Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But most especially the places with monsoons/cyclone seasons (Townsville, Cairns, Darwin) - for your life's worth, don't live there.
Bit of a risk perception thing going on there, around 1300 people die on the roads EACH year with thousands more injured many badly, and yet we all happily jump in our cars. Cyclone Tracy only killed 71 around 40 years ago!. Quick skim back looks like maybe 20 deaths since. Of course there is a $$ risk to consider.
So if you value your life don't drive your car, or go near a road!
Bit of a risk perception thing going on there, around 1300 people die on the roads EACH year with thousands more injured many badly, and yet we all happily jump in our cars. Cyclone Tracy only killed 71 around 40 years ago!. Quick skim back looks like maybe 20 deaths since. Of course there is a $$ risk to consider.
So if you value your life don't drive your car, or go near a road!
But the thing is, we have to drive. We have to use transport to get from here to there. Transport is a must whether it's a car, train or bus. I don't think we can avoid driving in life. BUT, we CAN easily avoid places having dangerous weather.
That's like saying "I can swim in the beach all day long as more people die from car crashes anyway, than being bitten by a shark".
Thanks for the replies. As far as the environment is concerned, I'd say just leave the rainforest strip around Cairns and leave the area's around Melbourne and Hobart alone as they can support more unique and diverse life, but develop the areas around Darwin. As far as a port, I think the islands might get in the way. Where do most of the new immagrants to Australia go though? Is it to the north, the cities in the southeast, or the mines in the west?
Thanks for the replies. As far as the environment is concerned, I'd say just leave the rainforest strip around Cairns and leave the area's around Melbourne and Hobart alone as they can support more unique and diverse life, but develop the areas around Darwin. As far as a port, I think the islands might get in the way. Where do most of the new immagrants to Australia go though? Is it to the north, the cities in the southeast, or the mines in the west?
This I definitely know, the cities in the southeast
I am no hippie or environmental freak, but seriously, those humid hot places (and deserts too) should be left for animals and nature in general.
But most especially the places with monsoons/cyclone seasons (Townsville, Cairns, Darwin) - for your life's worth, don't live there.
So all of SE Asia and a good portion of Africa, India, the Americas should be abandoned? Not to mention all the islands in the tropics. With regards to cyclones, in first world countries like Australia, the risk to life from cyclones is minimal. If you look back over history you will see that most deaths in Australia are due to people being under-prepared. I include Tracy, during which people did not take the warnings seriously and instead held cyclone parties.
If anything, there is a good environmental case for moving north - water. In the south of the country, water is a major limiting factor. In the north, rainfall alone can support a much larger population than currently exists. Economically of course, it's a vicious circle - the low population leads to lack of infrastructure and both lead to lack of industry, which then leads to low population.
Thanks for the replies. As far as the environment is concerned, I'd say just leave the rainforest strip around Cairns and leave the area's around Melbourne and Hobart alone as they can support more unique and diverse life, but develop the areas around Darwin. As far as a port, I think the islands might get in the way. Where do most of the new immagrants to Australia go though? Is it to the north, the cities in the southeast, or the mines in the west?
World-Heritage-listed Kakadu isn't worth preserving? I'll agree with the Tasmanian wilderness and the Daintree and GBR, but I can't recall anything around Melbourne as ecologically valuable as Kakadu. Don't get me wrong, I liked a lot of areas there, in particular the Grampians, but they are not on a par with Kakadu.
Regarding ports, I'm not an expert, but I believe that there are good options for deep water ports in Darwin Harbour. I'm not sure whether the existing ports are deep water, but I thought at least one of them was. There just hasn't been the impetus to develop the area into a major hub.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
