What makes you so sure the perspective in the article is the more scientifically accurate one? It was written without almost ANY opposing research being quoted.

What makes you so sure the perspective in the article is the more scientifically accurate one? It was written without almost ANY opposing research being quoted. I found it very hard to come away from this article wholly convinced it had found the best perspective on the issue. It’s also the case that the article focused mostly on preventing home fires caused by forest fires but then the article itself shows this is a very rare phenomenon. Not exactly something that should be a core focus in the first place.