4017 ifire3/9/2023 If a fire broke out in surrounding bushland, chances are there'd be more than enough time to get everyone out. These places are built to handle masses of people as part of their normal operation. If a park can be cleared in a short period of time at the end of a day for regular closing, then an evacuation is going to be child's play. and this is where large companies like Macquarie come into the picture. The bottom line is that Dreamworld won't be closed unless a fire breaks out. be aware of Dreamworld's economic and statutory footprint in the country - which would in turn make them even more wary as to the chance of fire and damage to what is one of Australia's largest money-makers.Īre you kidding me? Dreamworld as one of Australia's largest money makers? In comparison to what exactly? Any large entertainment venue (such as a stadium, big theatre, etc) in the country would have an income of comparable size, not to mention places of similar land size (mines, office blocks, etC) making potentially millions more each day. I'm not biased to one side of the argument or another, rather stating what I heard. Is this strategy that the fire authorities are putting into place now going to work? Probably not. Two years ago, there was a petition by a group of environmentalists (the name of which I can't recall), who asked that Dreamworld be 'relocated' to a less fire-prone area. Instead, the news said what you replied with - if a fire that posed a credible threat to Dreamworld broke out, the park would be evacuated. Threats and fire dangers come out all the time. The news I heard did not say that if there was a 'threat' or a 'chance' of a fire, the park would be evacuated. It's not as simple as 'put the fire out'. We've all seen the news articles saying "firefighters can't keep up with the blaze" etc. Now, all things being equal, that would mean either: The easy solution would be to rid of the threat before it becomes anything more. But management and staff at Dreamworld would be well aware of the potential threats of a dangerous fire. No, the authorities can't force anybody to do anything. In hindsight, it all depends on how you choose to word and read your reply. Which means that the fire authorities would be aware of Dreamworld's economic and statutory footprint in the country - which would in turn make them even more wary as to the chance of fire and damage to what is one of Australia's largest money-makers. In your own words, common sense prevails. The Gold Coast Hinterland bushland, which is where Coomera is located, is one of these areas. These areas are the areas where fire threats are at their most prominent. Simple as that.īy law, the fire authorities are obliged to instruct business to cease in certain areas. Unless a fire breaks out that actually poses a credible threat to Dreamworld, it's not going to close. Obviously in the event of a real fire one would hope that common sense prevails and Dreamworld would evacuate, but to shut down businesses and evacuate people simply because it's hot, windy and dry? Nobody would ever get any work done! In most of Australia, most places run total fire bans and promote extreme levels of risk throughout summer. Businesses don't have to cease trading - even during a fire the authorities can't force anybody to leave their premises or business.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |