Thread: Australia's worst fire disaster!

Here is wishing that all our members and their family, down under, are safe and sound!
FOXNews.com - 76 Dead, 700 Homes Destroyed in Australia's Worst Fire Disaster - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News

My prayers are with you!

I'd like to add my best wishes as well. Anyone in the Victoria regions affected are in my thoughts.

James.

Yeah its not good,

Been all over the news, last count was up over 70 ppl i think,

Whole towns are gone, they were saying its like a nuke aftermath of destruction

Forest fires are no issue here, so I might be missing something, but wouldn't sufficient clearance between the town and the forest solve the problem? The forest would still burn, but the houses would be relatively safe. Or at least the dangers would be manageable. I think

It always surprises me that many forest fires are arson cases. I never understood what the fun was in causing so much destruction and damages.

Houses weren't catching on fire they were exploding. This was the mother of all fire conditions. People who had followed the emergency bush fire plan that had held them in good stead for fifty years or still perished.Looks like they are going to have to re write the book after this one.

Brian

Yes, but stilll... 100 m of clearance between the fires and the villages would have prevented the fires from getting so close they'd be a thread. Or not?

Bruno, if you cut down the trees grass grows where the trees used to be. In a bush fire grass burns just a fast as the trees. The only really safe place is in the center of town where everything is surrounded by concrete. But on this occasion even that wasn't enough to save them.

short grass can still burn, but it has very little fuel so after the initial burn it woudl die without posing a significant threat. Or at least the hazard would be manageable. It could even be torched in advace in controlled circumstances so that the forest fire has no fuel at all. The only caveat would be that there should be no bushes etc which can develop in fuel sources.

I have seen places in france and spain where they did this, and I was told there are people whose job it is to make sure that nothing bigger than short grass grows there.
They do this to prevent entire forests from burning.
As an additional bonus, you get lots of skiing pistes in the winter, because they carve out sections of forest from hillcrest to valley to compartementalize the forest.

Even if the grass is kept short, all it takes is a single spark during a drought.

Yes I know, dry grass will burst into flames with nothing more than a spark.
It dies out quickly enough, and any secondary fires can be contained.
And as I said, it could be torched in advance of the high risk season.

But if the entire village is surrounded by trees right up to the building line, then it is virtually impossible to douse the fires near the houses, and the fire is unstoppable.