🚀 go-pugleaf

"Phred" <ppnerk@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b18jrl$10oelg$1@ID-151056.news.dfncis.de...
> In article
<3e373697$0$8831$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
> "Terry Russell" <trochilus@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> >"Don H" <donlhumphries@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> >news:KCBZ9.35338$jM5.90040@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> >> Which raises the question of what is the best type of
"fire fighting
> >unit"?
> >> I assume that country fire trucks were originally
merely an extension of
> >> metropolitan means of fire fighting - they need roads
or similar access;
> >> carry water, which is heavy; and hoses.
> >> Bushfires are often in inaccessible terrain, can move
with considerable
> >> speed, etc.  This is where aerial attack seems much the
best method.  Fire
> >> trucks are alright in open terrain.
> >> Water is a scarce resource.  What does it do? Smother
the fire, and dampen
> >> the fuel.  Any alternatives? Probably not.
> >
> >None really, apart from prayer, it can't hurt.
> >
> >Water falls from the sky, plants grow, water stops,
plants dry,
> >water stops for a long time, everything burns.
> >
> >There isn't a lot you can do to stop that cycle.
> >There is nothing you can do to completely protect large
areas
> >of fuel.
>
> Well you could burn it more frequently and at a better
time of year
> for controlling the blaze.

and change the vegetation make up substantially to more fire
loving types

>
> Although this is the sort of thing that the aborigines did
to manage
> the landscape, it occurs to me that maybe they didn't just
do it to
> facilitate hunting etc. as we've been told.  Given the
sort of fires
> you get down in southern Oz at this time of year, wouldn't
surprise me
> to learn that the locals used to burn as a matter of
community
> survival as much as for any other reason.

Or perhaps they burnt even less then everyone gives them
credit for and this current event is of a natural and re
occuring type - old age snow tree rings tend to support this
view -

when europeans moved in and burnt to "clean up the land" and
get "a green pick" the whole makeup of the landscape strted
to change with the bush "scrubbing up" and funny thing
requiring a continuous need to burn to prevent the bush
"scrubbing up"

Early europeans into the high country were quite impressed
by the "park like" appearance of the country and immediately
assumed it was because of regular burning and using good
logic decided if it was burnt more it could only get better
! see above.

A reasonable body of evidence seems to suggest that a lot of
this country was in fact in a climax community of tall open
forest with grassy understory and we disrupted that by
regular burning and that it would will take between 50 and
100 years to return to that climax community


>
> >The only real strategy is hit spot fires with everything
available before
> >they can develop. That takes time and costs to have
machines and people on
> >standby for long periods over wide areas.
> >There are hundreds of smaller fires stopped without much
fanfare for
> >each major fire that takes hold. Each one costs time and
effort.
> >
> >If that fails then the fire teams clench their
magnificent buttocks and
> >protect high
> >value items only, and hope there are assets left for the
next fire coming
> >from the other direction, and spot fires 5km behind the
line.
> >You stop a fire today, the same area is still fuel
waiting to burn tomorrow.
> >
> >Not even a solid line of carriers backed by a river could
stop a full storm,
> >they just spot over the river.
> >
> >A very light rain from local clouds passing by can do the
same job in
> >a few minutes as thousands of people with hundreds of
tankers.
> >
> >A 4 tonne mechanical cloud can give a light drizzle , at
1kg/m**2 = 1mm
> >50x80 metres, similar to a road tanker but much more
expensive to
> >operate. On a 40C day that area is ready to burn again in
an hour,
> >with 50km/hr winds a fire wouldn't even stop at the
edges, just
> >burn right through and spot over.
> >
> >
> >There should be more of them, there are a lot of things
that could be
> >done better in a perfect world with unlimited finances.
> >
> >Maybe in the future pilotless drones and robots could
move quicker,
> >be on standby cheaper and do the dangerous work
> >...something for you to work on  ;-)
>
>
> Cheers, Phred.
>
> --
> ppnerkDELETE@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
>