It was probably inevitable, but now we have controversy over the use of the word " catastrophic " to describe the top spectrum of bushfire weather.
Former Rural Fire Service chief, Phil Koperberg thinks it is inappropriate - and prefers the word " extreme ". Others complain that it was applied to yesterday - and there were no fires in their area.
This seems to miss the point.
While there may have been no fires burning, the temperature was 42 c, the humidity a low 9% - and the wind was blowing at 56 kph.
Had a fire started, those conditions would have duplicated the conditions in Victoria last year that saw a high death toll of those defending their homes. Such conditions are a very good reason to urge residents to evacuate !
It is useless to wait until a fire actually starts to issue such a warning. By sheer good luck no arsonist struck - there was no lightning strike - no power lines dropped and sparked.
It really doesn't matter what word is used in fire warnings. The main objective is to have a warning that people recognise as a description of conditions that may lead to their deaths - if they choose to ignore it.
After that - it is up to them to make a decision !
No comments:
Post a Comment