Dangerous Ecobabble — A Case In Point
No sooner did we post about ecobabble from the fire community [here] than heads-up readers sent us a clipping from the Redding Record Searchlight in which “fire ecologists” make some unsubstantiated and erroneous ecobabble claims:
Ecologists decry efforts to douse fire
By Ryan Sabalow , Redding Record Searchlight, July 19, 2009 [here]
Two environmentalists who study fire ecology say community leaders shouldn’t be applauding U.S. Forest Service firefighters’ quick work to contain the isolated Backbone Fire, no matter how much smoke was kept out of the air.
“Smoke is an unpleasant, but unavoidable, fact of natural life,” said Timothy Ingalsbee, the executive director of the Eugene, Ore.-based Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics and Ecology. “There’s no smokeless fire. This is California fire country. There’s no way around it.”
Chad Hanson, director of the Cedar Ridge-based John Muir Project, agreed, saying that there’s no scientific evidence showing wildfire smoke causes long-term damage to residents’ respiratory systems.
But there is universal agreement among ecologists that wildfires — even the most high-intensity blazes — are good for a forest, he said. …
Universal agreement? That’s something even grander than a consensus. But is it true? Of course not, not even close.
High intensity fires kill all the trees and convert forests to brush. That’s not “good” for forests. Count me as outside the “universal agreement” (which doesn’t exist in the real world).
The statement is bogus on it’s face, just like the statement that “there’s no scientific evidence showing wildfire smoke causes long-term damage to residents’ respiratory systems.”
Want some evidence? Take a look at:
Sandberg, David V.; Ottmar, Roger D.; Peterson, Janice L.; Core, John. 2002. Wildland fire on ecosystems: effects of fire on air. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 5. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 79 p. [here, 1,056 KB].
Note the seven pages of cited references. Or how about a slide show:
Bruce K. Hope, Ph.D. 2005. Health Effects From Exposure to Smoke. Air Quality Division, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Umatilla Smoke Management Workshop (May 2005). [here, 300 KB].
Some bullet points:
Sensitive populations:
* Asthmatics
* Children (pre- and post-natal)
* Pregnant women
* Elderly (age greater than 65 years)
* Smokers
* Individuals with pre-existing conditions
- Cardiopulmonary diseases
- Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
- Cardiovascular diseaseShort-term exposures
* Coughing and difficulty breathing
* Decreased lung function
* Aggravated asthma and bronchitis
* Increased ER and hospital visitsLong-term exposures
* Deaths per day
- 0.21% increase per 10 µg m-3 increase in PM10 [smoke particulates]
* Long-term risk of dying
- 4% increase per 10 µg m-3 increase in annual PM2.5
* Other
- Similar to 2nd hand smoke in causing cancer
- Tentatively linked to systemic and genetic effects in newborns
- Adversely affects heart (changes in rhythm, block flow)
Journalist Ryan Sabalow of the Redding Record Searchlight was less than impressed by the specious claims of the “fire ecologists”:
… Hanson, who lives in fire country himself, said residents like him should expect red, swollen eyes and irritated lungs during fire season, in much the same way desert dwellers deal with sweltering heat or coastal residents come to expect gusty, ocean winds.
Such claims run counter to findings of a collaborative investigation by the Record Searchlight and the nonprofit Center for California Health Care Journalism.
Reporters this spring found 10 doctor-verified cases in Trinity County where residents — many of whom had never been seriously ill before — grew sick during last year’s fires and remained chronically ill long after the blazes were extinguished. …
Ecobabble from political activists (whoops, I meant “fire ecologists”) that is stunningly counter-factual should not be taken seriously by forest and fire managers. Decision-making that impacts real forests and real communities in the real world should not be handcuffed by silly nonsense emanating from litigious know-nothings with hidden political agendas.
by John M.
by bear bait
The Oregon Legislature, last month, passed the law to stop all field burning. Broadcast fire is now illegal in Oregon. Also, winter burning of straw stack piles is outlawed. Health was the listed reason. That and “quality of life” issues. Ingalsbee lives in and pontificates from the legislative districts that were the instigators of that law. I never read one word from Ingalsbee in opposition to burning of slash or straw, or debris piles. Therefore, it puts him in the position of being a publicly noted hypocrite. He can’t tacitly approve of wildland fire and pooh-pooh the health effects of weeks of exposure, and support by his silence the legislated end to clearing straw and pests from field with fire, because the smoke is harmful to health in the hour or less there is any.
So why would I not expect selective smoke approval from socialists intent on administrative positions in the Nanny State?
by YPmule
And who exactly are these so-called “ecologists” and why should the media give weight to their words?!?
So we can assume:
Smoke from forest fires = good
Smoke from field burning = bad
Sediment in the rivers from fires = good
Sediment in the rivers from logging = bad
Fire is natural (let it burn).
Fire is devastating (if a billion dollar corporation can be sued).
Sounds like a case of institutional schizophrenia, “We’re not crazy, and neither are we.”
Readers might want to take a look at the comments to the Record Searchlight about this story. The bulk of the responses are filled with mythology, ideology, and general lack of understanding of how forests really work and how wildfires really burn.
I have no idea how representative these responses are of the knowledge and attitudes of the population living in the Record Searchlight’s circulation area, but I would say that if the majority of the letters represent general public attitudes, there is much work to be done in the forest management and wildfire public education area.
Certainly the wildfire agencies need to encourage their fire information people to use the media moments to talk about more than structures at risk. It is time, in my opinion, to talk of the economic, biological, social and public health impacts of these fires.