This is a ridiculous statement. There are 180 people dead. Clearly these plans have been 100% proven to NOT WORK.
In North Queensland when there is a cyclone off the coast, even if it is not an immediate threat, there are regular short television and radio broadcasts giving location, speed, direction and status - these broadcasts interrupt the running program, last for about a minute and are accompanied by a loud siren sound. They are extremely effective and if ever there is a cyclone about it would be extremely difficult not to know. I'm not sure of the exact intervals, but as a cyclone becomes a threat to an area they shorten - e.g. it might be once every couple of hours if the cyclone is a day or two away, down to every 30 minutes if the cyclone is presenting an immediate threat.
The loud siren sound accompanying the warning is a very effective psychological tool to instill genuine alarm and make the listener alert to possible threat - also everybody in the region knows that if they want to know where the cyclone is there will be an update on its exact position, speed and direction at regular intervals. This allows them to make their own decisions on whether it is safer to seek shelter at the location they are at or whether they realistically have time to attempt to move to a safer place.
Were these sorts of warnings in place in Victoria?
Bushman...the idea of underground bunkers is to avoid the radiant heat.....are you saying people underground would still be exposed to it....
or did people just have the containers on top of the ground ???
So are you saying that it's a given or a fait accompli, that people will have to build underground bunkers beneath their properties in Victoria CF? And if so would you say because of the lack of precipitation within the old-growth forest areas of Victoria or because it's a naturally occuring event that people should prepare and protect themselves for?
http://www.melbournewater.com.au/content/water/water_storages/water_storages.asp?bhcp=1
Bushman said:They've had bunkers before (in the Dandenongs) and the problem was that people suffocated in them due to the vacuum that precedes the fire. If you can secure the air supply, then it would be an effective measure against the radiant heat.
Evacuation, particularly at a late hour, does sound impractical so some sort of measure for surviving in-place seems like the better area to focus on.prospector said:They would needed to have evacuated most of country Victoria
As for the CFA, their manual has not caught up with a warmer, drier Victoria. I am not interested in this insidious 'climate change' debate; the reality is that Victoria is experiencing drier summers and a lack of rainfall and, in these conditions, the fuel load of the fire means that some fires will be 'unsurvivable' no matter what training local inhabitants have.
We don't even know how these people died!!!
Many I bet would be fleeing last minute or defending an ill prepared home.
How many people survived because of the plans????????
Just last night the Deputy Chief Officer was saying that these plans are still the best we have.
All the work emails i receive are stating the same.
Science has proven it and years of practice backs it up.
I stand by my statement.
The cost of providing wide fire breaks, maintaining them and repositioning houses would be enormous. At least there is a chance in parts of Victoria to do this. Where will the fire be next time though?If similar climactic conditions that preceded the Victorian fires were to occur in SE Qld (and nothing can be ruled out) the devastation in Brisbane's so called leafy suburbs would be horrendous. Thousands of homes are hardly visible from the air. Many back yards and gardens are indistinguishable from the surrounding bush.
And more and more retirees are opting for a "tree change" rather than a "sea change."
181 deaths <> success.
25 years ago, Ash Wednesday, 75 deaths.
This time 180+ deaths.
No changes = another tragedy some time in the next 25 years.
Of course there will be changes!
Read my previous posts - The CFA will adapt if it finds a better way to protect the community.
My beef is you said the current plans failed 100%
WHICH IS WRONG.
Of course there will be changes!
Read my previous posts - The CFA will adapt if it finds a better way to protect the community.
My beef is you said the current plans failed 100%
WHICH IS WRONG.
Clearly these plans have been 100% proven to NOT WORK.
Early evacuation in extreme conditions, it was obvious what was going to happen on Saturday when the forecast came out on Friday.
There has to be more clearing, environmental groups that opposed clearing can go bury the dead from this disaster.
Do you think there needs to be more clearing next door to all the major water catchments in Victoria, Mr Burns?
Sam,
Current plans did not fail 100%. Some peoples plans worked, some did not have adequate plans. In some instances the plans failed.
There are many stories of people who got out of their houses after the fire had passed, to see the house destroyed behind them. They are complaining that the plans failed, yet staying in the house until it was unbearable was probably what saved them. Yes I acknowledge that it did not work all the time, but it was not 100% wrong.
brty
By 'plans' I'm not talking about the advice given to individuals by the CFA, I'm talking about the way that the State responds to a bushfire crisis.
Clearly the current mechanisms that have been implemented both prior to and during the crisis have been shown not to be succesful in preventing a large loss of lives.
So I stand by my statement:
Whatever the State government has been doing for the past 25 years since Ash Wednesday in 1983 and whatever plans were actioned just prior to and during this crisis failed to prevent a repeat occurrence.
Thus it has clearly not worked and there is 100% evidence of this, because we have had a repeat and actually a far worse outcome.
I'm not sure why you would need that ? to get access to water ? I'm not with you there.
Well I was talking about CFA bushfire plans and never mentioned The Government
so I guess you've made a misstatement on my original post.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?