- Joined
- Nov 11, 2016
- Posts
- 1,502
my Pm2.5 monitor recorded 390 outside this morning. Our room was 200 and the kids rooms were 130 (I had the air purifier fan pointed at their rooms all night, but I think it can only handle light duty well)
Bushfires 2019/2020!
- Thread starter Cossie
- Start date
- Status
my Pm2.5 monitor recorded 390 outside this morning. Our room was 200 and the kids rooms were 130 (I had the air purifier fan pointed at their rooms all night, but I think it can only handle light duty well)
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2013
- Posts
- 14,638
The only way to reduce PM2.5 is to use HEPA (high efficiency particulate air) filters - these are medical grades used in hospitals.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2011
- Posts
- 28,486
- Qantas
- Platinum
- Virgin
- Red
I don’t have a benchmark but that was the figure I heard this morning? Is this high?
Adelaide had smoke issues a few days ago. The media didn’t report much on that day for some reason - maybe they were still on holiday - but did over report a few days later when I didn’t see anything to comment about at all. Our sons friend from London was here at the time of the first instance. I said to her that it was a very smoky day today expecting her to agree. She looked at me quizzically and said it seemed just like a normal day in London!
blackcat20
Enthusiast
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2011
- Posts
- 11,760
- Qantas
- Gold
- Virgin
- Platinum
Pretty bad where I am, can barely see a couple of hundred metres.
Sponsored Post
Struggling to use your Frequent Flyer Points?
Frequent Flyer Concierge takes the hard work out of finding award availability and redeeming your frequent flyer or credit card points for flights.
Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, the Frequent Flyer Concierge team at Frequent Flyer Concierge will help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2016
- Posts
- 1,502
The news was probably quoting the air quality index, which is different number (made up of a calculation of which Pm2.5 is part of). 390 is hazardous.
The EPA site has a chart:
PM2.5 particles in the air
Find out where PM2.5 particles come from, how they can impact our health and how to check air quality.
www.epa.vic.gov.au
Limewood
Established Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Posts
- 4,461
This is an interesting read on fires climate change...
Written by Les Crowe.
I am writing this because I am appalled at the amount of near-hysterical reaction to the recent NSW and Qld bush-fires. My reasoning is not so much about the fires or the people affected, but about whether "man-made" climate change is the underlying cause. Before I go further, my stance is not so much a personal, but rather a professional reaction.
I begin by telling those of you who don't know, for a period of some 40 years, my work as a loss adjuster was involved with natural disasters, ranging from Cyclone Tracey through to a lesser involvement in 2009. I was appointed as National Chief Loss Adjuster, an advisory role, to the Insurance Council of Australia on all-natural disasters but particularly bush-fires. This role was interactive with all agencies and spanned more than 10 years. It was both proactive in planning stages and reactive after the event. I was heavily involved in the 1983 Victorian fires.
I acknowledge the advice of The Bureau of Meteorology and the Climate Council, is a reality to the effect the projected changes to climate, was derived from modelling, which strongly suggested change would occur unless man-made contribution was reduced.
Somehow or other, sections of our communities, have taken control of the scientific argument about the future and have interpreted it to mean the change has already occurred. Not so. Records I have seen, actually show that the slight upward trend in temperatures on a global scale seems to be in direct line with the earth's ever occurring"natural" climatic change patterns. History shows numerous ice ages, when the planet cooled, to corresponding heating up periods, over billions of years. This has always occurred. It is the nature of our planet and cannot be influenced by what man can or cannot do. On the other hand, the impact of humans is a future projection, well-founded on scientific modelling.
The true position, despite all the comments about what the current fires mean in a climate change scenario, is nobody can tell if there is any connection.
What I can tell you with absolute certainty is that these fires, as bad as they were, are no more intense, widespread, dangerous or unexpected in outcome, too many previous and historic events. There is no accurate method to measure such outcomes. However, it is possible to look at prevailing conditions and contributing factors to seek patterns or influential factors.
Take a look at the following comparative data, much of which has been ignored by the frantic argument to directly link man-made climate change to the outbreak and effects of these latest fires. I detail some of the arguments I have heard go unchallenged or are simply ignored and unreported, particularly by the ABC who are the appointed official national disaster communications service.
This the first time such fires have been rated as catastrophic. True, but not because they were rated any worse than many previous fires. In 2009, following the bush-fire inquiry, the defined categories of fire were renamed. Catastrophic was introduced as the most severe warning. So this description was never intended to make people think they were the worst fires ever. I have heard many media reports entrench this mistake.
The fires are occurring earlier because of climate extending the summer risk. Can only be applicable in the North. However, NSW has a long history of November and December bush-fires. In 1944, the Blue Mountains lost 27 homes and other property in November. Since then, I can recall at least 3 other similarly timed events in NSW. So this year was not unique, as has been strongly inferred by many reporters. In southern areas, January and February have historically been prone to outbreaks. These fires are the most widespread and worst ever. They certainly were disastrous. However, it is impossible to compare unless it can be based on raw data….
Have more lives been lost than ever before. No, although 1 is far too many, in 2009, 173 people died. In 1983, 75 people died. In 1962, 62 people died. In that decade one of the victims in Eltham North was George Crowe, my Grandfather and Grandma's father in law. In 1967, it was reported that 2,600 square kms of land was devastated in just 5 hours (Just try to imagine that ferocity). In 2009 there were 2030 homes destroyed and in 1983 there were 6,000 homes and other buildings destroyed. Does this define which fire was the worst? NO. All fires are bad but to try and claim the current fires are the worst ever is a blatant disregard for historical fact. Worse still, it is a deliberate attempt to scare people into accepting the fanatical side of the global warming argument, by accepting radical changes to our economy, power generation and mining {let alone agriculture and transport} must occur right now and in a premature manner. The so-called re-definition of the predicted changes into an emergency is a way to virtually destroy our entire way of life.
The fires were started as a result of climate changed conditions. Clearly wrong. 80% of fires were started by people either deliberately or accidentally lighting them. Dry lightning strikes have been long recorded and are nothing new.
What has our Media and ABC generally ignored? One of the clearest data-based facts, reported out of the 2009 Inquiry, was the finding that fire intensity is proportional to and severely aggravated by fire loads created by undergrowth and forest floor debris accumulation. We can't control wind and heat but we can control fuel load. Ask any active Rural or Country serving fireman what they think of this hazard.
Then ask your Green Party representative, why they have influenced the management of National Park maintenance, as well as local government reserves, to leave far too much of the forest floor intact at any cost. Winter back burning, firewood removal and general debris clearance have been widely restricted by stupid laws. They argue it preserves natural ecosystems that rely on such decaying material. Well, systematic removal of this fuel load may well disrupt some Eco-systems, consider this; A bush-fire positively destroys them all.
The only identifiable and the recently introduced risk factor is the environmental law changes that have impacted a fire's intensity potential and capacity to burn faster and hotter.
Find this hard to believe, Go into a forest and try setting fire to a living gum tree with a match. Now stoop down and see if you get any better results from the dead and therefore dry undergrowth at your feet. This is the effect ember spread has on adjoining bush-land.
There is much more to say about bringing sanity back into discussions and I have my own opinion that if you believe the science of global warming, stick to the science and ignore the fanatical self-professed experts, like some of the current crop of Green Party politicians and shrieking media, self-appointed, experts. No, before it can be said. I was not self-appointed in my former career positions.
I can only reflect that the handful of ex-firemen who were paraded before the media, may have had other agendas. The spokesman listed his current occupation as a "Climate Change Consultant". Another said outright, on camera, that fires have always been linked to climate change. I prefer to listen to our Indigenous community who talk of bush-fire management over thousands of years. – oops; before any hint of an industrial age, meat production or mining.
Written by Les Crowe.
I am writing this because I am appalled at the amount of near-hysterical reaction to the recent NSW and Qld bush-fires. My reasoning is not so much about the fires or the people affected, but about whether "man-made" climate change is the underlying cause. Before I go further, my stance is not so much a personal, but rather a professional reaction.
I begin by telling those of you who don't know, for a period of some 40 years, my work as a loss adjuster was involved with natural disasters, ranging from Cyclone Tracey through to a lesser involvement in 2009. I was appointed as National Chief Loss Adjuster, an advisory role, to the Insurance Council of Australia on all-natural disasters but particularly bush-fires. This role was interactive with all agencies and spanned more than 10 years. It was both proactive in planning stages and reactive after the event. I was heavily involved in the 1983 Victorian fires.
I acknowledge the advice of The Bureau of Meteorology and the Climate Council, is a reality to the effect the projected changes to climate, was derived from modelling, which strongly suggested change would occur unless man-made contribution was reduced.
Somehow or other, sections of our communities, have taken control of the scientific argument about the future and have interpreted it to mean the change has already occurred. Not so. Records I have seen, actually show that the slight upward trend in temperatures on a global scale seems to be in direct line with the earth's ever occurring"natural" climatic change patterns. History shows numerous ice ages, when the planet cooled, to corresponding heating up periods, over billions of years. This has always occurred. It is the nature of our planet and cannot be influenced by what man can or cannot do. On the other hand, the impact of humans is a future projection, well-founded on scientific modelling.
The true position, despite all the comments about what the current fires mean in a climate change scenario, is nobody can tell if there is any connection.
What I can tell you with absolute certainty is that these fires, as bad as they were, are no more intense, widespread, dangerous or unexpected in outcome, too many previous and historic events. There is no accurate method to measure such outcomes. However, it is possible to look at prevailing conditions and contributing factors to seek patterns or influential factors.
Take a look at the following comparative data, much of which has been ignored by the frantic argument to directly link man-made climate change to the outbreak and effects of these latest fires. I detail some of the arguments I have heard go unchallenged or are simply ignored and unreported, particularly by the ABC who are the appointed official national disaster communications service.
This the first time such fires have been rated as catastrophic. True, but not because they were rated any worse than many previous fires. In 2009, following the bush-fire inquiry, the defined categories of fire were renamed. Catastrophic was introduced as the most severe warning. So this description was never intended to make people think they were the worst fires ever. I have heard many media reports entrench this mistake.
The fires are occurring earlier because of climate extending the summer risk. Can only be applicable in the North. However, NSW has a long history of November and December bush-fires. In 1944, the Blue Mountains lost 27 homes and other property in November. Since then, I can recall at least 3 other similarly timed events in NSW. So this year was not unique, as has been strongly inferred by many reporters. In southern areas, January and February have historically been prone to outbreaks. These fires are the most widespread and worst ever. They certainly were disastrous. However, it is impossible to compare unless it can be based on raw data….
Have more lives been lost than ever before. No, although 1 is far too many, in 2009, 173 people died. In 1983, 75 people died. In 1962, 62 people died. In that decade one of the victims in Eltham North was George Crowe, my Grandfather and Grandma's father in law. In 1967, it was reported that 2,600 square kms of land was devastated in just 5 hours (Just try to imagine that ferocity). In 2009 there were 2030 homes destroyed and in 1983 there were 6,000 homes and other buildings destroyed. Does this define which fire was the worst? NO. All fires are bad but to try and claim the current fires are the worst ever is a blatant disregard for historical fact. Worse still, it is a deliberate attempt to scare people into accepting the fanatical side of the global warming argument, by accepting radical changes to our economy, power generation and mining {let alone agriculture and transport} must occur right now and in a premature manner. The so-called re-definition of the predicted changes into an emergency is a way to virtually destroy our entire way of life.
The fires were started as a result of climate changed conditions. Clearly wrong. 80% of fires were started by people either deliberately or accidentally lighting them. Dry lightning strikes have been long recorded and are nothing new.
What has our Media and ABC generally ignored? One of the clearest data-based facts, reported out of the 2009 Inquiry, was the finding that fire intensity is proportional to and severely aggravated by fire loads created by undergrowth and forest floor debris accumulation. We can't control wind and heat but we can control fuel load. Ask any active Rural or Country serving fireman what they think of this hazard.
Then ask your Green Party representative, why they have influenced the management of National Park maintenance, as well as local government reserves, to leave far too much of the forest floor intact at any cost. Winter back burning, firewood removal and general debris clearance have been widely restricted by stupid laws. They argue it preserves natural ecosystems that rely on such decaying material. Well, systematic removal of this fuel load may well disrupt some Eco-systems, consider this; A bush-fire positively destroys them all.
The only identifiable and the recently introduced risk factor is the environmental law changes that have impacted a fire's intensity potential and capacity to burn faster and hotter.
Find this hard to believe, Go into a forest and try setting fire to a living gum tree with a match. Now stoop down and see if you get any better results from the dead and therefore dry undergrowth at your feet. This is the effect ember spread has on adjoining bush-land.
There is much more to say about bringing sanity back into discussions and I have my own opinion that if you believe the science of global warming, stick to the science and ignore the fanatical self-professed experts, like some of the current crop of Green Party politicians and shrieking media, self-appointed, experts. No, before it can be said. I was not self-appointed in my former career positions.
I can only reflect that the handful of ex-firemen who were paraded before the media, may have had other agendas. The spokesman listed his current occupation as a "Climate Change Consultant". Another said outright, on camera, that fires have always been linked to climate change. I prefer to listen to our Indigenous community who talk of bush-fire management over thousands of years. – oops; before any hint of an industrial age, meat production or mining.
TomVexille
Enthusiast
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2013
- Posts
- 11,034
I haven't seen your media, but today is probably the worst Melbourne has been. I still have an irritated throat from the hour I had to spend outside this morning.
p--and--t
Established Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2008
- Posts
- 3,856
- Qantas
- Bronze
- Virgin
- Red
Yeah, although I had intentions to stay indoors I had to go out for a short while.
Stinging eyes within a couple of minutes and coughing by the time I returned. Funny thing, while thick smoggy conditions, I couldn't smell smoke - maybe my nostrils have got used to the smell
I didn't actually query the process, I question the appropriateness of calling in the reserves. I then backed this up with the fact that the regular army was called in, meaning the reserves were clearly not enough.
In response all you can do is try to discredit me with the usual circular arguments. I see the other 10000 + post heros are jumping in with the mob.
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2013
- Posts
- 14,638
I believe not all reserves were called out. some had exceptions. That the also called out the ADH is neither here or there.
But Im sure some reservists would have preferred not to have been calledout.
I don't see any downsides to a reserves callout. Are there any?
But Im sure some reservists would have preferred not to have been calledout.
I don't see any downsides to a reserves callout. Are there any?
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2007
- Posts
- 10,667
- Qantas
- LT Gold
In today's Bangkok Post:
www.bangkokpost.com
Elephants march in silence for Australian bushfires
AYUTTHAYA: A troupe of elephants and school students held a silent march at an elephant camp in this central province on Monday to pay their respects and raise awareness for the millions of animals killed in Australia's raging bushfires.
No it just is the Royal Victorian Regiment (No so called about it). Exactly the same as the RNSWR, RQR - they trace back to colonial militia times with each colony having it's own infantry regiment.
Make me wonder why you, and someone else, then wanted to jump on the politics, to attack my comments about the process.
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2013
- Posts
- 14,638
Same Same
Level of training may be lower, especially with the move away from integrated units. Is that training appropriate for the response needed? Readiness may be lower. I also originally raised the point that back in the day, there was a cadre of on call regular soldiers with specific emergency training appropriate for civilian emergencies. That might be a much better approach. But clearly this no longer happens because of the high operational demands on the ADF, which is already leading to high pressure and high rates of suicide among serving and ex members.
Dumping another demand on them, for which they may have very little appropriate training, to provide a political knee jerk response to a failure of leadership is not good governance IMO. We're just setting up the ADF members for more pressure.
This is not a comment about their willingness to help etc. for those who can only want to disagree.
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2006
- Posts
- 3,402
a political knee jerk response to a failure of leadership
In your opinion, what would have been appropriate leadership ?
In your opinion, what would have been appropriate leadership ?
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2011
- Posts
- 28,486
- Qantas
- Platinum
- Virgin
- Red
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2007
- Posts
- 10,667
- Qantas
- LT Gold
We might get to the point where they're used too much. This would risk the member leaving the service to focus on their civilian career. Or even civilian employers getting frustrated with Reservists regularly leaving to perform military tasking.
Whilst it is good that ADF personnel can assist in Australian emergencies "The primary role of Defence is to defend Australia against armed attack."
About | About | Defence
Defence's primary role is to defend Australia and its national interests, promote security and stability in the world, and support the Australian community as directed by the Government.
While Australia is a stable democracy the use of military personnel in civil emergencies must be the exception rather than the norm.
We must have sufficient civilian personnel in various roles to perform emergency roles in virtually all circumstances.
The use of Reservists and Regular members will need to be appropriately clarified to ensure seamless interaction with civilian personnel. There may even need to be a review of training to ensure that all personnel use the same terminology and have interoperable equipment as appropriate.
Hopefully, there will be a thorough review of how various personnel worked together and what lessons need to be applied to future operations.
The Frequent Flyer Concierge team takes the hard work out of finding reward seat availability. Using their expert knowledge and specialised tools, they'll help you book a great trip that maximises the value for your points.
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2013
- Posts
- 5,371
There is no doubt that defense forces are meant to fulfill a defense role, But as we have seen repeatedly, most recently in the Solomons, and after the Tsunami, the defense forces find themselves undertaking civil emergency roles, both in relief services and policing. So I think trying to be too prescriptive is counter productive.We might get to the point where they're used too much. This would risk the member leaving the service to focus on their civilian career. Or even civilian employers getting frustrated with Reservists regularly leaving to perform military tasking.
Whilst it is good that ADF personnel can assist in Australian emergencies "The primary role of Defence is to defend Australia against armed attack."
About | About | Defence
Defence's primary role is to defend Australia and its national interests, promote security and stability in the world, and support the Australian community as directed by the Government.www.defence.gov.au
While Australia is a stable democracy the use of military personnel in civil emergencies must be the exception rather than the norm.
We must have sufficient civilian personnel in various roles to perform emergency roles in virtually all circumstances.
The use of Reservists and Regular members will need to be appropriately clarified to ensure seamless interaction with civilian personnel. There may even need to be a review of training to ensure that all personnel use the same terminology and have interoperable equipment as appropriate.
Hopefully, there will be a thorough review of how various personnel worked together and what lessons need to be applied to future operations.
Ever since the Rum Corps rebellion it has been a credo in Australia that the defense forces must point outwards, not inwards. But to have committed defense personnel being forced to sit on the sidelines while they could be used in tactical but non-military roles (in the sense of not being armed) would be a waste of a great resource. Just ask the Indonesians about how they appreciated the support after the Tsunami (even if they didn't like the peace-keeping role in East Timor).
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2007
- Posts
- 10,667
- Qantas
- LT Gold
The mission of the Australian Defence Force (note spelling of Defence, no 's' and singular force, comprising of the Royal Australian Navy, The Australian Army and the Royal Australian Air Force, is;
The Australian Defence Force (ADF) is constituted under the Defence Act 1903, its mission is to defend Australia and its national interests.
The peace-keeping and overseas disaster support are part of Australia's national interests in ensuring a stable region.
As I noted above, we need to set the regional example that military personnel do not unnecessarily perform civilian roles. I support the presumption that the current situation is an emergency where the use of military personnel is warranted but assert that it is the exception.
We should not encourage it to become the norm. Among other adverse outcomes it may lead to decreased funding and or skills for civilian bodies we would normally expect to fulfil these roles.
The discussion is essential but we need to know the boundaries of each organisation's role and why they exist.
Flying mermaid
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2011
- Posts
- 6,125
- Qantas
- Platinum
We are in Melbourne today. It’s not great but it’s hard to compare as the smoke we have had in Canberra has been so crazy this level seems fine. I made Ms FM wear her mask when we walked down to the restaurant, but I have to admit we took them off walking back because it was so hot and muggy.
one of the issues is that it might not smell or even seem smoky but you don’t know how bad the PM2 levels are. My new toy (air quality monitor) was pretty unhappy with the PM2 levels. None of it is an issue short term - it is coughulative effects (and vulnerable groups). Mr FM is my canary - when he starts coughing I know it is bad
just taken from our hotel room
- Status
Enhance your AFF viewing experience!!
From just $6 we'll remove all advertisements so that you can enjoy a cleaner and uninterupted viewing experience.And you'll be supporting us so that we can continue to provide this valuable resource :)
Sample AFF with no advertisements? More..
Sample AFF with no advertisements? More..
Staff online
-
NMEnthusiast
Currently Active Users
- jimmywise
- Stone
- Brissy1
- Hors Ey
- virgintiger
- Agenor
- vmile
- dizz
- NM
- ADLhighflyer
- TonyDoh
- jeza
- Rug
- dajop
- scottm38
- mouseman99
- kpc
- doctorstrangelove
- equus
- snooze
- brissie
- jonboixxx
- Beachy55
- kuwahshi
- mrs.dr.ron
- Auzzieflyer
- rbjhan
- tirtytree
- accompanimince
- chrispy3276
- Scr77
- redbigot
- Lara19
- diamondhands
- Jczer000
- nj12
- Marsonline
- 33kft
- Kevin07
- opusman
- jase05
- Flatforlonghaul
- ayebee
- Franky
- Tanark2
- tazzo
- smiliemonster
- OATEK
- SydneySwan
- RooFlyer