 |
| |
|
|
DarkCloud
|
 |
of Lists
Jul 2000
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
You also have to consider the fact that the we're unnaturally stopping forest fires before they can burn away all the underbrush that would naturally fuel the fires for a while and then burn out.
Instead we're getting stuck with forests that have too much underbrush and the fires, therefore, have a larger chance to hit that critical burn temp for the stronger trees.
I'll agree with the actually making use of them part, but if we could send the logging companies in (which they of course wouldn't agree to) and just grab the dead underbrush stuff and process that, the forest fire problem would be solved because then the natural cycle would be properly circumvented. |
It's only a natural cycle when the fires are natural.
I agree some fires are good, in fact, some allow seeds to propogate, and they are natural.
But many fires are started by cigarrettes and humans, thus, at least 1/2 of the fires shoudl be put out as best as possible for a: the reason that we need the wood for air cleaning, etc.
and b: if the wood burns homes, the insurers lose money  and c: you can't let fires go uncontrolled unless you want to destroy your national parks and make them useless (like parts of yellowstone )
Thick underbrush may be 'unnatural' but if we can prevent fires from reaching that underbrush, then they will become natural (like jungles) we will shape our world as we like it.
Thus, by preventing the fires from growing, we can prevent them from burning the underbrush and the brush will not matter 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-08-2002 06:27
|