jf..makes some..interesting,,points

<<..do not live..in the bush..or grasslands.>>

in-side COMBUSTIBLE*homes

for example:

1. Not living..in a..POTENTIAL/HOT-BURNING..fire prone area.
2. Having cement sheet>>[OR WATTLE AND DAUB][MUD WALLS]

OR BETTER DOUBLE BRICK..OR SOLID STONE..OR EARTHEN/WALLS
OR HIGH QUALITY..INSULATION[FIRE PROOF WINDOWS..AND A SEALED ROOF
[NOT TILES]..[that lift up..and allow hot-ember .entry todried dustu roof..and vermin nests

BAN..<<timber and facia boards..AVOID GUTTERS

<<and windows facing the source of fire
and where radiated heat..is likely to come from.>>

compulsory..drop down shutters
door sealing means..and install barriers..
[noncombustible]..earthen..or rock/walls between house and fire

<<..3...Having all roofing gaps filled>>

fining peoople for each hole
canceling..insurance for lack/of disclosure

install a..plus value for home rebuild..where any previous home was razed[some areas should not be allowed to/be built on[unless it can prove its capable of surviving


<<with copper fly wire where roof meets gutters.>>

better no gutters/at all
if water is to be collected....regulate the attachments..of gutter to house[or collect it when/it falls to ground..by diversion[minimize animal poop contamination

anyhow..its enough/for you to..think/about it
but we should not be building wherever you..like IRRESPONSIBLY

if ona flood plane

it must withstand a flood
if in a tidel plane it must survive an extreme tide

or..if in a volcano..or in..the sky..
or the sea..or the suburbs..itmust be fit for purpose..as well as adverse event survivable and asset proytecting

while we are talking about fire
industry/high rise/etc..is subsidized by the poor foools in the suburbs[its time.the exploiters of the workers..covered their own costs]..we teach..their workers..we heal..their ills..we the people pay for them;/after their useful working life expires

its time the exploiters payed

<< That is a head-in-the-sand attitude. You are advocating continuing growth in fuel load such that when a fire does eventually come through >>

Raycom, please read my whole post. I said:

>> Hazard-reduction burning is of enormous importance <<

How do we burn the canopy in cool conditions? How do we do it without a high-intensity fire which is very hard to control?

We might be able to do it to some extent in areas well-removed from houses and other infrastructure, but in many instances, we can’t do it close to human habitation.

Yes, we can conduct cool fires to reduce the fuel load in the understorey close to built-up areas. But they would need to be very low-intensity fires so as to not risk getting into the canopy and possibly becoming uncontrollable.

While this sort of fuel reduction would reduce the risk of fires starting and spreading to some extent, it can’t do a lot to reduce the prospect of fire-storm events that occur in extreme conditions.

These are the devastating events that we really need to get on top of. It would seem that conducting much more extensive fuel-reduction burning seriously risks creating a false sense of security. Yes we need to do it, but it is certainly not the whole answer.

continued

One of the biggest problems with hazard-reduction burning is that an awful lot of it would be need to help protect all the areas where we silly humans have built houses and other infrastructure next to or into eucalypt forest, but it can only be done when the conditions are right. This means that a huge amount of burning off would be needed to be done in small good-condition time periods…. but there simply isn’t the man-power to do this.

And the risk of very extensive controlled burning getting out of control occasionally is very high. The destruction of someone’s property or infrastructure due to a controlled burn would hit the news very quickly and bring the whole burning-off business into disrepute.

In short, it is all very difficult to do in a manner which significantly reduces the hazard and which doesn’t create a false sense of security.

ludwig/quote..<<..And the risk of very extensive controlled burning getting out of control occasionally is very high.>>

yes i many/places too..high to..risk/even..burning
BEFORE THAT IS EVEN ATTEMPTED..fuel load must..MUST BE RELEASED

that means fining/those with too much fuel load
[a huge/fine because what fire did for/free..NOW WILL TAKE MAN-HOURS..to clear..the fuel-load/safely..if thats done..only then can the..fire continue its servive

<<..The destruction of someone’s property or infrastructure due to a controlled burn would hit the news very quickly and bring the whole burning-off business into disrepute.>>

yes
now its the time top send in..the greenies
not when/its a wild fire[..one dollar of prevention..could halve insurance premium..a little education[and DIS-incentive]..will go a long way

<<..In short, it is all very difficult to do in a manner which significantly reduces the hazard and which doesn’t create a false sense of security..>>

till we can clear it manually..safely at an affordable price
why..we must all bear..the cost..opportunities..lost
and the fools get/bailed out..yet again

we elect fools..we got usefull idiots
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15741#272974

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15664#272972

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15734#272969

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6119#177248

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6115#177258

JF Aus says, "I think anyone who believes Australian indigenous people deliberately burned their place of living, is very lacking in common sense".

I really can't imagine how anyone could get it more wrong.

Firstly nomadic people have no place of home. When they have reduced the resources in one area, they move on. In fact many are always moving on.

Secondly much burning was to drive game to the hunter. Every other effect of burning was secondary. Yes it opened the cover making game more visible, & reduced noisy litter, making it easier to stalk game, but these were minor considerations.

More importantly, much Oz tussock grasses actually produce fresh green shoots, even in severe drought, when burnt. In drought such burnt areas may be the only green pick available for many miles, & thus concentrates the game, for easier hunting.

Sure the burnt areas will take longer to recover from a concentrated grazing like this, but that is of no consequence to a nomadic people.

JF you are thinking like a homesteader, even graziers have had to burn "their place of living" regularly to still have a place of living. One of the main problems with the grazing industry today is lack of burning. Profitability is so poor that graziers can no longer afford to lock up large tracts of their properties for a year at a time.

Unless this is done, there is never enough grass to carry a fire, hot enough, to burn out the seedling trees. So many properties can be seen with the ever thickening tree cover that ultimately turns them to useless thickets, even kangaroo avoid.

Hasbeen,

Well said, was thinking the same myself.