There was a good letter in the local paper today about the fuel reduction burns that are currently contaminating our atmosphere.
The writer described how his house was nearly burnt in the massive bushfire of January 2003. That blaze cleaned out the undergrowth and much more, but the bush has recovered to be as thick now as it was then.
We were on standby to evacuate during that fire, which caused apprehension, uncertainty and fear.
The question to consider though, is weather artificial burning helps more than it harms?
It seems the State Government and insurance companies would rather we die of cancer or respiratory disease in 50 years than next year in a bushfire.
However, the chance of the former is much greater than the latter.
The 2003 fire was the biggest since 1939, but few buildings were destroyed and no lives were lost, except one tragedy caused by a freak flood in the clean-up.
When I was editor of the Myrtleford Times and Alpine Observer, I published the findings of an academic study that revealed how atmospheric pollution caused by fuel reduction burning was worse than anything ordinarily encountered in Melbourne or major industrial centres.
The Border Mail noted recently that pollution levels in Albury were above the recommended standards, and Albury is a long way from the contrived fires.
There’s no doubt in my mind that fuel reduction burning causes short-term respiratory discomfort and potentially is a long-term life-threatening hazard.
I’ve read foresters’ opinions that question the effectiveness of fuel reduction burning.
To my untrained mind it would appear more sensible to allow frequent logging operations in State Forests and salvage harvesting in National Parks.
The human activity would clear sections of bush and make it harder for bushfires to spread.
But I can’t imagine the Greenies would like that idea and it’s their agenda that counts with politicians.
It will take a class action from country residents who contracted lung cancer from state-imposed smoke to shift their opinions.
Meanwhile, we have to put up with glorious autumn days being filled with smoke haze.
And following criticism of the government for not meeting its past burning schedule, the activity has started earlier than usual and will probably last longer.
For what cost/benefit result when you count human health as part of the equation?
