Any farmer who exports live animals to the Middle East or SE Asia should have to do three trips on the bottom decks of any of these ships, with excrement falling all around them and into their food and water. Then they should be crammed into, and transported all over the Middle East in substandard trucks or car boots in 45+ degree heat as their animals are, with their legs hobbled together. Then they should watch the general handling and brutal slaughter practices, with animals stacked on top of each other, hobbled, and stabbed with blunt knives until they bleed to death. So much for the teachings of the Qu'ran. More than 40,000 animals die each year just on the ships (and these numbers rise every year), and sadly, they are the fortunate ones. This trade is an abysmal collective shame on the Australian conscience. These countries are exporting meat to other countries from Australian animals, so who are the idiots here?
Comments
Dirty livestock carriers in Australian ports
I too thank you Stoptac for bringing this matter to our attention. While DAFF et al boast of this country’s biosecurity efficiencies, it appears that stringent safeguards do not apply to those who operate foreign flagged livestock vessels.
In view of the global emerging and re-emerging zoonotic outbreaks in livestock now impacting on humans, I would ask if these same carriers are transporting non-Australian livestock on other trade routes around the world? Regardless, some animal pathogens are air-borne and can be deposited far from their source through clothing, shoes and dust adsorbents. I would be interested in knowing the names of overseas ports in which crew members disembark and embark. Additionally, I have not read of any requirements for these foreign ships to fumigate their vessels prior to re-entering Australia waters.
These animals, which are crammed into these filthy vessels, are exposed to one another's waste. For a virus or bacteria capable of jumping between species, the live export industry is providing the perfect place to reproduce. Recently, two New Zealand sheep were found to be infected with Scrapies a disease related to BSE or Mad Cow Disease.
There is no scientific data or collated data from across the scientific spectrum to ascertain how Australia’s live export trade is impacting on marine life. Thousands of tonnes of animal waste and millions of macerated and contaminated livestock have been dumped overboard as marine fodder.
This industry conveniently overlooks the critically important fact that zoonotic pathogens can move back and forth among species, mutating and changing their characteristics in the process.
It is an established fact that Australian livestock are force-fed hormone growth promotants and antibiotics in their feed. In addition, Australia continues on its ecologically destructive path by using bioaccumulative, endocrine disruptive and carcinogenic chemicals on pasture crops which are then ingested by livestock. The use of endosulfan has been banned in 56 countries but not in Australia. Add the carcinogenic Atrazine and that is one toxic soup which is contaminating Australia’s livestock and biodiversity. Persistent man-made organic pollutants are chlorine based where dioxins are formed through chemical reactions.
The recent tragic bushfires in Australia have released massive amounts of dioxins which are transboundary and have no respect for geographical borders. Synthetic farm and residential chemicals have all gone up in smoke – pesticides, insecticides, solvents, plastics, asbestos, fuels etc. Gaseous depositions will have landed on pastures, crops, land and waterways, including fodder production thus further contaminating the entire food chain. The ecological situation in Australia, I believe, is grave and the situation is further exacerbated by the livestock industry’s penchant to dupe developing countries into buying even more of our cloven hooved livestock, which continue to desecrate these arid lands.
In view of the live exports’ ramifications on marine, animal and human health, it is astonishing that Islamic countries regard Australia’s live animals as “halal.”
And by the way....
Mr Boyles,
Your comment is self-contradictory and contradicts the material from Michael Clarke that you cite. My own impression is that you are a troll. Whether or not you really are here simply to make a nuisance of yourself, you are being a nuisance at a time and on a subject of deep concern in Victoria. I am therefore blocking your access as a contributor.
Sheila Newman
(Editor)
Gregary Boyles wrote:
After contacting Michael Clarke of the Latrobe Uni Zoology Department he stated that his studies are intended to back a zero burn policy contrary to the way some of you have attempted to misrepresent his studies.
This abstract from the scientific paper that you are no doubt referring to:
Catering for the needs of fauna in fire management:
science or just wishful thinking?
Michael F. Clarke
Department of Zoology, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Vic. 3086, Australia.
Email: m.clarke@latrobe.edu.au
Abstract. Ecological fire management in Australia is often built on an assumption that meeting the needs of plant species will automatically meet the needs of animal species. However, the scarcity of ecological data on the needs of fauna in relation to fire undermines the confidence managers should place in current popular frameworks for planning ecological burning. Such frameworks are built almost entirely around the goal of maintaining plant community diversity. They provide little guidance to managers regarding the characteristics of desirable ‘mosaics’ (e.g. patch size, connectivity or composition of age-since-burnt classes) or the timing of fires in relation to faunal population trends linked to other cycles (e.g. El Niño events). Claims by agencies of adopting an adaptive management approach (‘learning by doing’) to cope with a dearth of knowledge are credible only if monitoring and evaluation are carried out and future actions are modified in light of new evidence. Much monitoring of fauna is of such a small scale and short duration that the statistical likelihood of detecting a positive or negative effect of the management regime is minute. Such shortcomings will only be overcome through broad-scale and/or long-term studies of fauna. The funding for such research is unlikely to be forthcoming if fire ecologists and land managers convey the impression that the current data are adequate for the implementation of the current planning frameworks.
merely re-states what I have been constantly stating. I.E. That environmental burning regimes need to be tailored to EVC, local site and weather conditions, species specific conservation requirements, etc, etc.
Note this statement particularly:
"regarding the characteristics of desirable ‘mosaics’ (e.g. patch size, connectivity or composition of age-since-burnt classes)"
Perhaps you should
Gregary,
I think you are right.
If you are a genuine environmentalist and sincerely believe that we are a "bunch of loopy environmentalists" (which I would have thought was an oxymoron, anyway) then you are wasting your time here.
If, however, you change your mind and decide to continue with your participation in this discussion, then I ask that you refrain from using any abusive or insulting language from now on.
Most of us cop enough of that on a number of other online forums and certainly don't need any more of it here.
Also, I expect people to debate fairly.
If we see, for example, repetition of previously stated points without acknowledgement of subsequent countering arguments, we reserve the right to either delete the offending posts or move them elsewhere in order to preserve the usefulness of this discussion to ourselves and to other people.
Farmers should travel with their stock on these death ships
I once met a sheep farmer who live exports his sheep to the Middle East, I was reading the Weekly Times (farming newspaper) and he said to me are you a farmer, I said hardly I just like to know exactly what farmers are up to.
He said I am a sheep farmer, I asked him if he live exported his sheep he said yes I have a truck load leaving my farm this morning heading for Portland I think it was, I said how do you sleep at night knowing what your sheep will be forced to endure, he said he slept very well. Tried to tell me that he had heard about the barbaric treatment of animals in the Middle East but did not know much about it, seriously as if he would not know.
Farmers who live export should travel on these death ships with their stock, then they should watch as their animals are brutally treated and killed.
Well Sheila perhaps you are
Well Sheila perhaps you are right after all.
Perhaps I should cease investing my time and energy into arguing with a bunch of loopy environmentalists who are largely ignored by the conservation mainstream any way.
Will remove my email address from the subscription so that I am no longer aggrevated by your idiotic postings.
Abusive comments not acceptable
G. Boyles,
You consistently fail to take on board that the WORST hit areas in the fires were those which were burned back many times and logged and relogged and thinned. Picking and choosing bits to suit your prejudices out of a larger article is not helpful to knowledge. Neither is repeatedly posting abusive comments. No other correspondent on Candobetter is handing out abuse; why do you feel that you should be an exception to this? Why blog on an alternative publication when you are entirely happy with the propaganda peddled by the Murdoch and Fairfax Press? If you think a debate is over, why the big fuss? Play the ball, not the man, Mr Boyles, or expect your account to be suspended. On the other hand, read with an open mind and respond with an open heart and we may all learn something.
Sheila Newman,
Editor
This is all well and good but...
"A new scientific paper published in the CSIRO journal Wildlife Research by Michael Clarke, an associate professor in the department of zoology at La Trobe University, suggests the answer to both questions is: we do not know. What we do know is a lot of precious wild places are set on fire, in large part to keep happy those householders whose kitchen windows look out on gum trees. Clarke says it is reasonable for land management agencies to try to limit the negative effects of large fires, but we need to be confident our fire prevention methods work. And just as importantly, we need to be sure they do not lead to irreversible damage to native wildlife and habitat. He argues we need to show some humility, and writes: “The capacity of management agencies to control widespread wildfires ignited by multiple lightning strikes in drought conditions on days of extreme fire danger is going to be similar to their capacity to control cyclones.” In other words, sometimes we can do zip."
This is referring to deliberately lit back burning operations but what is ripping through the prom is a natural bushfire that was ignited by lightening.
We do not have the resources or water to extinguish the number and extent of natural fires occuring at present.
But if environmental burning was carried out on a 10 - 15 year cycle at a few thousand hectares at a time (50000/15), or what ever was agreed to be appropriate for the prom heath lands, then perhaps these lightening ignited fires would be considerably less damgaing to wildlife when they did occur.
By the way there have already been reports of some native grasses re-sprouting at Kinglake and of a few Kangaroos or wallabies starting to sniff around for fresh sprouts.
Like I said....
"A new scientific paper published in the CSIRO journal Wildlife Research by Michael Clarke, an associate professor in the department of zoology at La Trobe University, suggests the answer to both questions is: we do not know. What we do know is a lot of precious wild places are set on fire, in large part to keep happy those householders whose kitchen windows look out on gum trees. Clarke says it is reasonable for land management agencies to try to limit the negative effects of large fires, but we need to be confident our fire prevention methods work. And just as importantly, we need to be sure they do not lead to irreversible damage to native wildlife and habitat. He argues we need to show some humility, and writes: “The capacity of management agencies to control widespread wildfires ignited by multiple lightning strikes in drought conditions on days of extreme fire danger is going to be similar to their capacity to control cyclones.” In other words, sometimes we can do zip."
There is considerable debate to be had on how often environmental / fuel reduction burns should be carried out. There seems as though there is a deficit of appropriate expertise among some DSE staff. And fire stick farming cannot be exactly as the aborigines carried out due to our massive alteration of the landscape since then.
But the debate on WHETHER they should be carried out is OVER.
Could you do a better job?
The original subject of this post was "OK smart ar$e". This appeared on the front page of the web site. This aggravating title was totally inappropriate for and would obviously put off the kind of people we want to attract to this site whilst attracting trolls. Any more such posts won't be tolerated. - JS.
"The same bloke who was in charge of the last big (burning off) fire is in charge of this fire (started by lightening but then left to roar)
Why was he allowed to stay in the job?
The animals that live in the burned area have no-where to go. The place is surrounded by farmland and sea.
Has anyone been there lately? Hardly any animals to see, even at night.
It makes me %^#)(* angry!"
Let's see you go and do a better job!
I would enjoy seeing you naivity about the Australian bush lead you to spectacular failure as Parks Ranger for Wilsons Prom.
You silly fool!
There are many reasons why many of our marsupials are under threat of extinction.
The biggest contributor is undoubtedly habitat destruction to make way for urban developments and agricultural land. Foxes, rabits and cats no doubt play a major role in threatening many of them. But many of the endangered species may well even be able to withstand the onslaught of these feral animals if it were not for the second biggest threat to their surivial - the termination of mosaic burning by the former aboriginal inhabitants of this land.
In fact almost all the marsupials that have gone extinct did so in a few desert environments soon after the aboriginal inhabitants left their land in the 1960s and ceased their fire stick farming. No doubt grazing and ferral animals would have reduced their numbers prior to the aborigines leaving their land.
There may be considerable debate necessary on how best to carry out environmental burning given our rather different economic and culural systems, and it may indeed prove difficult to meld the needs of European inhabitants with the needs of the local ecosystems.
But all credible land managers and members of the conservation movement with practical exposure to Australian ecosystems universally agree that burning is necessary, apart from in a few fire sensitive ecosystems like rainforests.
"Of the recorded 30 odd species of native terrestrial mammals in the park (Long-nosed Potoroo, Swamp Antechinus, White-footed Dunnart, Broad-toothed Rat, Feather-tailed Glider and Eastern Pygmy-possum, as well as the more familiar kangaroos, koalas and wombats) what were the numbers before then after the 1995 fires, then before and after the current 2009 fires?"
That would mostly likely due to the fact that previous bushfires were not the only issue for wild life. During that time there has also been massive land clearing for urban developments to feed the property speculation boom.
Any burning programs will have to take account of that so that the size of the mosaic pattern is appropriate for the size of the remaining forests etc. There is not much point deliberately buring an entire forest in one go, containing koalas, if that forest is surrounded by suburbia.
But one thing is for sure. If appropriate burning is not done then natural bushfire will sooner or later wipe out the forest and take the local koalas with it.
yes to ducks
what do you s think you doing? you are trying to ban duck hunting...leave us alone and leave us enjoy our hobby. its only couple of days in a year. we kill ducks to eat them and another thing, do you know that ducks do damage to our australian farmers.
Platitudes from livestock exporters and farmers
How often do we hear that farmers care deeply for their animals, and that stressed livestock do not produce and therefore must be cared for! However, they easily turn blind eyes to those crammed in sheds mostly unseen, and those hapless animals sacrified to the live export trade! How can they care for "animal welfare" when they are exported in these death ships to destinations far away? Overseas destinations have little concern for standards in animal welfare, and neither do we in Australia. The animals endure drawn out deaths, and cruelty. These dirty ships are full of sewerage that is emptied into the oceans, polluting them! No wonder parts of our oceans are dying. It seems that our livestock industries will sacrifice animals and any environmental concerns for fithy lucre!
waterbombing and turf battles - article wanted
I'd like to read more and have an article about these waterbombing craft and the turf-battles, Les. How about writing one for us?
Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
Same bloke in charge of both fires at the Prom
The same bloke who was in charge of the last big (burning off) fire is in charge of this fire (started by lightening but then left to roar)
Why was he allowed to stay in the job?
The animals that live in the burned area have no-where to go. The place is surrounded by farmland and sea.
Has anyone been there lately? Hardly any animals to see, even at night.
It makes me %^#)(* angry!
Burning-off benefits good old wives tale
From realdirt.com.au/2008/09/08/hazard-reduction-burning-ecological-or-pathological-smhreal-dirt-exclusive
A new scientific paper published in the CSIRO journal Wildlife Research by Michael Clarke, an associate professor in the department of zoology at La Trobe University, suggests the answer to both questions is: we do not know. What we do know is a lot of precious wild places are set on fire, in large part to keep happy those householders whose kitchen windows look out on gum trees. Clarke says it is reasonable for land management agencies to try to limit the negative effects of large fires, but we need to be confident our fire prevention methods work. And just as importantly, we need to be sure they do not lead to irreversible damage to native wildlife and habitat. He argues we need to show some humility, and writes: “The capacity of management agencies to control widespread wildfires ignited by multiple lightning strikes in drought conditions on days of extreme fire danger is going to be similar to their capacity to control cyclones.” In other words, sometimes we can do zip.
Much hazard reduction is performed to create a false sense of security rather than to reduce fire risks, and the effect on wildlife is virtually unknown. The sooner we acknowledge this the sooner we can get on with the job of working out whether there is anything we can do to manage fires better. We need to know whether hazard reduction can be done without sending our wildlife down a path of firestick extinctions.
An annual burn conducted each year on Montague Island, near Narooma on the NSW far South Coast, highlights the absurdity of the current public policy free-for-all, much of which is extraordinarily primitive. In 2001 park rangers burnt a patch of the devastating weed kikuyu on the island. The following night a southerly blew up, the fire reignited and a few penguins were incinerated. It was a stuff-up that caused a media outcry: because cute penguins were burnt, the National Parks and Wildlife Service was also charcoaled. Every year since there has been a deliberate burn on Montague, part of a program to return the island to native vegetation. Each one has been a circus - with teams of staff, vets, the RSPCA, ambulances, boats and helicopters - all because no one wants any more dead penguins.
Meanwhile every year on the mainland, park rangers and state forests staff fly in helicopters tossing out incendiary devices over wilderness forests, the way the UN tosses out food packages. Thousands of hectares are burnt, perhaps unnecessarily, too often, and worse, thousands of animals that are not penguins (so do not matter) are roasted. All to make people feel safe. Does the burning protect nearby towns? On even a moderately bad day, probably not. Does it make people feel better? Yes.
Clarke’s paper calls for the massive burn-offs to be scrutinised much more closely. “In this age of global warming, governments and the public need to be engaged in a more sophisticated discussion about the complexities of coping with fire in Australian landscapes,” he writes. He wants ecological data about burns collected as routinely as rainfall data is gathered by the agricultural industry. Without it, hazard reduction burning is flying scientifically blind and poses a dangerous threat to wildlife. “To attempt to operate without proper data on the effect of bushfires should be as unthinkable as a farmer planting a crop without reference to the rain gauge,” he writes.
In the coming decades, native plants and animals will face enough problems - most significantly from human-induced climate chaos - without having to dodge armies of public servants armed with lighters. Guesswork and winter smoke are not enough to protect our towns and assets now, and the risk of bushfires increases with the rise in carbon dioxide.
This piece was first published in the SMH, 08/09/08 as "Hazard Reduction Burning: ecological or pathological?"
If fire is good then why are native animals becoming scarcer?
As a Victorian, environmentalist and past visitor to Wilson's Prom I find it hard to rejoice when faunal habitat burns in such vast areas as to clearly kill and mame, else displace ground dwelling mammals from their home range, remove food sources, remove protective cover, open the bush up to feral predation, increased sunlight, etc, etc.
I often hear this theoretical justification about fire being good for the bush. The naive perception is that from a distance the bush grows back. But up close the fire resistant flora moreso than fire sensitive flora and fauna (does this not suggest less biodiversity). If more biodiversity, then how many decades does it take to replicate the pre-fire ecosystem's biodiversity? What happens to the fauna in the meantime? Which species of fauna are indeed fire resistant? The problem is that some justify this 'fire is good' theory without hard quantifiable biological and zoological investigative research to support it.
Of the recorded 30 odd species of native terrestrial mammals in the park (Long-nosed Potoroo, Swamp Antechinus, White-footed Dunnart, Broad-toothed Rat, Feather-tailed Glider and Eastern Pygmy-possum, as well as the more familiar kangaroos, koalas and wombats) what were the numbers before then after the 1995 fires, then before and after the current 2009 fires?
A rational approach should be based on rational evidence, not assumptions on what was the landcape may have looked like and the assumed fire frequency before 1788. Can anyone provide that evidence and prove that fire is good for fauna?
Fire at Wilson's Prom
As a Victorian, environmentalist and occasional visitor to Wilson's Prom I rejoice when parts of the prom go up in flames. Because the regeneration of native plants that follows will improve biodiversity and provide new grazing for the local marsupials.
The only regret I have that burning of small patches does not take place on a more regular basis so that bushfires are not quite so wide spread when they go through.
The dominant EVC of Wilsons Prom is 'heath land' and fire has been an integral and essential part of heath land ecology since long before Europeans arrived in Australia and even long before Eucalypts dominated our landscape.
I do not share the irrational and out dated Victorian English abhorrence of fire in the Australian landscapes that many contributors to this blog site seem to have.
Danger to koala species huge; gov eyes wide shut
(Just sent in by Menkit; my title - Ed)
From 12 months onwards, koala joeys leave their mothers to find their own home ranges. That’s when life gets harder for young koalas because they have to find their own territory - somewhere with the right tree species with tasty gumleaves to eat and somewhere near to other koalas. And hopefully somewhere that is safe from threats like habitat destruction, cars and dogs.
The Australian Koala Foundation estimates that at least 4000 koalas are killed by cars and dogs each year and habitat destruction is the greatest threat to the koala’s long term survival.
www.savethekoala.com/koalaslifecycle.html
I wonder who knows the number of koalas in Australia currently? Does the DEH do an annual count? If there are 100,000 then 4,000 is 4% which excludes habitat destruction. What percentage of remaining koalas die from habitat destruction each year then? This is important for us to know.
Politicians protect cruel and exploitative system
Thank you Stoptac for this story which calls upon humans to show humanity. Thanks also to Stephanie for pointing out how sheltered we are. But this sheltering also exploits us and the rest of the world, in my opinion.
Much responsibility for the callousness of our society and our ignorance of such things lies in industrialisation and the distancing of livestock-raising from the localities that finish up eating it. What we do not see we can easily ignore.
This will also kill many of us in the end, as we become less able to afford water and food, which is all being so quickly commodified and super-corporatised.
Those people who are able to grow vegetables, fruit-trees and raise livestock around their houses will be the fortunate minority and they will have to battle local laws which have been crafted to enhance the ability of big business to manage most food production and distribution. The choice then of eating animals or living a vegetarian existence (but sharing it with other creatures) will be increasingly difficult, due to land-competition. For all these reasons it is of immense importance to battle for land-use planning laws and relocalisation of political power NOW.
Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
Victorian Bushfires
I am very surprised and concerned about your comment about it isnt the Greenies fault, maybe not all of there Fault, but let me tell you, I live in Western Country Victoria, and these so called smart Greenies have made sure we cant get any fire wood during the cooler months, and that is just fuel waiting for a fire to come through, amazing it hasnt happened in this area ( Fire Storm ) and Touch wood we never get to live such a nightmare as Kinglake etc have gone through. It always takes deaths or a major Bush fire do the governments do anything about it, then they just talk, and please the people who complain, then heel to the Greenies and then nothing gets done. Over and Over this happenes. Australia have to have a Huge Wake Up Call about some of these Greenies ideas of Bush Clearing, but then again most of these Left Wing Greenies live in the Cities and wouldn't know the real day to day of living in the Country.
Death Ships
If only the public were forced to see the hideous atrocities that animals are subjected to when they are being prepared for live export let alone finally shipped off to countries who handle and slaughter them in the most savage ways. Australians seem to believe that the cruelty only occurrs when animals finally arrive in the likes of the Middle East, however animals are treated poorly in Australia before they are even put on a filthy death ship.
60 minutes has ran stories about this hideous trade as have many other media outlets however the full extent of the brutality has never really been shown.
Wilsons Prom debacle
During the summer of 1995 there were major fires, including a very large one in the Enfield Forest outside Ballarat. There was comment at time over the obvious turf battles between CFA and what is now DSE. They each had very different ideas as to how major forest fire should be fought and by whom. At that time there were sufficient large bodies of water about to sustain the operations of waterbombing aircraft, both fixed-wing and rotor. In the debate that followed the fires it became clear that the large waterbombers ( Canadair ) routinely used in Canada, Spain, France and America and available in Australia on demand were deemed too expensive to fly out and have on standby here during our fire season. Its a pity. They are perfect for conditions such as those at the Prom this summer. They can pick up 6000 litres of water in 10 seconds, even in a choppy surface up to 1.5 meters, and dump it in a long line across a fire front, with very quick backup times. Even though Elvis is effective, the sheer volume of water that can be quickly dropped by these aircraft would have had the Prom fire, and perhaps several others near large bodies of water out long before now, It does really seem that the natural bushland is a very second best to more urban rural areas, and consequently frequently left to burn in a barely controlled manner. We need to dig deeper if we are to be seen as serious about fire threat.
Wilsons Prom deserves more than DSE or the CFA
Well said, Tigerquoll. Please keep writing about this. It is a hard subject - the autistic disregard for the natural world by our increasingly vulnerable population. DSE shows contempt for our wildlife. We need another department that cares about them.
Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
Gillard's culpability must not be diminished
I commend Sheila's prompt response to the disturbing news that our Government is resolve to maintain not just high immigration, but levels of immigration jacked up only in May last year beyond what were already beyond the record high immigration levels so deceitfully imposed on this country by the former Howard Government.
However, I have one slight bone of contention with this article, that is, the use of the word 'addicted' in the title. To me the word 'addicted' has the effect of diminishing the moral culpability of Gillard and the rest of her Government for a cynical calculated betrayal of the wellbeing of the country as a whole and, particularly, those who voted her into Government.
Given the overwhelming opposition to high immigration,this Government would face no political difficult whatsoever if ti were to immediately and drastically reduce the immigration intake.
Of course it would face indignant outcries form the likes of Ridotu and the Murdoch newspaper, but such a storm should be on this Government could very easily weather.
In the past political leaders with backbone and the true welfare of their countrymen and countrywomen at hear have shown themselves capable of defying the narrow selfish sectional greedy interests of their country's wealth elites. One who comes to mind is President of the United States Frankln D Roosevelt.
Why should we expect any less of our own political leaders?
If they are not up to the task, then we must make them step aside in favour of others who are.
Steel framing in bushfires.
"Steel Framing is in fact, NON combustible, and hence is the perfect framing material for bush fire resistance."
Of course, but you're wrong... steel frames do not combust, but they buckle and melt. Once buckled, the roof will come down, whereas a burning wooden frame, whilst weakened, will remain upright, and it's not until the studs are fully burnt that the roof would collapse. A friend of mine who works for the Bushfire Brigade here in QLD was told during training that a steel framed house will collapse twice as fast as a wooden framed one, and that they should never enter a steel framed house on fire.
Plus, the point I was making is that steel frames conducts heat so effectively, they can set the INNER linings on fire, even if the walls and roof are insulated, because the insulation is inserted between the frame sticks. I agree that thermal breaks would work, but in fact I've never seen this in practice. Polystyrene can burn if heated sufficiently.... and the fumes are toxic, maybe not your worst problem if your house is alight, but fumes might kill you if you're trying to save your house.
"Embers make it into the roof space and wall space, ignite the timber framing, and hence burn the house down structurally from inside the walls."
Only if the house is poorly sealed. A well sealed steel framed house would ignite the interior as described above. Pine WILL ignite at 220 degrees, info from plantation timber book I have here... can't find web link, sorry.
As far as bricks are concerned, I would only have double brick. All the brick veneer houses I've seen on TV (I'm in QLD) all fell down.... end of story as far as I'm concerned. BTW, aluminium window frames MELTED in the recent fires. Again, I would prefer timber frames., but shutters would be imperative I think.
Mike
Bob Hawke: Immigration Enthusiast
It's ironical that Bob Hawke, when being interviewed on TV by Andrew Denton ("Enough Rope" Elders Part 5 14th July 2008) stated that one of the biggest problems today was a blow-out of world population! Hindsight is a wonderful thing, expecially has he supported multiculturalism and high immigration to Australia.
Yep, the same Bob Hawke who once boasted that the major parties had reached an implicit pact to keep immigration off the political agenda. The same person who confirmed that that, for most of the post-war period, the ALP and the Coalition had maintained bipartisan support for immigration despite public opposition.
Maybe Hawke is one of those people who believes that overpopulation is a problem everywhere else but Australia. Maybe he believes that Australia is one big giant empty land simply waiting to be occupied and that Australians have an obligation to allow their country to be turned into Lebensraum for the surplus populations of the Third World.
Whatever his views, the truth is that his government handled the immigration issue appallingly.
Britain moves to cut immigration. Why not Australia?
Even the fervently pro-immigration British government is moving to cut back on migrant numbers:
"Work permits for migrants to be cut"
No doubt the British Government's attempt to put its own citizens first will also be viewed as an example of "protectionism" by Heather Ridout.
If Australia maintains its
If Australia maintains its current regime of high immigration numbers during a recessionary period touted as the worst in the post-war era, it will simply prove beyond doubt that Australia's immigration program has become divorced from serving the real needs of Australia and Australians. It is immigration for immigration's sake; to property speculators happy by ensuring steady and ever increasing demand for housing; to keep wages down and party contributions from the business community up; to pander to ethnic voting blocs and satisfy their neo-colonial aspirations by assuring them that the influx of their countrymen will continue unabated, further cementing their permanence, prevalence, and eventual dominance in Australian society.
In the end, of course, it is Australians who will end losing the most - their jobs, their prosperity, their chance at affordable home ownership, their quality of life, their natural environment, their culture and national identity, and even, eventually, their country itself.
Moratorium on native wildlife killing
Thinking about all those native animals trying in vain to flee the fires- all the birds and lizards as well as possums, kangaroos, wallabies and koalas just makes me feel somewhat hopeless about the future of our wildlife.
Of course there should be a moratorium on killing our wildlife! We'll have nothing left unless we take measures to preserve what remains.
I hate the way the news reports dismiss the severity of fire unless it is threatening property or human life. While it rages it is taking the wildlife with it. Think of that fire at Wilson's Promontory- as long as it does not threaten the people of Yanakie- no worries according to fire reports on the A.B.C. There was a brief report the other night on ABC TV re wild life but there has not been enough. (There has probably not been enough re domestic animals that have died either.)
What is the best action plan? A deluge of letters to D.S.E.?
They can't possibly continue to justify this....
It will be very interesting to see how this plays out in the near future! The government are going to be on thinner and thinner ice with this as unemployment rises. It's hard to see how they will be able to continue to justify to the public the continuation of the high immigration rate. But I'm sure they'll try.
Their true motives will be exposed for all to see - bring it on!
bunkers vs cellars
No way! Structure fires are vastly hotter than bushfire - being trapped in a cellar under a burning building is a death trap as we know from the Dandenongs fires. A ditch might be better than nothing, but I'll be sheltering in my house and concentrating on stopping it from catching on fire first. If I'm going to dig a bunker, it may as well be concrete and needs to be airtight to keep the smoke out and the oxygen in. Having read many first-hand accounts of people who sheltered in forest bunkers in 1939, I don't think they sound ideal and certainly not safer than a well-constructed and defended house.
Fire bunkers
Nobody seems to have mentioned sandbags. As a kid during WWII we built shelters against blasts and fire out of sandbags. These can be configured to any space and a blast wall (or two) built in front of the entrance, which would protect from direct radiation. How about a cut-out in a bank lined with a layer (or two) of sandbags and a baffle wall of sandbags in front with a zig-zag entrance? Roof of tin with a good layer of sandbags or earth covering it. Comments on this welcome. I also think a cylinder of air (or scuba kit) would be a wise addition.
When is enough immigration?
A question we should be asking more in Australia:
When is enough immigration?
Article by Frosty Wooldridge
January 19, 2004
Published in the Albany Herald.
Have you ever gone to a New Year's eve bash that was so big and so crowded that everyone at the party stood in each other's faces? Did you try to dance but it felt like dancing in thick pancake batter with too many people bumping into you?Did you enjoy yourself? Did you leave early? Did you vow to never do that again?Get ready for that party coming into your country at full force. The only difference is — you can't go home.
Have you ever gone to a New Year's eve bash that was so big and so crowded that everyone at the party stood in each other's faces?
Did you try to dance but it felt like dancing in thick pancake batter with too many people bumping into you?
Did you enjoy yourself? Did you leave early? Did you vow to never do that again?
Get ready for that party coming into your country at full force. The only difference is — you can't go home.
You're already home. You can't leave your country because it is your country.
Last week, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, in Washington, D.C. stated, "Another 1.1 million legal immigrants will enter the U.S this year. The immigrant population doubled from 19.8 million in 1990 to 31.1 million a decade later."
Another 800,000 illegal aliens will also cross into the U.S, which will total two million, give or take a few.
The latest figures showing six large U.S. cities now consist of a majority of foreign-born inhabitants. "America's immigration policies have launched us into a risky experiment never tried by modern day countries," said Dan Stein, director of FAIR. Hialeah and Miami, Fla., along with Glendale, Santa Ana, Daly City and El Monte, Calif., have been 'swamped' with immigration.
Mexico is moving its excess population, wholesale, into America with 9.2 million so far and millions more crossing at 2,000 per day. The Philippines at 1.5 million and China at 1.4 million follow them.
These numbers grow with immigrants from India, Vietnam, Cuba, Korea, Canada, El Salvador and other Latin American countries. At current rates of immigration, both legal and illegal, will add 45 million foreign born into the USA.
"What remains to be seen is if this country has the capacity to accommodate and assimilate an unending wave of mass immigration. The failure to do so will result in a balkanized, fragmented, strife-torn and dysfunctional America," Stein said.
It's already happening. Last year, with over 10 million legal and illegal immigrants causing a crisis in every sector of the Golden Bear State, 800,000 Californians left the party. It's now $38 billion in debt, can't hire enough teachers in a broken educational system and struggles with 18-hour gridlock.
More people from California now reside in Idaho than natives of that state. Over a million people fled the West and East coasts to take up residence in Colorado in the past decade.
California will gain a whopping 20 million people in 30 years. Colorado will add four million.
Tom Ridge said, "The bottom line is, as a country we have to come to grips with the presence of 12 million illegals, afford them some kind of legal status, but also as a country decide what our immigration policy is and then enforce it."
One has to wonder how ridiculous that statement sounds. If he refuses to uphold and defend our borders now, what will he do later, serve milk and cookies as they make their way through the desert?
That begs the question of how many more people we can invite to the party before our party (country) is bumper to bumper and running out of resources. Do we have unlimited water? Unlimited clean air? Do we like being stuck in bumper to bumper traffic? Do we have enough food?
What about standard of living? Do we want to live like they do in China or India?
Every American citizen and even the immigrants who are here need to ask the most basic questions: "When is enough immigration enough?"
When are too many people too many? When will our society turn against itself with conflicting languages? How will it incorporate conflicting religions?
What will it do with conflicting cultures? How will it clean the air over the cities? Where will it grow food as sprawl eats up farmland?
The sobering reality of immigration is — the line never ends. The world grows by 10,000 per hour, 240,000 per day and 80 million annually.
As a nation, we stand at a critical juncture. Too many people at any party make for a bad time.
Too many people with dissimilar interests, languages and conflicting cultures will make the party untenable. But once they are here, you can't leave.
Whether it's an overloaded carrying capacity or loss of quality of life, the United States is in trouble.
We need a 10-year moratorium on all immigration. We can and must enforce it for the very existence of our nation.
If we fail, we are in so much trouble environmentally, carrying capacity-wise, lack of water, lack of clean air, species extinction, schools, hospitals and infrastructure.
Big business committed to open borders
Meanwhile, a key employer group says the research recommendations amount to a form of protectionism.
"The skilled program... can't be turned off and on," Australian Industry Group (Ai Group) chief executive Heather Ridout told ABC Television.
The government needed to be very careful about "chopping" immigration numbers, she said, adding that employers were committed to current intake.
"If we do not keep the immigration scheme robust our economic growth potential will be much reduced."
Is Heather Ridout really suggesting that we should simply allow the free flow of foreign labour into Australia with no concern whatsoever for the economic wellbeing of our existing citizenry?Is Heather Ridout really suggesting that we should simply allow the free flow of foreign labour into Australia with no concern whatsoever for the economic wellbeing of our existing citizenry?
Oh, and as for employers being committed to a high intake, well duh! Of course they are committed to the ongoing importation of cheap labour and more consumers. However, last time I checked, we weren't meant to be running an immigration program for the sole benefit of employers.
"If we do not keep the immigration scheme robust our economic growth potential will be much reduced."
Rubbish. Economic growth means increasing the amount of capital per head of the population. Immigration does nothing to aid this process.
Steel House Frames for Fire Resistance.
Mike,
I wish to pick you up on a few points in regards to your comments.
Steel Framing is in fact, NON combustible, and hence is the perfect framing material for bush fire resistance.
Bushfires burn down houses in the 60 minutes after a flame front, or fire ball has passed. Embers make it into the roof space and wall space, ignite the timber framing, and hence burn the house down structurally from inside the walls.
Find photos of the Horsham golf club and you will see steel stuf frames, which have in fact kept the building up. Yes, the cladding on the outside has burnt, but the structure is still safe.
Bricks heating to 200 degrees would not create a fire. Even timber will not ignite at this temperature. The bricks only get this hot during a fully fledged fire, not during the inital fire ball. Also, interior plastics and synthetics require considerably higher temperatures to spontaneously combust.
The way to stop fires getting into a house relate very closely to making a house energy efficient.
Double glazing, Aluminium window frames well sealed into the cladding, Steel door frames with good sealing properties, sarked roof and walls and proper thermal breaks between frame and cladding.
Your mention of a steel framed house creating walls that were hot means that the house was not built with the required thermal break between cladding material and frame, and without proper insulation in the walls. Put this down to the builder, not the materials.
New cladding materials such as sandwich panels (steel on the inside and outside surface with Polystyrene, Poly Urethane or Compressed Straw (OSSB) panels) are all fire retartdant and also emormously well insulating, think R5-7 just from a board. An Esky keeps ice as ice for many days with sealed to the outside air, and panels like these are just as efficient at keeping temperautres as you want them. These panels can be made to look like normal steel roofing and walling but provide incredible insulation.
Bricks are a 50/50 solution. They take a long time to heat up, but also take a long time to cool down, often transferring the heat into the house at night. However, because they take so long to heat up, they are also a good insulator against the fireball, allowing people to stay in a well protected house during the fire ball, and then exit the house to extinguish the spot fires and the material around the house. It's these fire that are left after the fire ball that do all the damage.
My solutions to fire retartdant homes are not dissimiler to yours, I only wish to correct you on a few points.
Kind Regards
Peter Blythe
Good Work
Hi mate just want to let you know I think you are doing a great job. It's important to keep the truth out there so people really know whats going on! How long will it take the Australian Government to phase out this trade? It's an absolute blemish to us all.. I pray that I will see an end to live export in my life time. Poor things it's so upsetting.
Bob Hawke and population crisis
It's ironical that Bob Hawke, when being interviewed on TV by Andrew Denton ("Enough Rope" Elders Part 5 14th July 2008) stated that one of the biggest problems today was a blow-out of world population! Hindsight is a wonderful thing, expecially has he supported multiculturalism and high immigration to Australia.
"Population is exploding. We’ve got to do something about you know getting a sustainable population level and of course this gets back to poverty, it gets back to the education of women and so on. We’ve got the problems of food supply, of global warming, massive increases in the population. Now these are not the figments of Bob Hawke’s imagination. These are facts. Ah you’ve got you know over a billion people in the world of over six million now living in absolute poverty and half the world’s population living in very meagre situations." (www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s2301431.htm)
Online poll: Cut immigration to protect local jobs?
Murdoch's Herald-Sun has run the story "Sponsorship system open to exploitation, say academics" which begins:
"AUSTRALIA must slash migration to protect local jobs, argues a Monash University report.
The report said the Rudd Government was running a record high migrant intake while job prospects for locals were bleak amid the global economic crisis."'On the face of it, Labor's migration program constitutes a direct challenge to the interests of domestic workers,' the report said.
"It will add a huge influx of job seekers at a time when the bargaining power of domestic job seekers has taken a turn for the worse."
An associated poll which asks "Should immigration be cut to protect local jobs?" has, so far, attracted 1271 (84%) 'yes' votes and 240 (15%) 'no' votes.
Virtually all polls taken in the last three decades have affirmed the unpopularity of high immigration, yet bi-partisan support for high immigration remains. In recent years opposition has waned, evidently due to the effect of relentless pro-immigration propaganda, both from the business establishment and the the politically correct New Class referred to in Lines' and O'Connor's "Overloading Australia" (2009). However, a firm majority has always remained opposed. Recently, as noted above, due to the current economic crisis, opposition has climbed again.
Immigration proponents perversely have displayed pride in having succeeded in frustrating the popular will on this issue. As cited on pages 104-105 in "Overloading Australia" (2009):
"Bob Hawke once boasted that he had enforced 'elite as opposed to popular views on immigration.'"
On an online Opinion discussion in response to my article "How the growth lobby threatens Australia's future" (also published here), one immigration proponent gleefully reminded others of how the Liberal Party, as well as the Labor Party, refused to abide by the will of the Australian public in regard to immigration:
"Oh, and in case you haven't been keeping up, the former, Liberal, government increased immigration to the highest level ever."
Like Rupert Murdoch, Bob Hawke, and the New Class, this contributor, doesn't believe that the principles of democracy should apply to the question of population and immigration, where a small enlightened minority know better what is good for the majority of this country than do the majority themselves.
Darwin is honoured but dismissed!
The "endangered" grasses, sun moth and legless lizards that the kangaroos at Belconnen were threatening was a case of deep green green-washing! These species co-existed and co-evolved here in Australia for millions of years. They were not a threat to each other! They were perfectly adapted. So called "management" of kangaroos, and our land, by humans is what is threatening them. Darwin's theories of adaption are being conveniently ignored, and the public were convinced that this massacre was necessary to "save" the kangaroos from starvation, and "save" the endangered insects and grasses. The reality is over-population of the human species, all in the name of economic growth that over-rides all common sense and environmental welfare.
"Shark Water" (www.sharkwater.com) highly recommended
(This was posted to me through the contact form just now - JS)
Hi guys. I highly recommend that you see the documentary Shark Water (www.sharkwater.com). I saw it a couple of days ago, and it completely changed the way I look at sharks. Now I feel much more sorry for them then afraid of them (they are non-aggressive creatures, and are getting killed at a rate of one hundred million a year), and am taking action to try and insure their welfare. Peace.
Need help to send medical supplies from Qld to NE Victoria
Hi
I am a wildlife carer from Brisbane my name is Lexie. I have been in contact with Dawn at Wildlife NEV and am sending medical supplies through her as she was first I made contact with. There is Hartmann's, Saline, Dressings for burns, IV sets, gloves bandages etc coming. They are being driven down. I'm not sure if Dawn has been in contact with you or not. But they should be with her by Thursday next week. Long time I know. I am also working on companies down there to donate hardware for cage building. That may take a week or two. Are you happy to have me communicate with Dawn re these things.
Finally I hope this little we can do helps some.
(Lexie, I will re-post this to www.wildliferescuenev.com/contactus.htm Hope this helps. - JS)
Aboriginal burning-off thesis queried
K.G. writes:
What burning did aboriginal people do?
According to early photos of Victoria I have seen, and the stags (dead butts) of massive trees killed in the 39 fires, sticking out of the re-growth forests; the forest of Victoria were largely old growth. Some species of eucalyptus, like Mountain Ash are sensitive to fire and often die in hot fires. There are a lot of environmental vegetation classes (evcs) burnt in the Feb ‘09 hell Saturday fires. Which ones of these would have been burnt by aboriginal people and how often?
Surely Lighting a hot fire would have been basically too dangerous if you didn’t own a bucket. It would have been more practical to notice where lightning strike fires were providing the burning. When I was a kid, before climate change, lightning came with a cool change and rain and fires often wouldn’t go far. As for cool burning, old growth sometimes has very moist undergrowth, which would have been hard to burn.
I woke up the other day thinking of the Ada tree one of the biggest Mountain Ash tree ever found, in an old growth gully near Powelltown. The remarkable thing about this Tolkien-like area is the moss half way up the trees, the cool air, the moisture held in this vertical sponge. Victoria’s philosophy of forest management has been dominated by foresters keen to provide as much woodchip as possible. A forester is trained to despise old growth forests. To call them 'senescing' - which is to be avoided at all costs.
A lot of towns affected by the bushfires may well have lost photos of the massive trees which used to be displayed pride of place. Photos that might suggest that burning hasn’t been much of a feature in the past. Did in fact Aboriginal people of the recent past enjoy at least some forests of bigger trees, taller tree fern, cooler air, moister undergrowth, with more fire retardant features?
Don't burn the forests
No Australian native plant is fire-adapted. In spite of some people claiming the bush needs to be burnt to regenerate, hardpoded native seeds eventually break down and germinate. It's natures way of controlling rampant regrowth....such as happens after a fire.
Even a fire only inches high does some damage to the forest and the wildlife, by killing the small insects and animals that break down the fallen branches that provide nutrients for the forest.
Aboriginals burnt the forest so why shouldn't we? Well, no-one knows what the aboriginals did prior to 1860 or so, but its highly unlikely that they burnt the land like we do. They respected the land and the animals. Cook did mention seeing columns of smoke from campfires as he sailed up the coast, but columns of smoke don't mean bushfires.
Even a small fire kills softwood seedlings and small plants, each subsequent fire kills more softwoods, and then the hardwoods follow, and the forest changes. So do the inhabitants that live on the softwoods, they die or move on.
Fire promotes the growth of grass and weeds, and destroys understory native regrowth.
Fortunately most Australians now understand to some extent the complex role of forests, and their ecology, and rantings about the fires all being the 'greenies' fault are being dismissed out of hand by most people.
Pat O'Brien, WPAA
Requests from overseas visitors on how to donate?
Hi Sheila,
My name is Sarah, I'm in queensland. I have started a facebook group in order to raise awareness and donations for some of the wildlife groups across Victoria. I am finding myself getting asked alot about what the best way for overseas members to donate is. I have been suggesting direct transfers as I figured that the best way to get the money to people quickly, however there is some questions about money orders, paypal and cheques and i wondered what your preference is. I am recommending your site above all others (to those who privately email me regarding donations) as the need to rebuild on top of feeding and treating animals I find a tragic situation for all. My heart goes out to you. I do hope this reaches you, I included the link to the group in the homepage line but in case it doesn't work the group is on facebook and called 'Remembering Animal Victims of the Victorian Bushfires' ( There are currently nearly 1700 members and growing quickly) As someone who has done wild care and also vet nursing I to have been devastated by this tragic event, I can't even imagine how awful it must be for you. If it was at all possible for me to come and help more practically I would but work commitments make that impossible so instead I have just been trying to gather donations and make information available for people. If you have any suggestions or other wildlife groups that I don't have listed that should be listed (If you have any time at all to have a look at the site, which I doubt!) then please let me know. Anything I can do to help I am more then pleased to do.
Kindest Regards
Sarah Gordon
Paul's fire-analysis spot on
Thanks very much for sending this on Pamela. Paul's analysis is spot on.
Having lived part time at Granton, near Marysville for 8 years now, and having been there on Saturday (Luckily saved our house) I have myself observed the fire ripping through the 'managed areas' of forest near our house and elsewhere.
It makes sense to me that where the trees have been thinned out, or where there is miles of regrowth scrub, there is less resistance to the fire. Where the trees and shrubs near our place were greenest, the fire passed through relatively slowly and did not crown.
Paul's message needs to get out.
Re- Setting the record straight
The bold highlighted parts are replies to Boyles' comments above. They are from another contributor, not Sheila herself. Sheila simply posted them here for a contributor who wishes to remain anonymous:
Sheila, DSE / Parks Vic / etc do not burn their reserves in their entirity. They burn small sections of them at a time in order to have a better chance of maintaining control. I know for a fact because I have seen their handy work when I have been spraying out similar reserves.
Yes - They burn all their reserves as with any state forest, and in chunks each year.
What proof do you have that the fire started in a previously burned section?
Not sure where the fires all started but for some sites. The Dargo fires have been burning through 2003-06 burnt forest.
And if it did start in a previously burned section how long ago was it burned? Long enough for the fuel load to build up again?
Which is only about 18 months in some areas - making it pointless to burn in the first place - it just opens up and dries out a forest, kills off the fires sensitive species which are also fire resistant.
I beg to differ about fuel loads in pine plantations. Firstly the pine trees are planted far closer together than trees tend to be in the average natural forest.
Depends on the age of a forest - Have you ever seen regrowth after logging?
Secondly have you ever seen the carpet of shedded pine needles and other debris in a pine forest? There is plenty of fuel!
Fine pine needles matted on the ground are not the same thing that the Government fire 'manageres' target with their fuel reduction burns - they want to burn out the understory - including twigs and leaves, bruanches, and even green living ferns and shrubs - all regarded as 'fuel'. A fires will find it hard to get going in a thick blanket of pine needles - but it will take off like a bomb in the trees themselves.
Even for those private landholders who are prepared to foot the enormous costs it is almost impossible for them to get permits to conduct fuel reduction burns on their properties. NOT BY MY UNDERSTANDING. How can you justify saying that interfaces between private land and national parks is the most "heavily fire managed areas around".
The zone 1 around private land and especially towns are burnt most intensely - every 3-4 years usually. That's pretty damned 'fire managed'.
'managing' ecosystems
I am not an environmental purist, myself, but I do think that humans are incapable of 'managing' ecosystems. I think that ecosystems manage us. All I am proposing is that we try to influence forests to become wetter, rather than drier.
Accepting the reality
Some of us in the conservation movement are not interested in the purest conservation view that humans have no active role to play in ecosystem management.
For better or worse, we are an integral part of the ecosystems we live in and near and to argue that ecosystems should be quarentined from humans is feeding our unsustainable civilisation where everything inside the 'city fence' is important and everything outside it is expendable. We need to start learning fast how use fire stick management to control fuel loads and make the bush safe for people while at the same time enahancing biodiversity. I would not want to see elements of the green movement blocking controlled burning and forcing people into land clearing instead for example.
The fact is that we appropriated an ecosystem that was already extensively managed by traditional aboriginals through burning. And that managed ecosystem was incredibly healthy and rich in biodiversity. With our 'modern' land management techniques we have seen biodiversity plumet in the past 200 years. The historical record speaks for itself about who had the land management right out of Aboriginals and Europeans.
Duck hunting in Victoria
I would prefer to see debates of this nature written without any emotive language and a strict adherance to facts and verifiable statistical information. There are a number of aspects of Sheila's presentation that bother me. The use of a photo featuring a non indigenous species of duck, almost certainly domestic and probably taken in confined area where the supposed sorry partner had few other seating options (and probably doesn't really give a stuff about the dead duck), proves absolutely nothing.
I would like to point out to those who know little about duck shooting that bullets are not permitted for duck shooting purposes and nor is lead for that matter.
The claim that we now have 80% less ducks than 20 years ago is extremly unlikely. From my own observations virtually every farm dam in NE Vic and Southern NSW has Ducks on it. Almost all well grassed areas such as golf courses, retirement villages, parks and gardens have a resident (and often excessive) population of wood ducks. Rivers and lakes are carrying their quota of ducks but admittedly there is less water and consequently fewer ducks. It should be remembered however that ducks are extremely nomadic and at this very moment duck numbers in much of Queensland right through to the Channel country in South Australia would be exploding.
As for the tourism debate I really can't see how banning Duck shooting is going to improve tourism. On the contrary I suspect that the two "industries" could be better served if they were run in parallel and in some situations complimentary to each other.
Finally please do not call Duck shooting a sport. To me it has always been a recreational persuit. It is not a competition against anyone or anything and for me it is a means of getting a type of food on the table that I enjoy. If I coundn't eat them I wouldn't bother.
There is no answer!
No answers mean that are aren't any! Menkit has covered all bases. An answer would have to confirm that sustainable "use" of kangaroos is actually impossible, and they are acknowledging that our livestock industries are doing damage to Australia's environment. It is greenwashing to suggest anything else. Kangaroo or other wildlife will never be able to replace the amount of meat we eat in Australia and send overseas. They are not like Africa's "game" fauna. Their growth rate is slow, and they only produce a small amount of human-quality meat. There is no justification for kangaroo "harvesting". Our government and many land-owners would be quite happy to see our wildife, especially kangaroos, become novelties in zoos and santuaries.
ABC bias destroys hope
Dear Candobetter
Thank you for your assessment of the ABC Barry Cassidy's biased and selective interviews on the 7:30 Report which included Fran Bailey MP shaking her head in agreement as the camera zeroed in on her, several times; and the man who was fined thousands of $$$ for breaching native vegetation laws by clearing his property a couple of years back, is now a Barry Cassidy hero. The message sent to the television audience, is that it is OK to cut down trees, destroy native vegetation and wildlife habitat.
I was quite shocked by his deliberate damning of trees and nature and I was left to realise the extent ABC journalists Barry Cassidy and Paul Lockyear views dominate our ABC Media. He also has an ABC Sunday morning radio Program and appears to share the views of Andrew Bolt who still thinks that global warming is a beat up. Barry Cassidy seems to have made up his mind and is fanning the anti-green sentiments.
I felt so let down after watching him on the ABC 7:30 Report on Friday night, and
was wishing I could somehow reach him to explain the alarming decline of Victoria's native animals
BEFORE the bushfires with Victoria the worst state in Australia for land clearing and the rate of native
species extinctions. This was BEFORE the tragic bushfires, and Barry Cassidy's apparent contempt for
any wildlife that has miraculously survived the tragic fires. He simply dismisses them as though their
lives do not matter,
Kind regards
Maryland
Maryland Wilson, President
Australian Wildlife Protection Council Inc
KINDNESS HOUSE Suite 18
288 Brunswick St, Fitzroy 3065 Vic
Coalition for Wildlife Corridors
03 59 788 570 ph 03 59 788 302 fax
Mobile 0417 148 501
email: kangaroo[AT]peninsula.hotkey.net.au
web site: www.awpc.org.au
web site: www.rootourism.com.au
Registered Charity A0012224D
"As long as people will shed the blood of innocent
creatures there can be no peace, no liberty, no
harmony between people. Slaughter and justice
cannot dwell together."
Nobel Prize Winner Isaac Bashevis Singer
Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
Lying in order to scapegoat Greens unacceptable
Whatever the truth of the points in this article, which I am not in a position to judge since I don't know the terrain, some people have been deliberately lying on other forums. I found one that claimed that the Greens used to control the Blue Mountains council and while in charge banned preventing burning. The Greens have never been in control of that council, and the claim is a total fabrication. There is no excuse for this sort of dishonesty. The Greens have very seldom held power at any level of government in Australia and using the horrific tragedy in Victoria as a platform for blaming them for environmental mismanagement by other parties and industries is not only a vicious slur, but nasty exploitation of a situation where we should be focusing on the plight of the victims.
It smells to me like an attempt to preempt blaming climate change for the fires or, worse still, poor land management practices by those who launched the attack.
The Royal Commission, if properly set up, should provide more than enough opportunity to find out who or what caused the fires, and how best to minimise future risk. Engaging in political attacks now is inappropriate; doing so by lying goes beyond indecent.
Bush-fires: overpopulation and inappropriate settlement
The human devastation within these recent fires, which is the engine room of the popular anguish, was caused almost entirely by inappropriate settlement patterns. These in turn were caused by rampant population growth actively stimulated and facilitated by mindless and venal purposes.
To have the angst turn on the so called 'greenies' is abysmally ignorant and violently manipulative. A core function of this scapegoating is to keep the playing field clear for all of the same stupid growth and land-planning to continue, risking the exact same if not even greater catastrophe again in the future.
Ad hominem misses point
Greg,
If you want to argue on the points raised, that is fine.
If you want me to waste my time giving you detailed accounts of my movements, then you are going to be disappointed.
Note that I have responded to one of your previous emails by telling you that I did not write the two articles you are now responding to and that they were written by people in the field.
Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
Setting the record straight...
Sheila, DSE / Parks Vic / etc do not burn their reserves in their entirity. They burn small sections of them at a time in order to have a better chance of maintaining control. I know for a fact because I have seen their handy work when I have been spraying out similar reserves.
What proof do you have that the fire started in a previously burned section at Mt Riddle? And if it did start in a previously burned section how long ago was it burned? Long enough for the fuel load to build up again?
I beg to differ about fuel loads in pine plantations. Firstly the pine trees are planted far closer together than trees tend to be in the average natural forest. Secondly have you ever seen the carpet of shedded pine needles and other debris in a pine forest? There is plenty of fuel!
Even for those private landholders who are prepared to foot the enormous costs it is almost impossible for them to get permits to conduct fuel reduction burns on their properties. How can you justify saying that interfaces between private land and national parks is the most "heavily fire managed areas around". It may be so on the National Park side of the fence but it won't be so for the other side of the fence. DSE etc are not going light fires that are likely to burn down kilometres of fence for which they will be liable.
You are either very young or very naive or both.
Article about wetting forests not burning off
Greg,
The old-growth forest fared better than the managed, burned off forests. See "Responding to incorrect fire information by joining the debate" and "Comments on recent fire-management in bush-fire areas" which dissect these matters.
But your comments don't actually address my article. My article may start off mentioning burning off, but it actually suggests wetting the forests and gives a long list of ways to do that. Maybe you jumped the gun when you saw the title?
Also I am directly involved in the conservation sector, as are the authors of the articles referred to above.
all the best,
Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
Another Question
Did areas that had been cleared and now covered in mainly eucalyptus (natural regrowth) fare worse than areas that have had minimal disturbance since European settlement.
And a more detailed question: Did the areas that were cleared and had substantial top-soil loss fare worse than regrowth areas which still had substantial topsoil.
I would like to speculate that an area with more top soil can hold more water and thus be less dry compared to a regrowth forest where mulch falls onto exposed sub-soil and breaks down over very long periods.
Would be interested in any comment.
Fuel loads in drought...
"How after 12 years of drought and recent mega fires and a policy of so much fuel reduction burning, do we get the claimed record levels of fuel? "
Like so many people that are not directly involved in the conservation sector, you underestimate the contribution to fuel loads that environmental weeds can make.
Weedy pasture grasses like Philaris and Bromus etc as well as former nursery shrubs like Genista monsplessulana / Cape Broom seem to have very different growth patterns compared to a lot of native species.
When we do get rainfall in our current drought weed species like these seem to bolt and can generate a great deal of biomass in a very short time. By contrast most native species remain dormant unless the rainfall is substantial and sustained.
And there is barely a patch of forest in the vicinity of settlements and farms that is not heavily infested with a variety of environmental weeds including the above ones.
Fire bunker.
Hi,
The notion of a fire bunker is a common sense one. As we've seen, fire bunkers were at one time a commonly used safety measure in rural districts, especially around logging camps. They came about as a result of the understanding that at the worst moment there must be a fire-proof location for the period that it takes a fire to rage past.
Just one simple idea. A two metre by two metre diameter cement tank, sunk to 2.5 metres. A cement floor, cement roof covered by soil. A cement access tube with ember resistant ventilation.
This is the critical point. A fire of the ferocity we've witnessed in Victoria will only be present for a limited time - perhaps an hour. The application of common sense reveals that a subterranean space, large enough for 4 or 5 people, equipped with water, will serve to save lives. Whether this is beneath the house or immediately adjacent may not matter. It is a fascinating and odd fact that in a country where fire has killed so many the idea of a "basement" is still somehow seen as something they only do in other countries! Think of it as life insurance.
With thoughts to all those suffering in this terrible time.
Dan
Land plan also faulty
The sprawl of suburban style allotments spread through the bush is also a huge factor. There's zero focal purpose at work to define the shape and extent of the total housing footprint.
A genuine village structure provides a perimeter within and around which zones for production and fire protection can be arranged. Thus the bush can be kept healthy, accessible but separate to the living and property envelope.
Last week's catastrophe was yet another holocaust erupting out of the abysmal greed and stupidity of the 'free' market. Villages, by definition, present limits. The 'free' market abhors limits, as it abhors physical reality in general.
An article about this product would be useful
Hi Paul,
Your website tells us little about this product. How about letting us know a lot more about the design, materials, manufacturers, testing, guarantees, safety standards etc. Thanks.
Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
Emergency Bushfire Escape Bunker - ReadyMade
Editor: Note; this is a comment which came to our website; we know nothing about this product except what is on the page referred to, and, unfortunately, the materials information is not available on the site. I would like to hear more about the materials, tests, trials etc., from the Paul Steinberg. Here is the comment:
I thought I should bring this newly developed product to your attention... a Bushfire Escape Bunker. Go to www.carltonhandyman.com and then click on 'Firepit Australia'.
Regards,
Paul Steinberg
Carlton Hardware (www.carltonhandyman.com)
& Hardware Express (www.hardwareexpress.com.au)
ph. (+61-3) 93472755
fx. (+61-3) 93475462
Malcolm Ware
I am so relieved to read that Malcom Ware (the Whittlesea vet) is O.K.
He was over here in Whangaparaoa, N.Z. for Etchell sailing a few years ago and stayed with us. His real concern for the drought & what it could mean in the future then, for everyone, was really worrying him.
He really cares for the animals. Can you let him know we are thinking of him and everyone there as I havnt been able to contact him directly.
Lesley
Dug-outs and bunkers
Someone is researching for us what happened to the bunkers or 'dug-outs' as they used to be referred to. Apparently they used to be (or are they still?) on maps of forests and elsewhere. I do recollect seeing signs in forests, designating 'dug-outs'. Whilst your concern about logs seems reasonable, the dug-out would be well under the ground under a lot of earth and I believe that some of them had a turn on them, to avoid the radiant heat (which travels in a straight-line) as the article says. The article also suggests that building in a bank is a bad idea. The author of the article thinks that holes in the ground benefit from the draft of cold air which underlies fires as they travel. Concrete is pretty technical; the earth dug-outs presumably worked okay and could be built easily.
Hopefully we will learn a lot more about these technologies. Thanks for your comment.
Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
Copyright to the author. Please contact sheila [AT] candobetter org or the editor if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish.
Fire Bunkers.
I'm afraid I wouldn't climb into anything covered with logs during a fire. I would build a proper concrete or brick structure that you can stand up in, into the side of a hill or slope with earth mounded over it and a door low down on the side that can be sealed to prevent the oxygen from being sucked out of it during the height of the fire. It should be built away from the house.
Permaculture acknowledged in Back from the Brink
He does acknowledge it, Mike. He says that he thinks he is more concerned with biodiversity.
His contribution is original in that he has tested it on several big farms and he gives us the specifics of those farms. He theorises on water hydrology of this continent, rather than on swales in general. He writes clearly on rehabilitating the country rather than on growing food. It has a different emphasis and it is told from a particular point of view. It is also the story of a personal journey and an enquiring mind. He gives the antecedents of his ideas and they probably were different from Mollison's et al, but came to similar conclusions. All the better having two streams approaching the same watershed. I am inclined to defend Andrews because I really like his writing. That doesn't mean that I don't acknowledge Mollison and Holmgren. I don't have the book here or I would goof off some more today, citing chapter and verse.
Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
Copyright to the author. Please contact sheila [AT] candobetter org or the editor if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish.
Back from the Brink
Peter Andrews doesn't know it perhaps, he certainly makes no mention of it in his book, but he is practicing PERMACULTURE.....
Everything he promotes, from reshaping the landscape so that dams overflow into man made flood flats to introducing exotic species, is all Permaculture. It's unfortunate that often, well meaning Landcare aficionados critically renounce the worth of exotics to bolster bio-diversity. There are only good plants and better plants, unless they are truly weedy like Prickly Pears...
Mike
Urban councils can start relief programs for bushfire victims
Mary Drost of Backlash, has passed on these ideas:
Urge our local councils to help, with money, goods, manpower and arranging respite for those people who have lost their homes or who can't get back to see if their homes still exist.
I called my Mayor, Boroondara, and they are getting under way with a big relief program, working with one of the stricken areas and offering them all the help possible, the sorts of things mentioned above.
In fact my Mayor's son is helping out in one of the disaster areas working through the ruins to find those who did not escape.
This disaster is something that is affecting us all and so we are suggesting a number of ways to help in a practical way, if all else fails there is always money.
Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
Wonder if a "storm cellar"
Wonder if a "storm cellar" under the house would also be effective? Many houses in the USA have these, but cellars or basements don't seem to be included with Australian houses.
Fires could be reduced by Andrew's method
It is clear that, using Andrew's method, our soils and forests could be rehydrated.
This would reduce local temperatures and the risk of fires. The Victorian government's approach to water 'management' seems foolhardy in the extreme and should be reversed. How much did the failure to water gardens around houses contribute to fires and local heat? How much did the bulldozing of dams and the enclosure of water and the removal of trees around water bodies contribute? How much did
I urge all Australians to read his book.
Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
Contact sheila [AT] candobetter org or the editor
PERPETUAL GROWTH CANCER
Australia, as Denis comments has gone berserk in its efforts to extract our natural resources and expend them without delay. It seems our governments have been "spending" our resources in much the same fashion as Zimbabweans have been spending their Zimbabwean Dollars - with the least amount of delay possible.
But while the Zimbabwean spending has been prompted by a legitimate fear of huge devaluations of the currency, our "spending" can well and truly be blamed on the perpetual growth cancer we have contracted but for which we are not even attempting to find a cure. No doubt the pain has not yet become intense enough to warrant attention and it is easy enough to ignore the worrying symptoms such as endemic water shortages, degraded land and changed weather patterns that do manifest themselves more and more frequently and that point to a more sinister underlying ailment.
Our politicians, the media and of course big business have all been in a state of denial about the whole limitations to growth thing and instead of taking a precautionary approach to slow things down a bit they have done, and continue to advocate doing the opposite.
They have imported hundreds of thousand of immigrants to help them exploit those resources even faster and then look helplessly on when the health, education and other services break down under the onslaught.
I fear for Australia and and civilization in general.
The damage is real and substantial
The loss of the Noosa Planning Scheme was a catastrophe.
I have it on direct inside authority that the practical demands of managing the political and technical complexities of the now expanded municipality are overwhelming.
Admittedly both Caloundra and Maroochy Councils were substandard on many levels. However it was up to the constituents to fix that not hope an expansion of the system and an appropriation (and tragic dilution) of some of Noosa's essence might somehow magically do it for them.
The task of democratic and administrative repair is now inordinately more difficult for all of the areas involved. Thinking otherwise depends upon not taking any clear measurements.
Insulation and Stimulus
The insulation package is absolutely stimulating jobs. We own a roof insulation company and calls/bookings have skyrocketed we had over 600 visitors to our site just on the Tuesday alone and have been receiving 40-50 calls a day every day with dozens of bookings despite the fact that it hasn't been passed yet. We believe that people who had planned to buy are simply bringing their purchase forward and those that don't mind waiting a few months for the rebate to be paid back are just getting in early.
As a result we are recruiting contractors and employees all over the country and expect to put on between 10-20 in Sydney alone in the next few weeks and we are only a small group. More details on contractor opportunities can be found here free-insulation.com.au
Deforestation doesn't cause floods, but does make impact worse
The following has been cross-posted to the "Fire and Flood" forum on John Quiggin's blog site.
Thanks for your interest and your response James of FNQ. I have cross-posted it as a comment to the article. I trust that that is OK with you. Feel welcome to post further comments there or here. You can do so anonymously, subject to moderation, or using an account.
What I wrote was based on my gut feeling which was confirmed by Hugh Spencer who also lives in Far North Queensland. Hugh describes himself as a 'hands-on conservation biologist'. I am sure he will be most interested in your comments and will respond before long.
I didn't actually say that deforestation caused the floods, rather I said that it made their impacts more severe than they otherwise would have been.
Whether the clearing of land happened recently or over 100 years ago it looks to me, on the evidence, like environmental damage, if, as a consequence, floods cause as much damage as they do.
What got me thinking was the brown colour of the flood water and remembering David Montgomery's excellent "Dirt - the erosion of Civilisations" which pointed out that any agricultural system which allows soil to be washed away faster than it can be created (in the order of one or two inches ever century - I don't have the exact figure on me) is unsustainable.
All past civlisations which allowed their soil to be washed away at a rate faster than what could be replaced has collapsed.
The presence of so much dirt in flood waters (and for that matter, in the Barron river, constantly as Hugh had advised me) is a sign that the natural systems which hold soil in place have been damaged and that Australia is headed in the same direction.
An oversimplification of causes of floods in North Queensland
This article drew the following response on John Quiggin's blog:
"I think you may be over simplifying the flooding in North and Far North Queensland. Ingham, the town that appears most often on the news is on a low flood plain surrounded by mountains and near the Herbert River delta. This river has its source on the western side of the Great Dividing Range near Ravenshoe, and this source location is significant because the area around the headwaters, has had heavy rain since early November from Cyclones, and the Monsoon that comes along this time of year.
"The Monsoon Trough has also contributed to the falls along the coast, as Monsoon troughs and rain depressions do, and all this water combined with king tides results in what is happening in Ingham.
"Deforestation on the floodplain for sugarcane farms happened a long time ago and as far back as I can remember, Ingham had floods. The great majority of the Herbert river is in untouched forest so contrary to your suggestion that deforestation caused the flooding is not the only cause.
"As far as the rainfall is concerned, I live in the hills behind Cairns, and we have had less rain this year than last year and the Barron, our nearest river is not in flood, and has not been this wet.
"I hope this helps you understand the Queensland tropics a bit.
Visitor congratulates us for this site
The following comment, not necessarily related to this article, was posted to me by a site visitor, yesterday:
I have just discovered this webpage and I want to congratulate you on it. I'm so sick of our neo-conservative media feeding us their right wing bunk which is supposed to be taken as 'normal'. At last a balanced and intelligent website where people are not gagged where we can have truly open minded discussion without fear of censorship of certain topics that may be feared by some as being too contraversial. Discussion is vital and should never be quashed.
Does opposition to fluoridation require opposition to recycling?
The following is from a (so far) brief exchange on a mailing list in response to my posting of this notice to that mailing list.
On Sun, 8 Feb 2009, Terri wrote:
> Hi there,
> forgive me if I'm being really dim... Is this rally against recycling
> water? Or is it against fluoridation and for recycling? Aren't they two
> very different issues (I may be showing my ignorance there). ...
I guess you are in a sense right. Fluoridation is enforced medication which is likely to be detrimental to at least a significant minority of our society, whilst recycling is a supposed solution to our water crisis.
Nevertheless, people who are concerned about one issue tend to be concerned about the other and vice-versa. The decisions by the Queensland government to impose these measures on Queenslanders without proper consultation and a proper debate is symptomatic of the fact that democracy in the sense of 'government of the people by the people for the people' is not practised in Queensland. (For an interesting insight on this, read Tony Ryan's article of 2007 "If this is not democracy - then what is?".)
Personally, I see all these questions related to water supply as linked and I am opposed to all 'solutions' to our water crisis which have environmentally harmful consequences. This includes: water recycling, the Traveston and Wyaralong dams, mining of underground water aquifers at rates which exceed their rate of replenishment, desalination, transportation of water over long distances.
Clearly, if we find ourselves in the hole that the Queensland Government has dug us into by deliberately encouraging the population to grow well beyond the natural carrying capacity of the region in past years (see, for example "More chickens of population growth come home to roost in Queensland" of 14 May 08), then we are going to have choose the least worst from amongst a number of unpalatable options in order to get ourselves back out again.
However, above all else, we simply must stop making the problem worse and must desist with the further encouragement of population growth.
In my view, the least worst of all possible options is a combination of measures to reduce personal, as well as industrial water use and the installation of rainwater tanks.
The latter will incur environmental costs as their manufacture, particularly on the large scale which will be necessary, requires the consumption of non-renewable resources and further emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, but it is probably a better use of our natural non-renewable resources than gadgets design to break down in years at most.
> ... I come from somewhere that recycles water and it's way better
> quality than Melbourne town water! ...
Could you tell me where?
As far as I know the only places in the world where recycling is used, in any way similar to the way it was proposed for Toowoomba was Windhoek in Namibia and the English Shire of Essex and there, only for emergencies.
Those planning to impose water recycling on Toowoomba in 2006 confided in each other that Toowoomba was to become a "living laboratory" according to a document released under FOI legislation. (See "Courier Mail manipulates reporting of water recycling to demand early election" of 5 Jan 09.)
> ... To someone like me who is used to the idea it seems completely
> unsustainable not to recycle water. The planet recycles water all the time.
> Every drop you drink is likely to have passed through all sorts of humans
> and other animals already). ...
We need natural systems to do the job properly and cost-effectively. Technologically complex systems will incur significant financial and environmental costs. And if they fail, then the health of all of us is put at risk. (See above article and articles linked to from there.)
To be sure, with so much poison and so many exotic manufactured chemicals pumped into our environment all the time, even natural recycling systems may not be able to cope very well, but they remain our best chance.
> ... If we don't reduce our usage, and recycle, surely we'll need more dams?
As I said, we need to live within the natural carrying capacity of the region (and, that is, in the longer term without dependence upon fossil fuels and other non-renewable resources).
> Can't I be against fluoridation but for recycling?
Obviously, of course you can be. If you like you can also be in favour of dams, desalination plants, mining of aquifers, etc.
Changes made to article with thanks to G.R.L. Cowan
Dear G.R.L. Cowan (Boron Fan :-))
Long story why it took so long to respond to your comment. I would have been faster if I hadn't lost your email address. Please write to me and remind me what it is at astridnova[at]gmail.com. You will see that today I have substituted your two paras for my faulty ones, with sincere thanks. I have explained in two notes [a] and [b] that the changes were authored by you. I have also recorded where my text was wrong (uggh!). And I have stated how difficult it is to get useful feedback in this area especially. More discussion, including articles by you for candobetter would be welcome.
Regards and See below:
[a] Many thanks to G.R.L. Cowan for his rewrite of this paragraph which contained inaccuracies and which originally read: "During the operation of a conventional nuclear power station over the years, via the reactions that occur in the atomic pile, the U238 that is there gets converted into fissionable material which includes plutonium and other dangerously radioactive products. These products are increased in a breeder reactor. In conventional reactors moderators slow the neutron firing down so that the neutrons hit each other more easily and accelerate the natural rate of fission."
[b] Thanks again to G.R.L. Cowan for his changes to this paragraph as well, correcting the error, contained in the original text:
"The Fast Breeder reactor (FBR)
Without the moderator the reactor becomes a ‘fast breeder’ with a bias towards the U238 being converted and producing more fuel than it actually burns. In a fast breeder the nuclear waste products which present such a problem in conventional reactors become more fuel. The aim is to make this a closed and remote controlled process."
It is very hard to find people who will go to the trouble of carefully reviewing the technical detail in such articles, but the authors, who cannot be specialists in every facet they write on, need this kind of feedback. G.R.L. Cowan's feedback makes this article and this site worth visiting for people trying to understand an area where very little is written for the non-specialist in a field where obscurantism compounds rapid change and complex concepts and engineering in a politically polemicized field. Sheila Newman.
Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
Copyright to the author. Please contact sheila [AT] candobetter org or the editor if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish.
OK ... see if you like this
I thought my posting had vanished. See if you like this:
During the operation of a conventional nuclear power station, some of the neutrons in the atomic pile are captured by its U238, converting it into fissionable material. This includes plutonium and other dangerously radioactive products. These products are increased in a breeder reactor. In conventional reactors, moderators slow the neutrons. By thus reducing each one's likelihood of becoming part of a converted U238 nucleus and increasing its chance of finding one of the already-fissionable U235 nuclei, moderators allow a natural uranium pile to support a slowly increasing chain reaction.
The Fast Breeder reactor (FBR)
Without the moderator, the neutrons slow down less and the reactor becomes a ‘fast neutron reactor', often abbreviated to just ‘fast reactor', with a bias towards the U238 being converted. In a fast breeder the nuclear waste products which present such a problem in conventional reactors become more fuel. The aim is to make this a closed and remote controlled process.
Amalgamations to the benefit of Maleny residents?
I received the following comment from a Maleny resident:
I know only Caloundra/Sunshine Coast area and Crow's Nest/Toowoomba area. In both these instances the new big councils are far far better than what was there before.
They are more professional, their reps are better quality in general
They represent a direction towards regional government with States probably disappearing...
I haven't heard an argument I support against this ...
bye and thanks for your research
www.pecheysandals.com
My comment:
It's possible for decent candidates to win elections in larger amalgamated councils, but generally, the larger size will make it harder for people who are respected by the community, but who oppose developers and other powerful vested interests to win. That would seem to be why the Property Council of Australia asked former Queensland Premier Beattie to enact amalgamations
In the Sunshine Coast Regional Council a pro-democracy candidate, Bob Abbott, former Mayor of the Noosa Shire council, who, in fact, opposed the amalgamation of the Noosa Shire into the Sunshine Coast Regional Council, was able to defeat a developer-backed candidate, who was the Mayor of the Maroochy Shire. The previous Caloundra Shire, of which Maleny was part, also had a pro-developer mayor. The defeat of pro-developer candidates also occurred in the Cairns City Council into which the Douglas Shire was amalgamated and Redlands Shire. This verdict of many Queensland voters angered Rupert Murdoch's pro-developer national newspaper the Australian, which had been counting on the forced amalgamations to solve the developers' problems. I wrote of this in the article "The Australian laments outcome of Queensland local government elections" of 30 March 2008.
Nevertheless, I still think that the people of Maleny would be served better still by a council still smaller than the old abolished encompassing Caloundra City Council. That council could have simply been for Maleny and the surrounding areas, or, perhaps a larger Blackall Ranges Shire encompassing Maleney, Montville and Mapleton.
Possibly the Sunshine Coast Regional Council would work well as a regional government and the Queensland Government could be abolished. - JS
Economic contraction
Australia has used up a large proportion of its natural capital in an exuberant chase after a high material standard of living. That era is drawing to a close as irreplaceable natural capital becomes scarce.The PM has allowed the budget to go into deficit in order to finance the stimulus package. This is based on the presumption that the budget can have a surplus when the recession is over. That is a fallacious presumption. Economic growth is now part of history. Economic contraction is the new reality. Australia has used up a large proportion of its natural capital in an exuberant chase after a high material standard of living. That era is drawing to a close as irreplaceable natural capital becomes scarce. Tangible ecological forces are gaining control over the intangible economic ones. The symptoms of the malaise include the impact of climate change together with water, fertile soil and fuel shortages. The devastation of the Murray-Darling basin is only one of the irreversible environmental disasters. There are many others that the people of Australia are becoming increasingly aware of. The current heat wave coupled with dangerous bushfires in the south together with flooding in the north accentuates just how vulnerable our way of life has become.
Tangible ecological forces are gaining control over the intangible economic ones
The PM should have been very careful to choose the components of the package in such a manner to help Australians cope with the inevitable powering down. Stimulating consumption is not the way to go.
Brisbane dwellers urged to grow own food
Finally, a decent idea from the Brisbane council, but, of course, it should not just happen in communal gardens and it will need water for growing gardens, not for growing the city.
www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/29/2404968.htm?section=justin
The Brisbane City Council is urging residents to grow their own food as part of its community gardens initiative.
It hopes to set up a network of small farms across community facilities, parks and schools.
Environment Committee chairman Peter Matic says it will help the city reduce carbon emissions.
"It's about buying food locally and taking up those opportunities to plant basics in these community gardens so our food doesn't have to travel as far, therefore we reduce our carbon emissions," he said.
Sheila Newman, population sociologist
Brumby
The man and the plan are totally unimaginative. Does he have what's known as apartmentitis? I believe it's quite serious.
Construction Activity in Victoria
Despite talk of a so called recession, there is no shortage of active construction projects in Melbourne. Anyone who looked around in the suburbs of Melbourne would see frantic building activity everywhere. The housing monster is demanding more and it is being promised more feed by Brumby.
Media monopoly cause of all evil
Once it was priests from the pulpit; now it is commercially centred grubs given authority by the mainstream media.
The only reason there were not thousands of angry people in the streets for the democracy rally was that the mainstream media, as usual, kept this one off the reporting table. Most people have absolutely no idea of where to turn, who to contact, nor where all the pain from every side is coming from here in Victoria.
Unfortunately people are early encouraged to believe that the uneducated, unverifyable, uninformed opinions of professional journos working for the mainstream press are words of real authority. Only the truly desperate would work for these awful newspapers we have in Australia. And the ABC is just as bad now in its encouragement of land speculation and its avoidance of any challenge to the unsavoury fops who lord it over the rest of us.
It is criminal and sometimes I think that the most important battle is diversity of ownership of the press and of the means of publication and dissemination. No one man like Murdoch or a board of asset-rich directors like Fairfax should be allowed to organise and influence the way the world is perceived globally. What they have produced is no better than a Roman circus to take our minds off the devastation carried out by their corporate interests for profit.
Target 155 per day
It is ironical that the Victorian public, soft-targets, are being urged to voluntarily cut down their water usage to 155 litres each per day, but at the same time between 1200 and 1500 new residents are coming into Victoria each week! Why should the public cut back, while at the same time our government, contradictorily, deliberately keeps adding more consumers? Why should we cooperate unless we are all pulling our weight to save water? Surely people come here for a better life, and they expect the basic needs of water, housing, transport- things that we are becoming short of!
Anna Bligh , population and water
I would have thought tunnel vision and short sightedness were prerequisites now for any sort of pubic office like being premier.
nuclear power will come here!
With our government's discouragement of solar power usage, and their support of the coal industry, our bulging population will be the excuse to introduce nuclear power. Non-renewable energy will be put in the "too hard" basket, due to too many people, lack of infrastructure, and the sun being free!
Saved a possum, ...
I also noticed a few possums dying & saved one outside a chuch. Even ppl going to the church failed to save the possum as people are so concerned with themselves these days. No wonder immigration has grown to unsustainable levels. For too long people have been focusing on their holidays, wealth & ripping other people off in the workplace, while other genuine Aussies have been suffering.
I have had a terrible time in the Australian workplace. For the past 15 years I have experienced some of the most awful atrocities. I have been forced to quit, resign, been fired, abused, stolen from etc, just because I was doing a good job & that was disliked (because a good worker should be paid more & rewarded for their extra effort) Even though I am tertiary qualified & a very good worker, there has been this terrible mentality of employment agencies, managers etc. All they are concerned about is mass immigration & cheap labour---turning Australia into the third world. These evil people have been getting away with it, & now that more people are suffering we are starting to notice.
I say to these ppl. Why didn't you stand up in the past 15 years when I have been telling you how bad it is? Politics starts first, then the economy. Notice how Australia has been worse ever since they opened the gates to mass immigration.
Andrew Bolt has logic!
If an anti-green lobbyist, right-wing journalist and capitalist can see the connection between many of our problems today and artificial population growth, then the most banal "man on the street" should be able to put two and two together and see the solution! This forced growth benefits few, and people will want to leave the rat-race. This puts pressure on coastal areas and rural resources. In the last three days, due to the extreme heat, we have been able to see the limitations of our infrastructures, power and water scarcity. If this topic can touch at the grass-roots level, we can have a movement to stop the greed of politicians and businesses who gain from the continual growth. So few people benefit. It has to be thrown into the public arena. Senator Bob Brown needs to be challenged to put his words into policies to reflect that we are past "sustainable" growth, and immigration will be reserved for the most needy of humanitarian cases only. He cannot afford to be ambiguous on such a wide-encompassing and pivotal topic.
Ziggy Switkowski on population!
I was surprised to see an article by Ziggy Switkowski in Thursday's Australian newspaper questioning population growth
www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24976804-7583,00.html
Maybe an awareness of this issue is finally beginning to permeate the mainstream?
Property Council of Australia - back-taxes and enquiry
The Property Council of Australia has repeatedly boasted about its political power to change policy and that it has 'saved' its members over 2 billion dollars (in one year, I think) by getting taxes cut. If it is true that the PCA influenced the undemocratic, forced council amalgamations which have cost the public so much in democracy and in monetary expenses, then these sums should be recouped from the PCA through charges for services emanating from these new and expensive changes to local government.
There should also be an enquiry into the ways in which the PCA and its members have impacted on public policy and practice, e.g. law-making, taxes, and what this has changed about our democracy.
candobetter.org/node/628
Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
Parks Duty of care to fauna - water
Two ring-tailed possums died where we live apparently due to heat distress - local vets are being rushed with people wanting to save possums because they don't handle this extreme heat well at all.
Isn't there a duty of care involved for a park system with a commitment to fauna? Where would birds and possums normally find water for survival?
Louise
Preferencing Labor over Liberal a crime against the environment?
In all states, except in Queensland, for state elections, the compulsory preferential voting system requires nearly all voters to ultimately make a choice between the two major Parties, that is, except those rare constituencies where minor parties or independents get enough votes to be able to seriously challenge the major party candidates.
So, not giving one's preference to Labor over Liberal, automatically entails giving one's preference to Liberal over Labor.
If one can show conclusively that from a standpoint of democracy and the environment that the Liberal/National parties are preferable to the Labor party then it would be correct to be critical of the Greens.
However given the equivocation on environmental questions by the Victorian opposition, Ted Ballieau's ludicrous support for even higher population growth, the appalling records of both the previous Victorian Kennett Government and the previous Federal Howard Government, there may not be much reason to hope for anything of enduring benefit will be achieved if the Liberal were to be elected in Victoria on Green's preferences.
What is important is that, regardless of how the Greens eventually decide to allocate their preferences they, together with and the rest of us, must be not restrain ourselves from telling the truth about the shortcomings of both the major parties, in particular the current wanton vandalism of the Brumby Government at Brown's Mountain.
That way they can hope to increase their own vote and we can even hope to see a few more Greens MP's elected at the next Victorian state election.
But even if that is not achieved a high vote for partes other than the major parties will still strengthen the hand of the environmental movement.
Not true that Bob Brown has rejected immigration reduction
Vivienne, the source I based the report on Browns speech on Wednesday tells me that, congruent with his motion in Parliament a few months ago, he IS prepared to cut migration. We think that the Age has misreported him.
Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
Copyright to the author. Please contact sheila [AT] candobetter org or the editor if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish.
The lure of income and economic growth is just too powerful!
Our Brumby government is guilty of eco-vandalism and breaking pre-election promises that would have East Gippsland's ancient forests included in National Parks. They can't see the value of the forests for the $$$ signs from cheap woodchips for Japan.
We have no system of quality control and integrity checking in our constitution? The Greens should not give their preferences to Labor. Even Senator Bob Brown is being evasive on the population debate. He has rejected suggestions Australia should curb migration for environmental reasons! The lure of income and economic growth is just too powerful for a herd-species like humans to act logically and with common sense! A larger herd give a false sense of security - obviously!
www.watoday.com.au/national/population-debate-booms-20090129-7t5f.html
2 week reprieve for Brown Mountain
See article at www.theage.com.au/environment/logging-on-hold-over-species-find-20090128-7s13.html
The loggers are saying there is plenty of forest left for the sooty and powerful owls and they claim that the lobster is a common species.
My observation is to say that our society should live within its means, which is to say, we should not be opening new areas to log.
Nothing is becoming less common than a big, old tree in a forest with high biodiversity. Loggers can always find a plantation. That option isn't open for the creatures of the forest or for humans who consider loss of biodiversity the first and the worst kind of impoverishment.
Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
Fire-proneness of thinned regrowth eucalypts