can't really say they got it wrong and built it wrong or
| it's still their problem). What is bad though is new stuff
| getting built or worst of all things getting _REbuilt_ after
| destruction but not to updated standards each time.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Are there estimates for the cost of fireproofing Californian
| construction?
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I never experienced an earthquake, in Tokyo, but those who
| have, say that the buildings wave around like drunk dancers.
|
| Things fall off of shelves, but the buildings seem to come
| out OK.
|
| The Japanese are _hard core_ about building standards.
|
| Compared to other nations (deliberately not gonna name them),
| that have corruption problems, as well as frequent
| earthquakes, you _always_ have a bunch of buildings fall
| down, there 's a surge of anger, a couple of unpopular
| scapegoats get jailed, then, it happens again, the next time.
|
| I have a bunch of friends in the LA area. So far, none of
| them have been in the line of [literal] fire, but everyone is
| freaking out. These fires are under no control, whatsoever.
| wk_end wrote:
| Unfortunately there's increasingly few places where natural
| disasters, of one sort or another, aren't inevitable. The PNW
| also burns regularly now, never mind the enormous earthquake
| looming under us that we're terribly unprepared for. Even the
| northeast is starting to get buried in smoke in the summer and
| hit by storms like Hurricane Sandy. Tornado Alley knocks out
| much of the midwest. What's left of the US? Desert and
| mountains?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _there 's increasingly few places where natural disasters,
| of one sort or another, aren't inevitable_
|
| Sure. That doesn't mean you can't mitigate damage.
|
| Not _e.g._ building on the Houston flood plain is one such
| example [1].
|
| [1] https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-
| texas/houston/...
| vel0city wrote:
| You wouldn't think you'd need to point out building on the
| water side of a levee is a bad idea, even for a "dry
| reservoir", but here we are.
| sapphicsnail wrote:
| I was in Pacific Palisades when the fire started yesterday. I've
| never seen one spread so fast. It went from there being smoke way
| in the distance and people going about their lives normally, then
| 90 minutes later the fire was everywhere and people were
| panicking and evacuating en masse.
| tylerflick wrote:
| It's definitely the worst fire I've ever seen here. Very
| surreal to watch houses burning while walking my dogs this
| morning. The only silver lining are the winds blowing the smoke
| out to sea rather than blanketing Santa Monica.
| bragr wrote:
| I have a good view of the smoke column from Brentwood. I've
| also never seen a fire spread that fast. Same thing, in about
| an hour it went from a small fire to the smoke blocking out the
| sun.
|
| As a testament to the speed of the winds, I've never seen a
| smoke visually move so quickly. Usually at that size and
| distance, they feel more like static objects
| earnestinger wrote:
| What is burning? Mostly bushes or mostly homes?
| ed wrote:
| Folks say the same thing about the 1991 Oakland firestorm. If
| there's a fire in your area, pay attention and don't assume
| it'll be contained, the situation can change very quickly.
| throwup238 wrote:
| I live south of the evacuation warning zone and the wind and
| fires have turned the entire San Gabriel Valley into an
| apocalyptic scene. Detritus littered all over the roads (with
| tons of dry flammable eucalyptus branches, yay!) and there's ash
| falling from the sky in big flakes. Air quality in the tank
| though it was even worse a few hours ago and everything smells
| like smoke.
|
| This is the worst fire I've seen in SoCal since the Valley fire.
| trhway wrote:
| One can imagine an IR monitoring (satellite or high flying drones
| like Reaper, one drone can see an IR source like a tank from
| 100km, so it would take just a few drones to monitor the the
| whole state for fires) with [almost] automated immediate
| dispatching of the fleet of drones (not small quadcopters, more
| like WWII size bombers) once the fire is detected. Would be much
| cheaper than having multi-billion dollar fires every year.
| jkaptur wrote:
| https://wifire.ucsd.edu/firis-in-depth
| trhway wrote:
| they use manned planes for monitoring - very costly and not
| scalable. And there is no "water-bombing" drone fleet. The
| manned "water-bombers" are extremely expensive, there is only
| small number of them and they actually carry pretty small
| amount of water as they are mostly helicopters or retrofitted
| passenger planes.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _it would take just a few drones per the whole state_
|
| What are you basing this on? Being able to see something once
| you know it's there is a different problem from detecting it in
| the first place.
| trhway wrote:
| there is no issue in detecting. You sweep the area. The IR
| sources like a tank - pops up like Xmas tree even on
| relatively cheap IR from 10km (there is a lot of footage from
| Ukraine war for example). A house fire would easily pop-up
| even from tens of km. A acre size fire - it would pop-up even
| on coarse grain IR from space.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _house fire would easily pop-up even from tens of km. A
| acre size fire - it would pop-up even on coarse grain IR
| from space_
|
| Both of these produce lots of smoke. Neither can be doused
| by drones.
| trhway wrote:
| >Both of these produce lots of smoke.
|
| i suggest you view a bunch of real IR footage.
|
| > Neither can be doused by drones.
|
| I'm pretty sure 20 tons of water would douse a house
| fire. It would take 10 flights of an F8F Bearcat sized
| drone. Though the F8F is an overkill built for speed. One
| can carry 1-2 ton with much simpler plane today for that
| purpose.
|
| An acre size fire - an acre-inch of water is 100 ton. So
| 10 drones 10 flights at 1 ton/drone.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _suggest you view a bunch of real IR footage_
|
| For what? Apologies, I've only seen it in respect of
| projectile telemetry. (Much more sensitive than what
| you'd need for a fire. And no, three couldn't detect
| every launch across California because the Earth isn't
| flat. Fire detection is already incredibly accurate, and
| it's done from satellite.)
| tanseydavid wrote:
| >> Neither can be doused by drones.
|
| Identification only by drone. Then the dousing is done by
| conventional means, but dispatched locally.
| esalman wrote:
| There's no air support to contain fire because of dangerously
| high wind. Asking for drones now is like a dumb person's idea
| of cheap science fiction.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| I think they're talking about dousing when it first lights.
| That isn't "a dumb person's idea." But it _is_ presently
| beyond our capabilities, to say nothing of the huge privacy
| problem it would entail.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| They're talking about both detecting _and_ dousing. Note
| they mention two different kinds of drones (a few monitor
| drones, and then a fleet of drones to deploy and douse).
| The monitor drones could be practical, we 've demonstrated
| that loitering sensor drones work well in other domains.
|
| Depending on the sensor payload (what it's looking for) and
| how the data is stored and used, it wouldn't really entail
| a huge privacy problem unless you show up on IR sensors as
| well as a fire.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _it wouldn 't really entail a huge privacy problem
| unless you show up on IR sensors as well as a fire_
|
| If you're hoping to do better than sighting a smoke
| column, you will absolutely have to be. We're not at a
| loss of detecting entire houses burning.
| Jtsummers wrote:
| To violate your privacy an IR sensor would have to be
| able to pick out people (98 degrees Fahrenheit, approx.)
| and put them on a map. Versus a sensor tuned to an actual
| fire which is substantially hotter and larger.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Versus a sensor tuned to an actual fire which is
| substantially hotter and larger_
|
| Again, at that point you're no longer adding value over
| the _status quo_. We don't have a problem detecting large
| fires near population centres.
| nomel wrote:
| > Asking for drones now
|
| He did not. It would be worth re-reading his comment. He's
| pointing out that we _do_ have technology that could help
| with _containment_ : quickly identify fires, communicate
| their location, and dispatch some local water carriers. He's
| also surmising that the cost of keeping these active would be
| less than the cost of damages, which could very well be true.
|
| Something like a Reaper drone, which he specifically
| mentions, works fine in the wind, as do the water carriers,
| that fly at hundreds of miles an hour, that have been
| actively helping this whole time.
|
| I think this is probably all true, but probably not the
| future since it would require a competent state government
| who embraces tech.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| Putting the cameras on flying platforms actually limits
| their functionality because the platforms have to be
| refueled/recharged and rotated out on a constant basis.
|
| Water carriers fly close to the ground and make sharp turns
| because they need to pick up water and make targeted drops,
| so they are heavily affected by the wind. The water
| carriers weren't able to start flying until late this
| morning/early this afternoon due to the winds being too
| strong (>75+mph gusts).
| crazygringo wrote:
| You're currently being downvoted, but I'm genuinely curious --
| is continuous IR monitoring from the sky an effective way to
| detect wildfires earlier?
|
| Or are small fires indistinguishable from a million other hot
| objects, until the point where they get large enough to detect
| reliably, it's already obvious to everyone on the ground from
| the smoke?
| 0xffff2 wrote:
| Yes, it is effective. We have several NASA/NOAA satellites
| with IR instruments on them that are used for fire detection.
| These are obviously much more useful for detecting fires that
| start in very rural areas under moderate conditions. The
| current crop of fires in LA are all very close to populated
| areas and spread _fast_ , so satellite mapping wasn't of any
| use for detection. Also, California in particular has a
| really great fleet of IR mapping planes that give
| firefighters and the public much more detailed fire
| information than the satellite coverage, but when I lived in
| Oregon where they don't have a similar system, the satellite
| coverage was often the most up to date information on fire
| perimeters.
| maxerickson wrote:
| Seems like it would be logistically difficult to be able to
| drop a significant amount of water anywhere in, say, 15
| minutes.
|
| With dry conditions and high winds, that is an extremely
| slow response to an uncontrolled fire...
| atonse wrote:
| I'm not so sure. In nVidia's keynote, they had an example of
| small smoke plumes identified as potential fires. If you had
| a drone hovering over a particular city to monitor fires, it
| could potentially be an early warning system, no?
|
| And to others that said that the winds are dangerous, do
| quadcopter drones (which tend to be more stable anyway) have
| algorithms to account for that?
| bsder wrote:
| It could be for fires on normal weather days.
|
| The problem is that with these winds and humidity small fires
| become huge fires before anybody can react. Once they are
| huge fires, detection isn't the problem.
| carabiner wrote:
| Your cost analysis is both thorough and thought-provoking.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| The problem is not identifying fires. That's the easy part. As
| I watched the local news last night, I was able to watch (along
| with the anchors) the real-time growth of the Eaton fire from a
| tiny fire near the campgrounds into a behemoth. This morning,
| the local news covered the real-time development of 2 new fires
| (both were quickly contained).
|
| The problem is fighting fires in steep, mountainous terrain
| filled with dryed out brush and trees when the winds are so
| strong (hurricane-strength gusts) that you can't provide any
| air support. The problem is that the winds were so strong last
| night and this morning that burning embers in the air could fly
| to and light structures _miles away_ (which is how most of the
| current fires in Altadena started).
| chiph wrote:
| Some coworkers had to evacuate. One of them was woken up last
| night by their doorbell camera sending multiple alerts because of
| the high winds.
|
| I hope everyone gets to safety.
| Gibbon1 wrote:
| Friend of mine had to evacuate and then watched his house burn
| down on the news.
| segasaturn wrote:
| Los Angeles Fire Department funding was gutted by over $23M only
| a few months ago. The fires are currently being fought by a
| skeleton crew of remaining fire fighters and volunteers. Can't
| say if that funding would have prevented it, but cutting it
| definitely has not helped.
|
| Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/08/los-angeles-
| fires-m...
| defrost wrote:
| Someone _tweeted_ $23 million .. your linked article (thank you
| for source) follows that with: City budget
| documents show the department's more than $800 million budget
| decreased by around $17 million compared to the previous budget
| cycle.
|
| Which makes the cuts _less_ than %2.12
|
| "Gutted" as a descripter seems extreme and the details that
| matter are whether these reductions simply trimmed fat, or
| denied something essential that would have made all the
| difference here.
| segasaturn wrote:
| I'm not sure why the percentage matters? Whether it's 2% or
| 20%, it's still millions of dollars that could have been used
| here. More broadly, why are we _cutting_ fire department
| budgets when wildfires are becoming more frequent, more
| intense and a year round phenomenon due to global warming? If
| you want to trim fat in the government there are much bigger
| targets to go after than an essential service like
| firefighting.
| Redoubts wrote:
| Are you for real?
| Twirrim wrote:
| Agreed. I don't see anything from a google search that
| suggests that they cut the number of firefighters, either.
|
| Hyperbolic statements like "gutted" are just meant to get the
| knee jerk, frothing at the mouth "retweet" kind of reaction,
| and it seems to be being successful at that.
| sneak wrote:
| For reference the LAPD budget is $175 million per month.
|
| The fire budget was cut by $17.6 million for the year, the 23M
| cut was proposed. The police budget was increased by $126M for
| the year.
|
| For context, the LAFD annual budget is $820M and the LAPD
| annual budget is $2140M.
| ChrisClark wrote:
| 2% means gutted? 2% less funding means only a skeleton crew is
| left?
| llamaimperative wrote:
| Depends: did it have a lot of excess capacity before the
| cuts?
| ravenstine wrote:
| I really don't understand how SoCal and Califonia residents in
| general find the the state's response to wildfires in the last
| decade to be acceptable. Not only have fire departments seen
| cutbacks, but so has the forestry needed for preventative
| measures.
|
| What really bugs me is what I find to be a disinterest and lack
| of belief in vastly expanding the fleet of water dropping
| aircraft. Letting fires burn to the extent that they have been
| isn't cheap, to put it lightly. Somehow, a state that is one of
| the largest economies in the world can't or won't expand its
| aerial response such that fires of the scale we are seeing
| become a thing of the past. With satellite technology, it
| should be possible to identify wildfires as they begin and
| immediately deploy hundreds if not 1000+ planes to dump water
| from the Pacific and reservoirs, while drones go ahead of them
| to confirm that an out-of-control fire is actually in progress.
| 383toast wrote:
| is there a wildfire tracker?
| xeromal wrote:
| https://app.watchduty.org/
|
| This one is pretty good
| ninjha01 wrote:
| [delayed]
| jdbrown wrote:
| https://www.fire.ca.gov/
| tsbischof wrote:
| https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents
| earnestinger wrote:
| I see there are three separate fires several km apart. How do
| they start so synchronously?
| gamblor956 wrote:
| They didn't.
|
| Palisades started Tuesday morning in someone's backyard. The
| Eaton fire started last evening near one of the campgrounds.
| The Hearst fire started late last night around 10pm (suspected
| cause was a vehicle fire from an accident that spread to the
| side of the road).
| llamaimperative wrote:
| The conditions that make one fire likely make others likely
| too...
|
| Extreme dryness, high wind, failing electrical infrastructure,
| overburdened emergency response.
|
| Also embers can easily be blown miles away to ignite another
| "new" fire.
| mempko wrote:
| Global warming doing it's thing.
| nxm wrote:
| Wildfires have always occurred, just that mansions are now in
| the way
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-08 23:00 UTC)