gunnergoz Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 There are all flavors of them, aren't there? Why are we always having to choose between "the lesser of two weevils?" (With apologies to Russell Crowe ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bodkin Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Every time there are large fires in Australia alot of people start giving their opinions on fire management of the Australian bush. I work for a for bushfire authority and I can tell you one thing, you can't generalise about fire in Australia. Every residence near bushland has different factors that effect it's vulnerability to fire, from the materials and design of the structure itself to the surrounding vegetation types and terrain - mainly slope and aspect. Most houses burn from ember attack rather than direct flame contact, in the right wind conditions embers can rain down several kilometres ahead of the main fire front. Politicians and the public often equate the number of hectares burnt in hazard reduction to an increase in bushfire safety. This is a dangerous and foolish assumption although I've seen politicians proudly boast that there has been an increase in total hectares burnt without giving specifics. The best practice at the moment is a combination of strategies, that is to conduct hazard reduction burns and create asset protection zones (basically areas of mowed grass) in bushland close to residential property and to require those properties to be built to recent planning guidelines for properties next to fire prone areas. Some property developers have argued that the guidelines are too restrictive and don't allow the property owner to fully utilise their land and put onus back on whoever owns the nearby bush. Whatever the strategies are under the right conditions houses are always going to put under threat, we saw this in Canberra in 2003 when 400 homes were lost. Many of the properties had football fields of cleared land between themselves and the fire, but when embers are coming horizontally at 60kmh at your home across open paddock your home is going to be threatened. I could rave on, but I wont. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Can't you just sprinkle some brominated flame retardant from airplanes across the whole state of Victoria? Okay, maybe all residents and other fauna would die of cancer, but at least it's a slower death. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 I can tell you from our experience in California that brush fires are going to be destructive, no matter what - and in firestorm conditions, no one is really safe and no property can be guaranteed to survive. But there are things you can do to lessen the risks and to give people a chance to escape or at least take shelter. That's what I think the local governments need to be doing over there right now - no matter what the developers say. But if they have the juice and the ear of the politicians, then it's tough going. People just have to put their collective foot down and say, "no more." And you also have to be willing to stand up to the tree-huggers to whom wide safety belts and fire breaks are anathema. They can't have it both ways - you want to live out in the brush, you take your chances or you prepare for the inevitable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orwell Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 My condolences to for all those who suffered loss firestorm, but it does lead to another disaster question. I recently heard that it's the government who will be paying to rebuild the coast line of texas after the hurricane, but is there insurance being paid for living in the path of a storm? Or on floodplains? I'd hate to see tax payer dollars go to those who get their home rebuilt from government money because they chose to live in the path of destruction. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 Well, hell yes I think of the children...I want them to inherit a free country, not a paranoid fascistic police state that jumps every time a Mullah farts in the Middle East. You're moving to Australia? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted February 11, 2009 Share Posted February 11, 2009 You are, however, front-and-centering it and imbuing it with fear-laden rhetoric. Sorry I scared you with the bogeyman. As for everybody else, well, it is a wargaming forum. I figure they can handle the concept of an asymmetrical attack. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 http://www.stuff.co.nz/4843703a1861.html :eek: Lars: Scared me? The only one Chicken-Littling about tewwowists is you. Re-read my first post. I'm laughing at you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted February 12, 2009 Author Share Posted February 12, 2009 http://www.stuff.co.nz/4843703a1861.html :eek: Lars: Scared me? The only one Chicken-Littling about tewwowists is you. Re-read my first post. I'm laughing at you. Good story and fairly indicative of others I have read. The family is lucky they had a dad who kept his head and kept them all alive. There has also been some great laconic interviews with Steve Irwin types describing their half an hour at the centre of a firestorm. "I realised me sandals had melted and I thought 'Bugger it. This is gettin' serious.'" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Lars: Scared me? The only one Chicken-Littling about tewwowists is you. Well, if we discount Australian newspapers, I suppose so. Re-read my first post. I'm laughing at you. Guess we're both having a good laugh then, aren't we? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25047497-2703,00.html THE arson investigation into the Black Saturday fires has become a hunt for one or more mass murderers, with police uncovering evidence indicating the inferno was deliberately lit at a number of places. Victoria Police Chief Commissioner Christine Nixon has confirmed that police now suspect the fires that destroyed the town of Marysville last Saturday and decimated the neighbouring communities of Buxton and Narbethong, northeast of Melbourne, were the work of arsonists. Premier John Brumby said there were fresh arson attacks in the same region as late as Wednesday night, with a dangerous grassfire at Mansfield also deliberately lit. This came as police continued to investigate whether a serial arsonist was responsible for lighting the Churchill fires in Gippsland, in Victoria's east, which killed at least 21 people. Lovely, possible multiple nutters. And they're still flipping matches. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Well we have one less to worry about now: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25048866-421,00.html hmm done for both arson and child pornography - he'd be doubly 'respected' by the community down here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 His legal aid defence lawyer suggested that his client was psychologically unwell. LOL Ya think? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 You're moving to Australia? I may think about it if the GOP herds yet another administration and congress to the brink of disaster, this time from the minority. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted February 15, 2009 Author Share Posted February 15, 2009 It now seems likely that the most costly fire in terms of lives may have been started by some sort of power line discharge. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REVS Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Not sure if this is true, but in a business meeting today one of our senior figures says that he's been told that during Victoria's power privatisation several years back, the company (a Korean one, he said) which purchased the power lines was given a limited liability guarantee cap of $100 million in damages for any reason (bushfires of course being a most likely problem). And so now we might be faced with a $500 million or more damages liability if the power line faults are to blame, yet the people responsible are only up for $100 million of that total. The remainder? Paid for by the taxpayers, the ones who sold the whole electricity generation and distribution to the company in question, and for how much? It turns out that this will probably be for a sum that's less than our government's damages liability now, according to the senior, well-informed (but not infallibly well-informed) guy at today's meeting. Anyone with a better level of knowledge of this topic care to enlighten us? Hopefully, the senior guy is wrong this time round. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted February 17, 2009 Author Share Posted February 17, 2009 Well I would venture to suggest that it would be pretty hard to sell a power grid to someone if they were up for unlimited liability now and forever more. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 Thought it was Singapore Electric? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.