they died from the effects of the fire yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by vnx205
Printable View
they died from the effects of the fire yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by vnx205
Was the smoke an effect of the fire?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eevo
not one that kills. or i be dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by vnx205
ever been to a camp fire?
unless its suffocation or super heating of the airways, i dont think it should count.
Some people just cannot see the forest for the smoke...Quote:
Originally Posted by Eevo
So for starters it was an estimated death number so not real, secondly most of those estimated deaths could have also occurred if there was a pollen or dust event as has happened before. "Experts" riding a wave of self importance and smugness by crying wolf and contributing little worthwhile information to the inquiry (but generating lots of headlines for the leftie newspapers)
Regards,
Tote
From reading about The coronavirus many statistical experts use the term 'excess deaths"
This is where they look at the statistics for deaths on average over a certain period for the last several years then compare it to the number of deaths in the period under review.
If looked at that way , they can probably be legitimate in their evidence.
similarly with hospital admissions.
BUT to then seem to imply that all of these people had ongoing effects is a stretch, and then to say 80% of the population was affected is just speculation.
Regards PhilipA
Exit reality stage right....
So it's all just a lefty conspiracy that a right wing government ignored years of warnings and what turned out to be spot on predictions that that sort of event would occur on that timeline almost to the week by those self obsessed academic attention seeking left wing nutters
Gold....
Nope, not a left wing conspiracy, but I do note that the Guardian is the only outlet I've seen publicizing the theoretical death number. The bushfire enquiry is absolutely necessary but will achieve little if the only outcome from it is that "global warming caused the bushfires and we're all doomed". I'm sure, however that it will deliver sensible recommendations that can be acted on but the point that I was making is that the professor in question was getting publicity to push her particular viewpoint that the bushfire smoke is highly toxic and will be the end of us all. If this viewpoint was adopted I can see the day that there would be a law prohibiting sitting around campfires as this is clearly exposing oneself to a highly toxic carcinogen and the public "must be protected"Quote:
Originally Posted by incisor
Similar statements are trotted out in the media on a daily basis with regard to corona virus, mostly due to the expert's depth of involvement with the subject matter at hand making them unable to make a risk based assessment of the likelihood of harm actually occurring. A similar theme is expressed by DR John Crozier on road death and injury every time he is put in front of a camera, but that's another thread [smilebigeye]
Regards,
Tote
Yes I guess my worry would be that people would complain about smoke when hazard reduction burns were undertaken and would quote the "evidence" of the Royal commission.
This already happens in Sydney where people with asthma or lung conditions or with children with the same complain bitterly about hazard reduction burns so the CFA tries to burn only when the weather is cool AND the wind is not blowing in a wrong direction which cuts down the windows of operation and so on.
Maybe the complainers could be put up in Hotels away from the fires for the duration. It wouldn't cost that much compared to losses from bushfires.
Regards PhilipA
Actually it was on every news site and TV broadcast I checked. Why don't you just face reality?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tote
Excess deaths above normal is a very common method of identifying the impact of an unusual event. Its the way the real impact of C-19 is being assessed.