|
Post by trevor on Feb 10, 2009 23:22:49 GMT -4
Jason,
The fires over here are unusually large, 40 degrees C plus temperatures for days before hand.
A huge amount of natural fuel around because the environmentalists have lobbied to put an end to controlled burning - which rids the bush of much of the dead and fallen debris when the conditions are right to do so.
Plus strong winds just seem to add up to a really large fire storm. Many people chose to protect property as many do in these situations, but many fled and were caught by the 100km hour flame front and burned in their cars.
You just can't believe how fast the fires move if you haven't seen it for yourself. Balls of burning gases jump roads and fire breaks and start more fires. The Aussie bush is to a certain degree regenerated by fire and cetain seed pods don't even open unless they are burnt.
It is an unusual and very sad event.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Feb 11, 2009 0:32:27 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Feb 11, 2009 0:43:34 GMT -4
A huge amount of natural fuel around because the environmentalists have lobbied to put an end to controlled burning - which rids the bush of much of the dead and fallen debris when the conditions are right to do so. What are the right conditions for a controlled burn? How do they prevent it from getting out of hand? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerro_Grande_FireI hope this doesn't sound like I'm being argumentative. I'm just curious because I remember hearing about the Cerro Grande Fire on the news when it happened. How can they stop a controlled burn from turning into an out-of-control inferno?
|
|
|
Post by trevor on Feb 11, 2009 3:42:12 GMT -4
Ideally a controlled burn is not done in the middle of summer in 40 degrees.
They usually start in Spring, they do sections at a time creating perimeters which burn into themselves. They obviously do a lot of homework on when to start them. They are carried out by the Dept of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) in conjunction with the Fire Departments. They have gotten out of hand a couple of times but no where near as bad as an unplanned bush fire and are always brought back into control.
Every body in Perth who has a sizable property is required by law to have a 20 meter (I think, don't quote me) Fire Break.
The thing is because they are done regularly you have less chance of free running infernos which end up uncontrollable.
Bush fires will happen in Australia - it is a matter of fact. Controlling when and where they burn saves lives.
And I am sorry to any environmentalists out there but a child's life is far more important to me than the nesting ground of the silver crested, sulfur breasted, pygmy, bent foot cockadoodoo.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Feb 11, 2009 6:18:00 GMT -4
PeterB: I read somewhere a few years ago something about Australian bushfires being much worse than in many countries due to inflammable oils in some of the trees. Is this true? I don't recall exactly what was said and have not found anything else about it. What trees, exactly? Tea trees and eucalypts are the only ones I know of that have oils, but I don't know if they are inflammable. Yes, it's the eucalyptus trees (colloquially called gum trees). The leaves are full of tiny sacs of oil. When you put them in fire, the sacs expand and explode. That's why footage of burning gum trees can be so spectacular when the leaves catch fire. However, where other trees are destroyed by the loss of their leaves, gum trees which have lost their leaves to fire can grow interim leaves directly out of branches and trunks (which leaves have a special name, but I can't remember the name as it's *ahem cough* years since I did Year 10 Biology). These leaves keep the tree alive until it can regrow proper leaves. The effect is slightly funny, as from a distance the trees look like they're wearing thick fur coats. One of the more unpleasant after-effects of the Canberra bushfire in 2003 was that it was windless for several days after the fire, so the smoke pall hung over the city - Mother Nature just making sure we didn't forget what had just happened.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Feb 11, 2009 6:42:44 GMT -4
230 deaths seems like an awful lot of casualties for brush fires. I don't think we ever hear of more than two or three deaths with any wildfire in the U.S. What's the cause of the disparity? There are almost certainly several factors at play here: 1. There were a lot of fires, and small numbers of people died in many different locations, adding up to many casualties. 2. Apparently some local councils encouraged people to plant trees right up to their houses, rather than promoting open space around houses. 3. The nature of these fires is that flying embers can cause spot fires kilometres ahead of the main fire front. In the hot, dry, windy conditions of the day, this could cause fires to expand much faster than the authorities could track, leading to... 4. A number of survivors have complained that they got contradictory advice from authorities. So it's possible that some people were given advice that was sensible on the basis of the evidence the authorities had at the time, but which quickly became incorrect or even dangerous advice. 5. The authorities promote the strategy of getting out early or staying to fight. Sadly, I suspect a lot of the deaths were of people who decided to stay, then panicked and tried to get out when it was far too late. 6. People were unaware of the exact dangers of fire and were unprepared to fight it. A reporter for one TV network spoke to a couple who were planning to defend their home with a garden hose and a plastic watering can. That's just silly. 7. People were unaware of how to protect themselves. Apparently if the fire comes, the best chance of survival comes from finding somewhere to hide from the radiant heat, which would pass with the fire front in only a couple of minutes, leaving the house to burn afterwards. Being in a burning house is a dangerous but survivable option. Wandering around in the open in a bushfire when the trees are burning isn't survivable. 8. I suspect a lot of people didn't have a plan for dealing with a major bushfire. So when they decided to escape, they dithered over what to take with them. 9. The lack of hazard reduction burning I'm not so sure about, though I won't rule it out. My concern is that it's an argument produced every time a major bushfire occurs, yet it's clear that hazard reduction burning does happen (my brother-in-law is in the Volunteer Bushfire Brigade and has been involved in such activities. 10. Despite the flammability of the bush (sorry, "bush" here means rural land generally), people like living out there. Over the last few years there have been a couple of lifestyle shows about people making the "Tree Change" (as opposed to the "Sea Change" - moving to the coast) and moving out to semi-rural communities. Me, I'm an urban animal - I'd much prefer to live where the amenities are only a few minutes away, whether by car, bus or bicycle.
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Feb 13, 2009 17:58:36 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Feb 15, 2009 9:31:41 GMT -4
A friend of mine in the Australian Skeptics who lives in the bushfire region sent a message to an email list which many Australian Skeptics belong to. It included this information about why the fires were so deadly:
For those of you who are Celsius-deprived, 40 degrees C is 104 degrees F, and 48 C is a little over 118. In other words, warm.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Feb 15, 2009 18:26:34 GMT -4
And 100km winds would be around 60 mph.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Feb 17, 2009 11:01:40 GMT -4
Like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson blaming 9/11 on feminists, pagans, liberals, etc. Fred Phelps is probably the most extreme example of this. According to him, pretty much everything bad that happens (Virginia Tech massacre, Sago Mine disaster, STS-107, combat deaths in Iraq, the 2004 tsunami, the 2008 murder of Tim McLean in Canada) is a result of God's wrath against homosexuality. I prefer to think of such disasters as God's wrath against us for not publicly executing loud-mouthed judgmental fundamentalist preachers.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Feb 20, 2009 1:16:25 GMT -4
And now comes the aftermath...
On the one hand, some Australians have been amazingly generous - an appeal has so far raised over $120 million.
On the other hand, there are people making death threats against the man charged with arson, but also, I understand, his relatives and the relatives of his former girlfriend. And a number of people have been making a fast buck out of generous people by claiming they've been collecting money for the bushfire appeal, or stealing money being collected for the appeal.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Feb 20, 2009 1:18:11 GMT -4
Oh, and apparently that Westboro Baptist guy over in America has been blaming the fires on gays in Australia.
Never mind the fact that most people who died in the fires weren't gay, and that in fact many of the people who did die were Christians...
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Feb 20, 2009 9:37:37 GMT -4
Never mind the fact that most people who died in the fires weren't gay, and that in fact many of the people who did die were Christians... Hmmm, indiscriminantly killing numerous people in order to coerce others into particular behavior... sounds like Phelps is casting God in the role of terrorist.
|
|