- Joined
- 23 March 2005
- Posts
- 1,943
- Reactions
- 1
The speed of a fire front advancing will double with every 10 degree increase in slope so that on a 20 degree slope, its speed is four times greater.
Spotting can occur up to 30 kilometres downwind from the fire front.
Agreed with what you're saying.As for keeping vegetation green. There's a very big drought on people. When water gets scarce you have to make choices about what gets some and what doesn't.
I'm not saying people couldn't have prepared better, but let's not leap to conclusions just yet. How about those of us not directly affected allow for the possibility that at least some of the people who died were not stupid and did make preparations. Sometimes you just can't prepare for what actually happens.
Ghoti
Is there any way people can donate aside from to the Red Cross?
I dont want to donate to that appeal as i saw an interview with the CEO of the Red Cross and he said all the funds would be managed and distributed by the Vic government, and I dont want the gov handling the money i donate cause they wont be efficient with it.
In 2006 we had serious fires around Hobart with both the Eastern and Western shores alight. That night, driving a couple of km from where the fires had been contained to, I saw someone throw a lit cigarette butt out their car window. Let's just say that is the first and only time I've committed an act of road rage...IMO the idiots that casually flick a burning cigarete butt from their cars are just as criminal as the arsonists that deliberately light fires. When they catch whoever lit these fires that have claimed lives, they should be charged with murder and be put away for ever.
It's a similar situation between the states. NSW, SA and Tas have all sent people to help in Vic but to a large extent that didn't happen until after the inevitable meetings etc decided it was necessary.I'm not wanting to blame anyone. It's too late for that now. I'm just offering what I believe is an additional under-utilised resource as a possibility for inclusion in a plan for future catastrophic fire events, which forecasters are predicting to become more common over time.
Ackshully I only half agree with what I was sayingAgreed with what you're saying.
My point about keeping vegetation around houses green is that we should have built dams, pipelines, desal, water tanks or whatever years ago so we had the water to do it. In engineering terms, that problem is fixable.
Great suggestion. I'd opt for more than $50 to be diverted in this way.4) Finally what is the chance that Rudd will rejig his $42 billion package to reduce the amount given to all households and send the difference to the people and communities so far affected ? I think it would make far more sense socially and financially. Getting $900 rather than $950 and knowing we were part of the communities support for flood and bushfire sufferers would be a good look.
The Manager of Centrelink was asked about this on radio interview today.i
now wonder how those people will cope getting centrelink money if they have no identification ???????
All the banks have been collection points for the Nth Qld flood victims.Is there any way people can donate aside from to the Red Cross?
I dont want to donate to that appeal as i saw an interview with the CEO of the Red Cross and he said all the funds would be managed and distributed by the Vic government, and I dont want the gov handling the money i donate cause they wont be efficient with it.
Just one little comment to make. If someone loses a loved one, their house, clothing, pets etc due to a 'one off' electrical fire, then other than perhaps a note on the news, there is little attempt to help these people yet they have lost as much as most in these bushfires. They certainly dont receive anything from either State or Federal governments. I just think there is an inequity in how we deal with 'major crises to the masses' as opposed to 'major crises to the individual'
I'm thinking of the research done after the Canberra fires a few years ago. Basically, those who kept the garden green were less likely to have the house burnt than those who didn't water.Ackshully I only half agree with what I was sayingAn enormous amount can be done by changing the kind of vegetation you plant and maintain around houses.
I'm not sure about the place of big water infrastructure. In emergencies like these fires it's very likely that you'll have to rely on local and individual water storage and pumping (because the power is out). OTOH, bringing water in before the emergency helps maintain local supply. OT3rdH, if it was possible to pipe water around from place to place as easily as switching electricity around the grid, how would you know where the next really big fire emergency was going to be? And OT4thH, dams, pipelines and water tanks can't make the rain fall.
Ghoti
I'm thinking of the research done after the Canberra fires a few years ago. Basically, those who kept the garden green were less likely to have the house burnt than those who didn't water.
I'm not saying that a green lawn is going to stop a bush fire. It won't. But if proper research (by CSIRO from memory) has found there's some benefit in having a well watered garden then I think people sould be free to use (and pay for) as much water as they find necessary to achieve that. .
Just one little comment to make. If someone loses a loved one, their house, clothing, pets etc due to a 'one off' electrical fire, then other than perhaps a note on the news, there is little attempt to help these people yet they have lost as much as most in these bushfires. They certainly dont receive anything from either State or Federal governments. I just think there is an inequity in how we deal with 'major crises to the masses' as opposed to 'major crises to the individual'
Not saying of course, that we shouldnt be doing everything we can in this crisis, but maybe we should also think about other situations too.
I completely agree, Smurf, even just as a general principle distinct from fire considerations. It's ridiculous that because of proper planning and provision of infrastructure, people should have to live with such austere water restrictions.We don't run a planned economy in anything other than water - the Premier doesn't run around telling you how many apples to buy or how many cashew nuts to eat with threats of fines for anyone who disobeys the order. People decide what amount to use and purchase it. Let them do the same with water and build whatever supply is needed to meet that demand. It's not as though there's physical scarcity of the stuff when you've got individual rivers in Tas and northern Australia flowing more out to sea than the entire consumption of Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth combined.
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?