Breaking news from ANU. Don't build where the fires are

Nylex_Clock said :

HiddenDragon said :

wycx said :

Insurance premium implications?

I would think so – particularly if we persist with tree protection rules which prevent householders from acting upon Government (and other, such as this, from the ANU) advice to reduce the fuel load close to their homes. This is the “inconvenient truth” I had in mind at #4.

Like the idiots in charge of the National Park who have periodically tried to ban the lighting of fires in the Park in order to ensure the fuel load builds up unhindered.

I think they need to take a step back and think about this in a more holistic way: thousands of years of human vandalism created Australia’s fire-prone Eucalyptus forests. Could it be time for humans to now set this right?
Could we not have a new policy which would,
a/ encourage and facilitate removal of Eucalypts, wherever present
and
b/ ensure that any future replanting be done using only the less fire-prone species of plants which formed the pre-Eucalyptus Australian habitats before humans came here and $#@%ed it all up?

Not all eucalypts are fond of fire. Been up to Cabramurra and seen the millions of dead trees?

Old joke from my days in rural land management: definition of a greeny – someone who already has their bushblock.

More seriously, does anyone seriously believe that hazard reduction is enough in itself? All it does is slow the firefront down enough to give the fire fighters a chance, and you need all the other measures as well if you are serious about protecting property. Or just build somewhere sensible.

HiddenDragon said :

wycx said :

Insurance premium implications?

I would think so – particularly if we persist with tree protection rules which prevent householders from acting upon Government (and other, such as this, from the ANU) advice to reduce the fuel load close to their homes. This is the “inconvenient truth” I had in mind at #4.

Like the idiots in charge of the National Park who have periodically tried to ban the lighting of fires in the Park in order to ensure the fuel load builds up unhindered.

I think they need to take a step back and think about this in a more holistic way: thousands of years of human vandalism created Australia’s fire-prone Eucalyptus forests. Could it be time for humans to now set this right?
Could we not have a new policy which would,
a/ encourage and facilitate removal of Eucalypts, wherever present
and
b/ ensure that any future replanting be done using only the less fire-prone species of plants which formed the pre-Eucalyptus Australian habitats before humans came here and $#@%ed it all up?

wycx said :

Insurance premium implications?

I would think so – particularly if we persist with tree protection rules which prevent householders from acting upon Government (and other, such as this, from the ANU) advice to reduce the fuel load close to their homes. This is the “inconvenient truth” I had in mind at #4.

Insurance premium implications?

c_c™ said :

Instant Mash said :

And a resounding ‘Duh!’ was heard throughout the city…

Pretty much sums it up. You are not going to get people to sterilise their surrounds and live away from the bush, particularly in Canberra. And even if you did, two of the biggest dangers that became apparent during the 2003 fires was not the location of houses, but the location of critical public infrastructure. You had the potable water catchment severely damaged and you very nearly had the chlorine tanks at the LMWCQC go up. Both of these are located in bushfire prone areas and can’t reasonably be moved.

So it’s redundant to research this, much like it’s redundant to put Kj on fast food boards or smoking warnings on cigarettes. The money would be better spent on wild area fire management research and technical research into building and infrastructure design.

It’s not redundant when fat neck-beards on the internet will say “do you have scientific evidence published in a peer reviewed journal that relying solely on HR burning isn’t effective?” and even more pertinent when a lawyer in a court asks “what evidence is there that people shouldn’t rely solely on HR burning to protect houses in bushfire areas?”. But I’m sure the aggregated wisdom of other fat neck-beards on the internet will be sufficient.

Instant Mash said :

And a resounding ‘Duh!’ was heard throughout the city…

Pretty much sums it up. You are not going to get people to sterilise their surrounds and live away from the bush, particularly in Canberra. And even if you did, two of the biggest dangers that became apparent during the 2003 fires was not the location of houses, but the location of critical public infrastructure. You had the potable water catchment severely damaged and you very nearly had the chlorine tanks at the LMWCQC go up. Both of these are located in bushfire prone areas and can’t reasonably be moved.

So it’s redundant to research this, much like it’s redundant to put Kj on fast food boards or smoking warnings on cigarettes. The money would be better spent on wild area fire management research and technical research into building and infrastructure design.

And a resounding ‘Duh!’ was heard throughout the city…

HiddenDragon said :

“It does make one wonder however, how many houses in Canberra are further than 700 metres from bushland?” – I think that’s what’s known as an inconvenient truth.

No, it’s just the bleeding obvious. Residences in city centres are not likely at risk from bushfire. I presume what they are trying to indicate is, how far from bushland to you have to be to be relaxed. And they seem to be saying that’s 700m. That’s useful information to know, if someone approaches you in a panic on a Catastrophic Fire Danger day, as happens to me when I am dressed yellow.

IP

There is a bit more detail in their Conversation article https://theconversation.com/which-homes-will-survive-this-bushfire-season-20072

IP