You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Risks & Benefits of Hazard Reduction Burning
I'm not sure what to think of this since it's not a thing in Sweden but as you point out it has both good and bad sides.
I think it's great that you educate and write about this topic so people can see both sides of it =)
Thanks for reading, Nicole! I can't imagine Sweden needing to do much preventative action to avoid bush fires. These sorts of issues such as safety burning are what Public Health professionals focus on in order to make the most healthy, ethical and economically-viable decisions for the safety and livelihoods of the country's people.
It's not as straightforward as having just one criteria to make such a decision of whether to do safety reduction burning or not; it involves a holistic analysis including not just the health impacts of humans, wildlife, the natural environment and its ecological biodiversity, but also the 'health' of the community/state/nation's economies.
For example, without safety burning, the risks of uncontrolled bush fires affect the economy because the Emergency Services' costs of responding to the fires are exponentially more costly to the government than the preventative safety burning programs throughout each year. This is tax-payer's dollars that could be more effectively invested into the health care system which would likely provide a higher level of health equity for the population at large, for instance. So, infrequent smoke pollution caused by safety burning on the outskirts of urban areas seems more equitable and ethical for the population.
No not really in need for that :)
It really seems like they make an educated decision. What if they could look on all issues like this. Such as health care and education.
Thank you so much for clarifying and providing me with further info. Really an interesting topic =)