Fleetwood

The HSE document that that was quoted in the recent HSE justification for two rope working refered to the unacceptably high accident rate for tree work but the text akso highlighted the unreliable nature of the RIDDOR accident stats as RIDDOR stats lumped ar b accidents in with others and so they seatched for certain keywords to extract what might (or might not be) arb specific accident stats from the RIDDOR dataset. At thd samd time they claim arb accideng numbers are too high to justify imposing additional controls (2 ropes) I would like to see reliable accident stats for the arb industry to be collected and required if additional (2 ropes) controls are to be imposed. However I can see the good sense of two systems if it can be shown that one rooe system is resulting in an unacceptable accident rate. Please can we see reliable accident statistics for the professional arb indusry where one system had failed and a second rope would have prevented the accident (and would not have caused other accidents) This sort of change should be based on reliable accident statistics specific to the professional arboricultural climbers, and not on questionable data.

A 900x900x900mm bag volume would only be .73 cu m if the bag does not bulge out. If the top bulges to a circle then the volume would be .83 cu m (average of 900 cubed and 900 cylinder)......or about one cubic yard. I like the name "bulk bag". "Builders bag" could be one of those thick rubble bags holding about 40 litres and as already mentioned "tonne bag" could imply it contains 1000kg.The other problem is that bulk bags do vary in size so I specify the dimensions of the bag. The weight of firewood is greatly affected by its water content. So you would get many more kilos of high moisture content firewood in a "bulk bag" than one filled with dry (seasoned) firewood. What many customers are buying is the idea of a log fire. Others are buying heat. Burning moist firewood uses much of its heat in boiling that water and turning it into steam (heating water uses lots of energy and vapourising it uses even loads more) so less energy remains to radiate into the room. This is why I like to sell firewood by volume and not weight. Perhaps we should also specify a moisture content. Fairly easy to measure by cutting a log in half and then using a moisture meter on the fresh cut surface. Basic moisture meters are very cheap these days. Andrew - (pedantic grandma sucking eggs)

I have a problem with a fire damaged English oak tree. The neighbours shed burned down last month causing one side of the trunk to be blackened, but remarkably no damage to the branches above. It took an hour for the firemen to put it out but the shed was destroyed and the greenhouse exploded, so the fire was pretty intense, but fairly short. The tree is about 60ft tall and the trunk is over two feet wide. The bark is pretty thick and only charred to a max depth of 2-3mm only on the bottom 8-10ft of the trunk. Higher up the tree was shielded from the heat. I know bark is a pretty good insulator but the live cambium is also pretty vulnerable. How can you tell how bad the damage is without waiting for months for the bark to fall off and the leaves to die? I would like to know how tolerant oaks are to fire damage of this sort. The question is whether to fell it now and draw a line under this whole sorry mess or to wait months or years until the extent of the damage is clear, but 1) It may have to be felled anyway with the added costs/difficulty of felling it with a new shed and fence etc underneath. 2) Have the anxiety of living with a big tree that "may fall over" in a few years time and damage the house, for which the insurance company has already said it would not be covered. 3) The likelihood of significant unrecoverable additional costs of tree maintenance for many years to come. There are a couple of pictures here: oak tree - oaktree's Photos I hope the link works ok And can anyone send me any articles/papers or web-links on the subject of fire damage to trees that may be useful in this situation?