Christmas wildfire destroys more than 100 homes in Australia

[rooster59]

Christmas wildfire destroys more than 100 homes in Australia

SYDNEY (AP) — More than 100 houses were destroyed by a Christmas Day wildfire that tore through a stretch of coastline popular with tourists in southern Australia, forcing thousands to flee their homes, officials said Saturday.

Cooler weather and light rain on Saturday eased the immediate threat from the blaze along Victoria state's scenic Great Ocean Road, but officials warned that it could continue burning for weeks.

No one was killed or injured in the fire, said Victoria Emergency Management Commissioner Craig Lapsley.

"You've got to stand proud to say that people are with us — that is, they've walked away from the fire that had every potential to be a killer," Lapsley said.

Hundreds of firefighters spent Christmas battling the blaze, which was triggered by a lightning strike. The fire destroyed 116 houses in the small towns of Wye River and Separation Creek, Lapsley said. Many of the properties destroyed were holiday homes.

The fire has temporarily closed a section of the Great Ocean Road, which winds along Victoria's coastline and past the region's famed "Apostles" — a collection of giant limestone stacks that jut dramatically out of the sea.

Destructive wildfires are common across much of Australia during the southern hemisphere summer. In 2009, wildfires killed 173 people and destroyed more than 2,000 homes in Victoria.

-- (c) Associated Press 2015-12-26

[thaibeachlovers]

Can anyone explain why they don't go in with chainsaws and just clear cut around the houses when fires are likely to destroy them?

[14 the other side]

Often it's not the direct fire threat which destroys homes, but the blown glowing embers which can come ahead of the fire-front by many kilometres/miles which is the true hazard.

I tried to find a wildfire related explanation, but the best I could do was this one from Australia. Seems quite comprehensive though.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s794270.htm

The video is quite good, if sad to watch.

[ripstanley]

In Australia they are called bushfires not wild fires

https://www.google.co.th/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=bushfire

[thaibeachlovers]

Often it's not the direct fire threat which destroys homes, but the blown glowing embers which can come ahead of the fire-front by many kilometres/miles which is the true hazard.

I tried to find a wildfire related explanation, but the best I could do was this one from Australia. Seems quite comprehensive though.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s794270.htm

The video is quite good, if sad to watch.

While that seems like a reasonable explanation, if everyone had a swimming pool and a pump, they could surely wet down the houses so that the embers didn't start a fire. That, combined with clear felling might work, but doesn't seem to have been tried. No doubt there are some greenie laws saying that they can't cut the trees in there somewhere. Personally, I'd have to question the wisdom of building in a fire risk area at all- equal to the stupidity of building on a flood plain and then complaining when the house gets flooded.

[Mot Dang]

Can anyone explain why they don't go in with chainsaws and just clear cut around the houses when fires are likely to destroy them?

Because dopey local civic county councils wont let you.

[Mot Dang]

Often it's not the direct fire threat which destroys homes, but the blown glowing embers which can come ahead of the fire-front by many kilometres/miles which is the true hazard.

I tried to find a wildfire related explanation, but the best I could do was this one from Australia. Seems quite comprehensive though.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s794270.htm

The video is quite good, if sad to watch.

While that seems like a reasonable explanation, if everyone had a swimming pool and a pump, they could surely wet down the houses so that the embers didn't start a fire. That, combined with clear felling might work, but doesn't seem to have been tried. No doubt there are some greenie laws saying that they can't cut the trees in there somewhere. Personally, I'd have to question the wisdom of building in a fire risk area at all- equal to the stupidity of building on a flood plain and then complaining when the house gets flooded.

These bush-fires can travel at 80kph and faster. They come through like a tornado, creating their own weather patterns as they advance, cyclonic superheated tubes. The big fires have so much rising heat they can carry large burning embers 20km.

[BookMan]

Often it's not the direct fire threat which destroys homes, but the blown glowing embers which can come ahead of the fire-front by many kilometres/miles which is the true hazard.

I tried to find a wildfire related explanation, but the best I could do was this one from Australia. Seems quite comprehensive though.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s794270.htm

The video is quite good, if sad to watch.

While that seems like a reasonable explanation, if everyone had a swimming pool and a pump, they could surely wet down the houses so that the embers didn't start a fire. That, combined with clear felling might work, but doesn't seem to have been tried. No doubt there are some greenie laws saying that they can't cut the trees in there somewhere. Personally, I'd have to question the wisdom of building in a fire risk area at all- equal to the stupidity of building on a flood plain and then complaining when the house gets flooded.

I've lived in a couple of fire zones, where the fire has come up to the boundary. Hoses were set up in the swimming pools with generators.. Most houses had someone on the roof with a hose, doing what u say, wetting it down and watching for embers.

The area surrounding the house should be cleared every fire season to reduce the fuel load on the ground

There are areas declared fire zones now and they have increased insurance premiums and restictions on further building in at risk areas

[Pepper1959]

Western Australia I think, is the only state which has 'prescribed burning' which is controversial in itself, but it does prevent a large build up of fuel for fires, which occurs on the floors of forests in the Eastern States. Whilst the state does have devastating forest fires, they are not to the level in the other states and the loss of property and lives is limited. Where there is loss of property, it tends to be because the government has cut back on its programme.

[Gillyflower]

I spent a lot of time in Wye River when I lived in Australia. After Geelong the scenery is just magnificent along that road all the way to Apollo Bay. I feel so sad.

[ripstanley]

Western Australia I think, is the only state which has 'prescribed burning' which is controversial in itself, but it does prevent a large build up of fuel for fires, which occurs on the floors of forests in the Eastern States. Whilst the state does have devastating forest fires, they are not to the level in the other states and the loss of property and lives is limited. Where there is loss of property, it tends to be because the government has cut back on its programme.

All states and territories have prescribed burnings. Check Google and you will see.

[BookMan]

Western Australia I think, is the only state which has 'prescribed burning' which is controversial in itself, but it does prevent a large build up of fuel for fires, which occurs on the floors of forests in the Eastern States. Whilst the state does have devastating forest fires, they are not to the level in the other states and the loss of property and lives is limited. Where there is loss of property, it tends to be because the government has cut back on its programme.

All states and territories have prescribed burnings. Check Google and you will see.

We called it back burning but now they call it Hazard reduction burning in NSW

http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/fire-information/hazard-reductions

[BB24]

I am not sorry much for those that have built houses where IMO they should not be allowed to build houses and have lost them due to the inevitable bushfires. IMO it is about time all Aust State Govts reviewed housing laws regarding placements of property buildings close to the most destructive and fire-prone tree in the world - Eucalyptus trees. And yet again, like other years, other people to risk their lives saving them and/or their property. Whilst it is obviously OK for farmers and many people that live in rural areas, the ones I have a problem with are the ‘tree huggers’ that plant their house right in the middle of Eucalyptus forests – thinking they are being ‘at one with mother nature’. These people have put their houses right in the middle of forests of Eucalyptus trees - in a country that always has and always will have annual bushfires – they get little sympathy from me.

Some years ago I went through a Vic town that had trees right up to the side of most of the roads and all the buildings were surrounded by trees - literally less than 10-20 feet all around every house I could see. I remarked that it looked to me like the place was a fire trap, and the garage attendant told me to go back to that polluted concrete jungle that I had come from (with a few expletives added). Some years later (2009) that same town, and many others like it in the Region, lost many lives due to several huge bushfires. That year over 150 people died and over 400 people were injured from bushfires. And what is that region like today? Not much different from what it was back then – the trees and houses have ‘grown’ back – another series of bushfires like those bad ones and more lives will be lost.

We have laws in Australia to make people protect themselves (which unlike here are enforced) whether they like it or not – like wearing a helmet when riding a motorbike, or a seatbelts when driving a car. IMO they should make laws against people living in houses that are basically fire traps. Don’t believe me? Look at this house from the current lot of those burnt in this XMas period (sent by Bro from Aust) – that town I saw and many others are worse (trees tighter together and bigger).