As a former
professional remote area firefighting specialist I've got to say that I've done the big eye roll
with many of the posts in this thread - even with some that should know better. Yes, incendiary, aerial fuel reduction burns are common in most States, but only in extremely remote areas with no ground assets at risk. No, the Greens had nothing whatsoever to do with the recent mega-fires. Yes, fuel reduction burns reduce the intensity of wildfires, but they are only effective under normal wildfire conditions, and would not have made a great difference to the current fires, which were off the Fire Danger Index scale by a factor way beyond 100%. A pole of the public on fuel reduction burns is laughable, given they are uneducated on the subject of wildfires - as is the Sky News simpletons.
