willowtr332020 t1_jcqo4ez wrote

To clarify, by 1.5 times more likely, they mean, 9% for footballers, 6% for general population.

Unfortunately, I'd say that's not a significant enough difference from the population (to them) so most people would just accept the risk.


willowtr332020 t1_jaxkzne wrote

Never been a big Zizek fan.

It doesn't surprise me that an intellectual would make sloppy arguments and fall for the same old pitfalls in arguments as many before on an issue which is so nuanced and tricky to navigate.


willowtr332020 t1_iwlddfq wrote

The flooding referenced in the article (that of dams and their ability to pass flow) is not affected by wetlands.

Yes, impervious surfaces have increased but on a large scale, that's only really affecting cities with their storm water runoff. Flooding on the large scale we are seeing in Australia is not really exacerbated by the surface impermeability. River erosion and river roughness reduction due to vegetation clearing has had some impact, but the big change is the climate.


willowtr332020 t1_iwlbyg3 wrote

Just to clarify, we'd be getting floods with or without dams. Some (not many) of the dams are there to reduce (but not completely stop) flooding affects. Wivenhoe (QLD)is a flood protection dam. Warragamba (NSW) is not, it's a water storage dam (with a side benefit of some flood reduction).

The flooding is just happening because of the wet (LA Nina) period we are having as you've suggested.

We can't insulate ourselves from flooding due to the dangerous rainfall events in the report (like PMP events). In the PMP event you mainly want the dam to safely pass the water and stay structurally sound. Dan failure is worse than any natural flood event.