Decay dectection equipment

[Paul Barton]

That's one of the nice things about the thermal imaging topcat - because it is quick and non-invasive it makes sense to photograph large populations of trees whether you regard them as having a potential fault or not. I think photographing up to 100 trees in a day is quite feasible so the idea of surveying lots of street trees or trees in high target areas is possible. Then the resulting data speaks for itself and can be interpreted and used for good management.

 

In this sense I think the thermal imaging is better describes as a survey tool rather than 'decay detection'.

[Bundle 2]

"Thermal imaging isn’t the panacea to all ills though it is by far the best I’ve seen , once an anomaly has been identified it then leads to further investigation.."

It would appear to be.....if it can be used in conjunction with associated systems. It is the all seeing eye. It makes good our blind spot and crucially fulfils an inate desire to manage trees within an acceptable risk parameter.

Edited January 12, 2009 by Bundle 2

[Topcat]

"In this sense I think the thermal imaging is better describes as a survey tool rather than 'decay detection'"

 

Tks Mister, Use it during your survey, id ones with faults, get out the invasive bits and pieces find the cavity.....and then spend two minutes with the tree officer and an hammer.......lol only joking

 

If it as good as people are reporting then it could be a fantastic piece of kit that may as Bundle says allow us to keep trees within given risk paramiter.

 

One thing that is great is that through Arbtalk we can all get to discuss new advances on a daily basis. We don't just have to wait till the annual show or take the word of some magazine ad or sales guy (no offence Marcus)

[Yorkshireman]

it was an area wide appraisal of the tree stock who had a target zone other than grass n hedges,

these particular trees had been previously assessed /VTA'd by the La's To & passed with flying colours..

so bang goes that theory !

 

Ti is another bit of kit to use as and when the need arises if the customer wants it to be used, it is a tool to aid retention (functionality) as much as it can id problems that are otherwise hidden (dysfunction)

the old addage a picture paints a thousand words, & the palete can be utilised to assist the client in grasping the extent of the above

[Amelanchier]

And the real question is - does any of this actually reduce the risk of harm from tree hazards??

 

We have no data to show that professional risk management actually results in fewer incidents. If we compared managed with non managed sites over a number of years would we actually see any difference?

[Bundle 2]

I think it must do mate....regardless of data one way or another frankly.....but hey, just to be sure, lets all do nothing and watch to see if that fecked tree fails whilst a target is within the falling zone....?!!<><><<<<<

[Amelanchier]

I think it must do mate....regardless of data one way or another frankly.....but hey, just to be sure, lets all do nothing and watch to see if that fecked tree fails whilst a target is within the falling zone....?!!<><><<<<<

 

Yeah that's a reasonable approach! Really? Regardless of data??? So for arguements sake - if I collate a massive dataset showing that there is no difference whatsoever between the risk of harm from a managed site and an unmanaged site - you'd blithely ignore it and still prescribe demonstratably unnessecary works anyway?

 

Perhaps we could get more proactive management done if we stopped spending all the clients money on "potentially dangerous" trees. Perhaps people would calm down a bit if we didn't convince them as an industry that "trees need managing"???

[Yorkshireman]

trees dont need managing they've managed for millions of years quite nicely without us lot

 

its humans that changed the circumstances to lead to risk being managed

[Bundle 2]

"Yeah that's a reasonable approach! Really?"

I thought I was gonna be able to argue my way out of that but see on reflection it is not going to happen. Period. What I think I meant was that statistics are not the be all and end all so to speak.

Where people and industry have come into contact with trees and where for the sake of argument tree roots have been trounced, perhaps unknowingly, there can be no argument surely that a professionals input and understanding of the implications from his/her investigations and subsequent risk/hazard evaluation, which constitutes a notion if not real management, is an effective part of assessing and so reducing a potential risk.

BTW,I dont like potential danger with trees..iys dangerous or its not....?

"you'd blithely ignore it and still prescribe demonstratably unnessecary works anyway"

Like I say, I agree with your view and understand that much of what is regarded as tree risk management is perhaps spurious and undermines the purpose and " mission statement " if you will....demonstably unnecesary?...? presumably on account of their being no incident......

 

"Yeah that's a reasonable approach! Really? "

 

Actually, maybe it is...how else, it strikes me, can you fulfil a " passive " management strategy........think about it!!

[Bundle 2]

its humans that changed the circumstances to lead to risk being managed

 

Exactly right mate.....