Learning from this
I have a theory.
In the 1983 Ash Wednesday fires, more people were killed outside of their homes (esp in cars) than in. For the past 20 years, those who were properly prepared to defend their homes not only had excellent survival rates, but they had very good rates of house retention, while those that fled virtually condemned their houses to be destroyed.
That's all very well for "normal" bushfire conditions. However, footage the other day didn't show fires with smoke rising, it showed smoke moving entirely horizontally. Reports were that the fire fronts were moving at upwards of 60 kph. With speeds like that, by the time a resident might know that their area is in danger, it might be too late to flee.
I've always thought that if I were to live in a rural area, that I'd want an underground bunker. I'm starting to think that this might not be such a bad idea for everybody else. Digging out an underground bunker might be expensive, but apparently above ground bunkers can be helpful too:
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25026484-5006301,00.html
One advantage to the underground idea is that because underground structures have such thermal mass, that they'd also be pretty good for enduring the heat during heat spells etc.
Current community safety spots tend to be on ovals; some survivors report being in cars in the middle of paddocks (with some grass-fires not hot enough to set the car alight). These are certainly cheaper options, but not exactly psychologically comforting, and I doubt they'd be as effective.
The bunker idea still has several modes of failure:
* The bunker catching fire
* Something (eg: a house above, a big tree) falling on the bunker
* The heat penetrating the bunker
* Local oxygen being used up by the fire
Good design should avoid the first three failure modes. Of course, the oxygen issue could be solved to any given risk, for a price.
This is a very 1950s idea. I admit that I've always been fascinated by fallout boy shelters. But, I'm starting to think that living within crawling distance of a bunker might just be a Wise Idea, and probably worth some of the cost
In the 1983 Ash Wednesday fires, more people were killed outside of their homes (esp in cars) than in. For the past 20 years, those who were properly prepared to defend their homes not only had excellent survival rates, but they had very good rates of house retention, while those that fled virtually condemned their houses to be destroyed.
That's all very well for "normal" bushfire conditions. However, footage the other day didn't show fires with smoke rising, it showed smoke moving entirely horizontally. Reports were that the fire fronts were moving at upwards of 60 kph. With speeds like that, by the time a resident might know that their area is in danger, it might be too late to flee.
I've always thought that if I were to live in a rural area, that I'd want an underground bunker. I'm starting to think that this might not be such a bad idea for everybody else. Digging out an underground bunker might be expensive, but apparently above ground bunkers can be helpful too:
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25026484-5006301,00.html
One advantage to the underground idea is that because underground structures have such thermal mass, that they'd also be pretty good for enduring the heat during heat spells etc.
Current community safety spots tend to be on ovals; some survivors report being in cars in the middle of paddocks (with some grass-fires not hot enough to set the car alight). These are certainly cheaper options, but not exactly psychologically comforting, and I doubt they'd be as effective.
The bunker idea still has several modes of failure:
* The bunker catching fire
* Something (eg: a house above, a big tree) falling on the bunker
* The heat penetrating the bunker
* Local oxygen being used up by the fire
Good design should avoid the first three failure modes. Of course, the oxygen issue could be solved to any given risk, for a price.
This is a very 1950s idea. I admit that I've always been fascinated by fallout boy shelters. But, I'm starting to think that living within crawling distance of a bunker might just be a Wise Idea, and probably worth some of the cost