How much weather porn can we watch?

Reg says:

10:28am | 14/02/11

I must disagree laddie. The Weather Channel is far the worst but to know that you must have cable TV. According to one of their wild-eyed presenters standing lamenting a flooded rock-pool, it was an atrocity.

Levi says:

09:05am | 14/02/11

How exactly Mary? If you built your house on Mt Vesuvius could you reasonably expect it to erupt in the next 500 years? Of course you could. But you accept that risk because it is real and present but you take steps to mitigate its impact on you. Insurances, evacuation plans etc.

Rivers flood, cyclones cross the coast. It’s all happened before, and if you choose to live in an area where records show these catastrophic events have happened before, well then tough $h!t

TimB says:

09:09am | 14/02/11

How exactly is that dumb? It sounds like common sense to me.

Warren says:

09:20am | 14/02/11

Is it? How so?

Loulou says:

09:53am | 14/02/11

I thought it was a pretty accurate statement actually…

Michael says:

10:09am | 14/02/11

Levi - What steps exactly can you take to mitigate the impact of Mt Vesuvius’ eruption?

Reggie says:

10:33am | 14/02/11

Michael;  mitigate the impact of Mt Vesuvius’ eruption?

A handful of Panadeine and a bottle of single-malt Scotch?

mary says:

10:53am | 14/02/11

Let’s not live in a cyclone area or a flood prone area or a fire prone area or a heat wave area or an earthquake prone area or a midgee/mozzie (near lakes and rivers) prone area, or a locust prone area. Let’s also not live in an area where the ozone layer has a humungous hole or near Telecommunication towers or big electricity power stations or nuclear reactors or tips/dumps. Let’s not live near airports,  in places where there are snakes, crocodiles or spiders. Let’s not live near military test areas or areas where there are higher rates of cancers in the population. And let’s never swim in the surf in any of those beaches known to cause spinal injuries when the waves dump you. Do you know which beaches I’m talking about?

What does that leave you?

It leaves areas where people with limited funds can’t afford to live. Many people in Australia live where they live because of work restraints, financial restraints, due to family commitments, history etc etc.

In my newspaper it was mentioned that for instance the people in Toowoomba never expected or could have predicted the disaster which happened to them.

Where would you like our farmers to move to?

In Noosa one of the most prestigious areas I was privileged to live for a little while; Noosa Waters was actually built on a swamp.

Do you think that the developers advertised this?

I can tell you that they didn’t because I lived there, I wasn’t told and parts of it flooded.

They also had crocodiles in the canal. Where I live now there is an abundance of snakes. No-one told us about them either.

People don’t choose to live in these kind of areas unless they are the kind of smarty pants who responded to my post who seem to have been blessed or lucky enough not having had to live through some major disaster. I can only keep my fingers crossed for you wise people that your wisdom may continue to prevail for you in your lives.

Keen Observer says:

11:16am | 14/02/11

How about a slippery dip down the side of Mt Vesuvius for emergency evacuation!

mary says:

11:34am | 14/02/11

Correction on the crocodiles in the canal; they were (are?) sharks.

And yes, do a survey before you buy. We were renting when we lived there.  Anyways what does a ‘‘one in a hundred year flood line’’ tell you?

Did any one have a look on the map of flooded and flood prone areas in Australia a few weeks ago? If no-one should live in any of these areas .. where would you like these millions of people to move to?

It’s the developers and councils to blame not the poor suckers who got the wool pulled over their eyes and ended up living there because maybe that’s all they can afford.

iMitchy says:

12:13pm | 14/02/11

Mary, nobody said that no one should live there, just that by living there, one accepts the risk. We see it all the time with people who choose not to evacuate but would rather go down with their house like a captain to his ship. It is a good thing that we embrace the wildness of our local climate.

I’m really sorry that people didn’t tell you about the problems in the areas that you have lived in but you obviously know of the hazards now, which means that the information was already there, a little early research may have been enlightening.

While the nature of the Toowoomba flood was a freak occurrence, Brisbane floods periodically and this flood was not a record breaker.
This is no secret.

Is there anyone that is not aware that North QLD experiences cyclones?
Because they do…. A lot.
This again is not kept secret.
As a matter of fact, the article explicitly states that the media carry on and on about it.
And as far as choices go, I will keep with the Mt Vesuvius analogy. Regardless of work, finances or family, no one is going to live on top of Mt Vesuvius. Why? Because the risk seems too great…..
Unless of course “nobody told them” it was a volcano…...

Warren says:

12:19pm | 14/02/11

“Anyways what does a ‘‘one in a hundred year flood line’’ tell you?”
Well Mary its simple really. It tells you don’t live/build in a flood area.

A little research before spending money on a house, probably the biggest cost/investment you will would ever make in your life time, might save you some cash & pain. If you can be bothered.

Australians managed to work out where it was risky to build in the first 150 years of modern settlement without too many problems. If people in the last 50 demand water views & close access to beaches and rivers, more fool them. Cheap housing isn’t so cheap if it gets washed away.

fairsfair says:

12:24pm | 14/02/11

@Mary - all time best response ever. Agree with you 100%. I accept the risk where I am and it is known and recently it was supremely tested. Would I move - no.

Life is not black and white people. There is risk everywhere.

If i lived in Sydney and was raped and robbed at knifepoint while I fumbled to get my key in the door would all you people say “hmm tough shit Levi”? Records show that it is more likely to happen to me in a city than a regional centre afterall…

Warren says:

12:37pm | 14/02/11

@fairsfair. Would expect someone else to pay if you decided to take a risk?

iMitchy says:

12:51pm | 14/02/11

I would just like to add Mary, that the comment which you think is “really dumb” states “if people CHOOSE to live in KNOWN flood prone and cyclone areas they must accept the risk”, which makes your stories of “no one told me” null.
As you stated in your little “Let’s not live near (insert hazard here)” rant, there is risk in every facet of life. Choice is about risk vs reward, weighing those risks and managing them where we can.

I know that there is risk in driving to work every morning as hundreds of people die on the roads every year. But I consider it less risky than trying to live without an income. I manage this risk by wearing a seatbelt, having airbags, maintaining my car and driving sensibly.

Living in these areas is the same. The rewards of living in a beautiful part of the country, perhaps on the waterfront, far outweighs the risk of facing a disaster. Cyclone resistant housing and flood levees or raised houses are some ways that people try to manage these risks.

A really dumb comment would be that people can choose to live in known disaster prone areas but they do not have to accept the risk.

iMitchy says:

01:00pm | 14/02/11

@mary and Warren,
The “One in a hundred year flood line” phrase is misleading. It has come about as a silly way to interperet the percentage of chance.
One in a one hundred year flood actually means that there is a one in one hundred (1%) chance that a flood of that magnitude could occur in any given year.
The phrase itself offers a connotation of the occurrence’s relation to time. This is simply not true.

Warren says:

01:23pm | 14/02/11

@iMitchy. Sure. In fact the flood could possibly take place twice in a year, or in two years running as @Obob has pointed out in his comment below. Either way, you would have to accept that risk if you chose to live in such a location.

fairsfair says:

01:48pm | 14/02/11

@Warren, no I don’t. But that said, I don’t begrudge my tax dollars going to render immediate assistance to people who are directly affected. IE, there are no phone lines or power and they literally can’t access funds to buy fresh water to drink or food for their kids. Cash handouts help.  All this business of being able to claim money if you were without power for 24 hours is rediculous though. The entire population north of about Bowen was advised to take shelter at 10:00am on the 02/02 and not advised to venture outside until 12:00pm on 03/02. Then you go and have a government that offers a $1000 payment to every adult who was unable to leave their home for a period of 24 hours or more. That is just lunacy. There are thousands of claims pending a decision from the GG.

I am entitled to claim the govt Yasi payment because I was kept from my home for over 24 hours. I incurred costs evacuating (including flying home to make work on the Monday and missing out on work on the Wed, Thur and Fri). I have not claimed it because it isn’t anyone’s fault and I don’t believe the tax payer should have to fork out. I might add that I am in the extreme minority and I am tyring not to let the dangling carrot of having my council rates paid and the actions of other influence my moral highgound. There is a diference between living in a risk zone and not mitigating the risk - like taking out insurance. I have no sympathy or people in Tully who do not have insurance (same goes for the floods). I found the amount of people at the shopping centre on Saturday making significant purchases rather frightening.

Events like these bring out the very worst in a select few and the very best in most. Unfortunately the worst ones get all the air time and they are the people that you hear. Please keep in mind that most people are not lecherous and demanding in times of natural disaster and that is why so many people take offence to the “you live in the flood zone you deserve all you get” mentality that a lot of people have after they hear one sound bite of a bogan who is “struggling” because the cyclone blew away their last carton of fags.

iMitchy says:

01:55pm | 14/02/11

That’s exactly right Warren.

I would say that your comment is “really smart”.
I would not say that your comment is “really dumb”.

Do you think mary would agree?
(Tongue in cheek)

iansand says:

04:15pm | 14/02/11

In NSW the pre-contractual disclosure on a purchase includes a zoning certificate.  That certificate includes information about flood status.  If you didn’t know it is because you ignored information available to you.

fairsfair says:

05:00pm | 14/02/11

In QLD, council searches are carried out by your solicitor as part of the property conveyance process. It they find anything concerning, they are supposed to bring this information to your attention upon review. I don’t reacall ever seeing the search when I bought, but if I had have asked I am sure it would have been available to me.

I think what Mary is getting at is that if we all refused to live in places where there was a known risk, if we swalled the hype about it all - there would be nowhere left to live. I have re-read her comments and I can hardly see where she is claiming that she is a victim. It hardly warrants comments like Mick in the Hills below. She is simply discussing people’s options - little to none when you can’t afford to enter the property market as it is. Besides, none of this helps renters - options are limited for renters as it is and they make up a pretty high percentage of residents in areas that are prone to disaster damage.

mary says:

05:21pm | 14/02/11

@iMitchy We could have known about the snakes because the suburb next to us is called ‘hills of the brown snake’ in local Original language.

We don’t speak local Original language however and silly us we never inquired about the meaning of the names of the 6 or so suburbs close to us before we moved in.

Nor did we visit the local hospital which has signs warning everyone to keep out of their gardens because of the snakes. Dumb of us, isn’t it?

Therein lies my point, nobody knows everything about where they live, there are risks wherever you go, if you are aware of them or not.

I love where I live and don’t care about the browns sunning in my yard.

I just wouldn’t assume that people willingly and knowingly move into known potential disaster areas.

If I were raising toddlers I be very concerned about the browns and would be pretty upset if some-one were to tell me, “well if you move into ..”  life just isn’t that straight forward for most people.

mary says:

06:22pm | 14/02/11

Thanks fairsfair, it looks like we’re on the same page with this one.

Great also of you to make the statement, that just because funds are made available doesn’t mean people have to line up for it if not warranted.
Good on ya.

iMitchy says:

12:00pm | 15/02/11

@mary,
There will always be circumstances that limit ones choices and
I understand that when one moves to a new area the local hazards are not always immediately apparent. But…

I have only made comment that I completely disagree your original comment and I debated your defence of it. I believe that the original sentence of “if people choose to live in known flood prone and cyclone areas they must accept the risk” is worded well and stands proper and true. Note the use of the words “choose” and “known”, these nullify your objection which you based by ignoring these words.
The sentence is somewhat redundant though because it is common sense. I don’t remember ever hearing anyone who chose to live in these known areas say that they didn’t accept the risk so the sentence seems to make an accusation of a non existent issue. Either way, you can’t argue with common sense.

This article was about *weather* and the way the media is reporting it.  By dramatising events they actually inflate the perception of the hazard. There was no mention of snakes or understatement of hazards.
Should one need to get the facts about an area’s climate, there are extensive in depth records which go back years and also document major events from before records began.
Once again, your objection about ignorance to a hazard can only be based by ignoring the principle of the entire article.

I don’t mean to pick on you. You made some really good points, but they were out of context because the author never made the claim that you were trying to argue with.

LoveFest says:

01:23pm | 14/02/11

hear hear! me too.

Reg says:

10:38am | 14/02/11

Yes I see your point. There is something pornographic about slinking around sulking and pointing at irrelevancies while neglecting the troops.. In the broadest sense of the infarction of course.

Adam Diver says:

10:44am | 14/02/11

“Spend billions of dollars building schools and keeping people employed” & “Hundreds of thousands of Australians are financially assisted in insulating their homes and reducing their energy consumption”

Why is any of this a federal governments responsibility? Why do people need assistence insulating thier home?

Ignoring the attack on the coalition, why are you happier paying excess taxes for a mob of strangers to spend on your behalf, particularly when they do so outside thier core responsibilities that justify thier existence?

Perhaps 20 billion dollars being spent on non-essential items, to artificially stimulate an economy is good for people who don’t mind paying taxes, but I want my government to focus on things that we can not do collectively or economically.

Mick In The Hills says:

12:49pm | 14/02/11

Like Mary above, Political Porn believes the gubmnt is responsible for all of us from cradle to grave, and some gubmnts don’t give us enough to live how we’d like to.