In light of the gigantic volume of anecdotal evidence regarding some kind of toxin associated with fire retardant usage, I think it’s worth thinking about the broader social and ecological and financial reasons for our policies of fire suppression and war on fire. We may not be able to prevent climate change or most ecological toxins, but what Lisa Petrison calls “fire retardant associated toxin,” (introduced here: https://paradigmchange.me/wp/outdoor-toxins/) is a tragically preventable toxin, produced by misguided short term fire suppression policies that dont even work to stop fires. And the worst thing is that it affects wilderness areas, so one can’t even escape it just by avoiding civilization.

Mike Davis may not know about mold avoidance and FRAT’s health effects, but his understanding of the economic context of development in California–which incentivizes such blatantly stupid policies as “total fire suppression”–helps us to learn what is sustaining these policies that are poisoning people exposed to these toxins. I chose to read this aloud and record it partially to expose an audience that is typically laser focused on mold avoidance related content, to class and sociological criticism that may be atypical for them, and also because, like the Edward Abbey excerpt I recently recorded, it’s very relevant to a deep understanding of ecology and its effects on human health.

So here is the recording https://youtu.be/JgHOzn4xiS4

And here is the text version of the original article: https://longreads.com/2018/12/04/the-case-for-letting-malibu-burn/