Creating extra air pollution through hazard reduction burns makes no sense. Tim Egan, Mosman As a big city, Sydney has air pollution. Reduce fuel loads by hazard reduction burning or have a catastrophic fire. How many people are in hospital or self-caring with respiratory issues due to the smoke created?įarmer Jack The choice is simple. Surely, that’s possible?ĭanrucknmall Come on, days of acrid smoke and poor air quality has to have more effect than the RFS and media let on. Millsy There have been months of cool dry weather to do this. The putting of tons of carbon into the atmosphere is hastening climate change.įarns The hazard reduction should have started six or seven weeks ago. Where is the cost benefit analysis of this endless illness? Every breath potential anaphylaxis? The loss of animal life. Many were not happy with the ensuing smoke.ĭeadlyAsthmaFromPetsinStrata For asthmatics, Sydney has become a nightmare. Firefighters have been racing to reduce fuel close to Sydney’s urban fringe, as authorities warn bushland could ignite and threaten homes this summer, explained science reporter Angus Dalton.Illustration: John Shakespeare Credit: Do self-centred Sydneysiders complain too much about a smoky city? But for many letter writers and online commenters, preoccupied with the adverse effects of extreme air pollution, their views of the situation were smokier - literally. The choice may appear simple: reduce fuel loads by hazard reduction burning or possibly face a catastrophic fire.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |