At 7:51am this morning on ABC Melbourne, as part of the news broadcast, it was mentioned that today’s forest fire index rating for the state is about 47 http://bit.ly/6cFYSt

Given that this is generated from at least five numbers (representing the five fire forecast regions), this tells us next to nothing about the actual risk.

Let’s assume that of the five regions four of them have a fire index of 20 (negligible) whilst the remaining region has an index of 150 (comparable to Ash Wednesday).  This gives the STATE a fire index average of 46.  However for that one region with a Code Red – Catastrophic rating, any fire that starts will be devastating, but the state as a whole will be fine.

While it is impossible to announce the fire index rating for each and every city, town and locality in the state, giving a state-wide ‘average’ index is pointless.  The state was divided into the five fire forecast regions because they were identified as having very separate fire risks; shouldn’t they be reported individually?

In a weather report there are eight capital cities which get mentioned, and to give the current forecast for all eight takes less than a minute when done expeditiously.  Surely it would take less time again to broadcast the fire index ratings for each of the five regions individually.

Averages are incredibly useful tools when used properly, I myself use them many times each day.  The forest fire index should NOT be given as a state wide average, it masks the true risk to the state.  There once was a man who drowned crossing a river that had an average depth of 3 feet…

http://www.flawofaverages.com/