Anons gathered a LOT of info on this in the beginning, when Q brought it up - it's all on the spreadsheet for you, with source links
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Efm2AcuMJ7whuuB6T7ouOIwrE_9S-1vDJLAXIVPZU2g
And since it was very early on, it will be right up top, for your convenience.
Maybe, but it doesn't kill Kudzu, unfortunately.
NOT TO WORRY!
Your friendly neighbohood archiveanon found it for you:
CPF (CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS): Budget Cuts Sacrifice Firefighter and Public Safety
April 30, 2013
https://web.archive.org/web/20130430083609/http://www.cpf.org/go/cpf/news-and-events/news/budget-cuts-sacrifice-firefighter-and-public-safety/
At a time of increased fire danger and already depleted fire services, budget cuts are causing longer response times and putting both citizen and firefighter lives in danger.
In Los Angeles, examples abound of lives and property lost due to insufficient staffing. Last July, the LAFD permanently lost four ambulances, nine paramedic units and eighteen fire companies. But rather than addressing unsafe staffing levels, LAFD Chief Brian Cummings is unilaterally imposing a dangerous plan to remove firefighters from twenty-two truck companies. His plan is vehemently opposed by the United Firefighters of Los Angeles County (UFLAC) and the Chief Officers Association (COA) because of the increased risk to firefighters and to public safety.
Yesterday UFLAC and COA held a joint press conference to address the proposed staffing cuts at the scene of a fire in North Hollywood that resulted in one fatality and three injuries. Task Force 60 was first on the scene, and happens to be one of those slated to lose a firefighter in Cummings’ plan. Seconds mattered in this fire and having a fully staffed truck certainly saved lives. According to Frank Lima, UFLAC President, with Cummings’ plan in effect, “there would have been more fatalities at this fire.”
This archive is from the earliest date - April 30, 2013
Some are rude, it's true.But you haven't responded to niceanon who asked genuine question to you… >>10583746
^^^^ This is the way to analyze, anons.
Welp, I guess what ever anons or twatterfags not mutually exclusive) sent to Jack was successful.
Glad to see, very glad.