Australia pledges $10 million in aid to Philippines

Nov 11, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Age

Philippine and US military personnel unload relief goods from a US military C-130 plane at Tacloban airport.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 15 of15

“Fair & Balanced”

Since: Jul 12

wherever there's a mine

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Nov 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

watch - those $15 timber shanties will cost us $100k each to rebuild.
idiots united

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Nov 11, 2013
 
chefboy812 wrote:
watch - those $15 timber shanties will cost us $100k each to rebuild.
Don't blame me I am not contributing to this over populations that causes earth warming. I have no kids to worry about and I'm not worried about myself. And fack you all stupid human.

“Fair & Balanced”

Since: Jul 12

wherever there's a mine

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Nov 11, 2013
 
idiots united wrote:
<quoted text> Don't blame me I am not contributing to this over populations that causes earth warming. I have no kids to worry about and I'm not worried about myself. And fack you all stupid human.
I just wish your parents didn't contribute to "this over populations".

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Sydney, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Nov 11, 2013
 
chefboy812 wrote:
watch - those $15 timber shanties will cost us $100k each to rebuild.
That's always the hazard of aid. Instead of showering victims with money it would be better to supply needed goods direct to where needed.

With climate change more such catastrophes are probably on the way.

Am I the only one who can see opportunity to get ahead of the game here?

I am thinking of a new industry springing up here, manufacturing prefabricated basic emergency housing in kit form, easily transported and assembled at short notice.

Here it would generate jobs and attract investment. Units could be stockpiled for use either within Australia or overseas as needed. We have the expertise, and enough unemployed to staff a new workforce. Need for it is likely to grow as weather tantrums unfold around the world.

Instead of sending money we would send houses.
heressssssss kenny

Las Piņas, Philippines

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Nov 11, 2013
 
chefboy812 wrote:
<quoted text>
I just wish your parents didn't contribute to "this over populations".
Not a great ambassador for Australia are you ???
idiots united

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Nov 11, 2013
 
chefboy812 wrote:
<quoted text>
I just wish your parents didn't contribute to "this over populations".
Balanced view the answer is no. I'm the only boy they got. Human are idiots.
sid

Brisbane, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Nov 11, 2013
 
The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
That's always the hazard of aid. Instead of showering victims with money it would be better to supply needed goods direct to where needed.
With climate change more such catastrophes are probably on the way.
Am I the only one who can see opportunity to get ahead of the game here?
I am thinking of a new industry springing up here, manufacturing prefabricated basic emergency housing in kit form, easily transported and assembled at short notice.
Here it would generate jobs and attract investment. Units could be stockpiled for use either within Australia or overseas as needed. We have the expertise, and enough unemployed to staff a new workforce. Need for it is likely to grow as weather tantrums unfold around the world.
Instead of sending money we would send houses.
An excellent philanthropic thought ADE but I think you would find that very few aid agencies would be interested in goods they usually want cash.
Your scheme would work if stocks of temporary houses where held in areas likely to be affected but who can predict that. One thing that happens with a natural disaster like the filipines is that usually just about all local infrastructure is wiped out, bridges, roads, trucks, electricity, you name it and quite often it's only possible to get to some areas on foot. Unless you can get dozens of helicopters on the scene quickly not a lot can be done in terms of relief immediately after the disaster. Believe it or not the most immediate concern after a disaster is clean water 1st and food 2nd and medical assistance of course, people will make temporary shelters out of whatever they can find.
Another important requirement after a disaster is to keep the bloody UN as far away from it as possible, if they are involved it will become a monumental fcuk up for sure.
En0och

Belrose, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Nov 11, 2013
 
We should them some refugees from Christmas Island on a one way voyage, to assist with the rebuilding.

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Sydney, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Nov 11, 2013
 
sid wrote:
<quoted text>
An excellent philanthropic thought ADE but I think you would find that very few aid agencies would be interested in goods they usually want cash.
Your scheme would work if stocks of temporary houses where held in areas likely to be affected but who can predict that. One thing that happens with a natural disaster like the filipines is that usually just about all local infrastructure is wiped out, bridges, roads, trucks, electricity, you name it and quite often it's only possible to get to some areas on foot. Unless you can get dozens of helicopters on the scene quickly not a lot can be done in terms of relief immediately after the disaster. Believe it or not the most immediate concern after a disaster is clean water 1st and food 2nd and medical assistance of course, people will make temporary shelters out of whatever they can find.
Another important requirement after a disaster is to keep the bloody UN as far away from it as possible, if they are involved it will become a monumental fcuk up for sure.
I agree with you Sid that housing is not the only priority.

The other factors you cite would each need their own preemptive schemes likewise.

But it's not much use feeding, clothing and medicating victims if at the end of the day they have nowhere to go day or night but out in howling wind and rain, often with babes in arms. At least if they have shelter it's somewhere to retreat to, to gather their families, eat some rations, get some sleep, gather their thoughts, and plan their next move more effectively.

I know my suggestion is riddled with loose ends, but it's only half an hour old. I'm sure it can be improved and made more practical.

Here's another thought ... chaotic piled up debris is a recurring feature of such natural disasters. Think of Fukushima. There could be double benefit if some mega-heavy duty machinery were designed for deployment at such sites to gobble up the wreckage on site, pulverize it into coarse 'chaff', incinerate it to sanitize it, and compress the ash & cinders into modular building slabs with some binder such as epoxy resin to quickly produce slab components for kit housing. As it's produced the streets become cleared.

“Fair & Balanced”

Since: Jul 12

wherever there's a mine

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Nov 11, 2013
 
The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
That's always the hazard of aid. Instead of showering victims with money it would be better to supply needed goods direct to where needed.
With climate change more such catastrophes are probably on the way.
Am I the only one who can see opportunity to get ahead of the game here?
I am thinking of a new industry springing up here, manufacturing prefabricated basic emergency housing in kit form, easily transported and assembled at short notice.
Here it would generate jobs and attract investment. Units could be stockpiled for use either within Australia or overseas as needed. We have the expertise, and enough unemployed to staff a new workforce. Need for it is likely to grow as weather tantrums unfold around the world.
Instead of sending money we would send houses.
I recall this being tried - by a central vic company - making homes out of compressed straw boards or similar. I think they were about $7k each but no aid agency wanted to buy them. Easier to pilfer cash than homes.

Since: Jan 11

Mount Holly, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Nov 11, 2013
 
The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree with you Sid that housing is not the only priority.
The other factors you cite would each need their own preemptive schemes likewise.
But it's not much use feeding, clothing and medicating victims if at the end of the day they have nowhere to go day or night but out in howling wind and rain, often with babes in arms. At least if they have shelter it's somewhere to retreat to, to gather their families, eat some rations, get some sleep, gather their thoughts, and plan their next move more effectively.
I know my suggestion is riddled with loose ends, but it's only half an hour old. I'm sure it can be improved and made more practical.
Here's another thought ... chaotic piled up debris is a recurring feature of such natural disasters. Think of Fukushima. There could be double benefit if some mega-heavy duty machinery were designed for deployment at such sites to gobble up the wreckage on site, pulverize it into coarse 'chaff', incinerate it to sanitize it, and compress the ash & cinders into modular building slabs with some binder such as epoxy resin to quickly produce slab components for kit housing. As it's produced the streets become cleared.
They're called FEMA trailers here. Sid is right about bridges and roads. These trailers are useless if it can't be transported to where they're needed. Those sky crane helicopters that are used against fires can carry a couple at a time.

https://www.google.com/search...

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Sydney, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Nov 11, 2013
 
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
They're called FEMA trailers here. Sid is right about bridges and roads. These trailers are useless if it can't be transported to where they're needed. Those sky crane helicopters that are used against fires can carry a couple at a time.
https://www.google.com/search...
That's a mighty impressive scheme!

It would require countless acres of expensive sheet aluminium to name just one component. And all those double wheel bogeys would also cost a fortune. Rather than have all those immobilized for months or years they could be used for transport only and detached between times to move other trailers rather than add to cost per trailer. And this scheme does not address the debris problem. Scrunching that up to become new dwellings would seen logistically beneficial as a way of removing it.

I'm not downplaying other problems like roads, bridges and utilities. They too would call for big & bold innovation.

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Sydney, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Nov 11, 2013
 
Captain America2013 wrote:
<quoted text> That's what we did here in the usa when hurricane katrina hit he gulf coast, but these were only temporary housing. After the need they were sold for storage units, garages, etc around the country.
There you go. With kit homes they could be on loan, collapsed and re-stored after use.

“REFUSE ALL IMITATIONS!!”

Since: Jan 11

Sydney, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Nov 11, 2013
 
Captain America2013 wrote:
<quoted text> After Katrina and when they were no longer needed they were sold off. My parents bought a couple and placed them near our lake for a little get-a-way. They aren't really bad, and work out perfectly when we hop on the atv's and just want to go fishing and get away from the house for awhile. I think more countries will start doing this bc there is a need for them during disasters. They're well made, but cheap. I don't know about all of them, but the couple my parents bought are made of wood; I don't know if any are made of allumimun or any other material or not, but I would think so.
One thing's for sure ... Disaster relief and accommodation offers fertile ground for innovation. Some is obviously in hand but there must be many more ways of thinking 'outside the box'.:)

Since: Jan 11

Mount Holly, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Nov 11, 2013
 
The ADELAIDEAN wrote:
<quoted text>
That's a mighty impressive scheme!
It would require countless acres of expensive sheet aluminium to name just one component. And all those double wheel bogeys would also cost a fortune. Rather than have all those immobilized for months or years they could be used for transport only and detached between times to move other trailers rather than add to cost per trailer. And this scheme does not address the debris problem. Scrunching that up to become new dwellings would seen logistically beneficial as a way of removing it.
I'm not downplaying other problems like roads, bridges and utilities. They too would call for big & bold innovation.
I've seen scrunching up machines when a road or highway is built through a wooded area. Entire trees are put in it and mulch comes out the other end. They exist.

The wheels on the trailers (caravans :-)) make transporting them easier. I think they leave them on for leveling reasons. A drop box can be unstable depending on the terrain.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 15 of15
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••