Cecil
 |
Backburning is a method of lighting fire ahead of the fire front to burn out ground to extinguish the main fire. It is known as an indirect fire fighting technique. Backburning needs to be carried out very carefully or it could make the main fire worse or endanger fire fighters. Under the conditions faced on Saturday fire fighters were involved in defensive fire fighting. It would have been too dangerous to light back burns.
Hazard reduction is a technique of reducing bush fuels. The intention of this is to try and reduce fire intensity. Hazard reduction works well with most fires. Under severe fire weather conditions however areas that have recently been hazard reduced may still burn fiercely. In my area I am aware of a large fire where the fire burnt though an area at night and several days later burnt back over the same area.
Many of the fatalities seem to die in motor vehicles. Late evacuations are very dangerous. Hazard reduction is part of the strategy to protect life and property. It is not a silver bullet though. Community education, enforcement of construction standards, development of household fire action plans all contribute to improving community safety.
Lets not concern ourselves too much with what could have been done better. There will be time for that soon and their will be Govt enquiries and Coronials. Right now the victims and their families require our full attention. |
|
uolÇɯɹÇʇÉÊ
|
no, it would not have any difference at all.
Why? because what really turned these fires so violent was the high wind speeds which was going with the fire. high winds and fire make up to be very violent, and embers can jump extremely far with the aid of the wind. You must also consider that most of the country is in drought, making trees and debris more susceptible to catching on fire.
This fire covered a very large area, with some fires merging. I pray for those affected and hope that we get more rain! |
|
Elizabeth
 |
Possibly I suppose but more than likely not.
But I'm not an expert on bushfires.
These fires were rising 40 and 50 metres into the sky, I don't think any amount of back burning would have stopped them.
It's a little early to start second guessing the reasons for this disaster, other than the facts we have which are -
High temperatures
High winds
Drought
And the major reason Arsonists (read mass-murderers). |
|
rustupd
 |
no
the fires were jumping very far with the hot strong wind's
any back-burn at the time would just have got out of control & as there has never been fires like that before nobody had made firebreak's for such a fire(if possible to make them that wide) |
|
ayelbee
|
No. The winds were so fast and strong that there would have been no time to do anything. Even those who tried to outrun it in cars found that fire travels too quickly and the smoke was so dense you couldnt see through it which is why most of them died in their cars.
I live in Melbourne, trust me the wind on Saturday was unbelievable and the temperature so high it was like a furnace. I can only imagine what it was like with the added heat off the fires.
Dig deep if you can, there are a lot of people who need the help.
Update: Tuesday morning 10/2/09 - Number of confirmed deceased now risen to 173 with more still expected.
Everytime I see the figure climb I go numb. I cannot fathom how the families of 173 people are coping. Please, if you live in Australia and havent donated but can I ask that you try to give something to the appeals. These people are desperate...they have lost their homes and loved ones and need our help and support. |
|
Power Flower
 |
Being from the Sunshine Coast where they do do a lot of backburning... and remain pretty much bushfire free, it's usually my first thought.
I don't think it would have helped this current disaster though. The weather conditions have just been too extreme for too long. My heart goes out to everyone affected - don't forget to donate to the Salvos and Red Cross everyone!! A lot of people will be needing a lot of help. |
|
Warren S
|
It would have left much less fuel for the fires to feed upon. Some extremist greenies have a lot to answer for. |
|
iansand9876
|
No |
|
dwetzlerbed
|
Well yes... (i think) but how do you choose where you will back burn? Each year somewhere diffeent goes up in flames... you can't predict where a fire will begin and you can't burn the entire bush. How can you predict when someone will decide to light a fire?
But even back burning doesn't always work. I live in an area where in the winter we often have some backburning to clear for the summer but in summer... a fire will burn that area anyway.
Besides with backburning they only burn the base of trees and most of Australia's fires are firestorms and they just jump from the tops of the trees to the tops of the trees. The eucalyptus trees explode and then all the burning leaves float on and start more.
There is no way to know when to back burn where and when. |
|
I Live In Paradise
 |
many people will be thinking the same as you
no one will really know the answer to that
i would no it would have made no difference at all |
|
Conan
|
they are back burning but this fire is massive and nothing can whole towns gone in minutes |
|
Airhead Oz
|
I'd say it may of stopped some of the fires, but no one could prepare for what has happened. |
|
Mel
 |
They do back burn in most bush fire prone areas. Unfortunately, bush fires aren't picky, they will jump up anywhere.
Even if you back burnt the 90% of the land that is no occupied, the fire would just jump up where you haven't back burnt.
The idea is good in theory. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
News
Travel Topics
Travel Forum Travel Directories
Dictionary 
Travel
Forum 
Australia 
No Spam
Adult 
Gambling
Unfinished
Deception
Plagiarism
Not English
