Human Health Impacts of Fire

The relationships between human health and forest fires are variable and complex. From a management perspective, forest fires can benefit the environment and enhance resource values. The principle factor to consider when examining the effects of fire on health is whether the fire is a wildland fire or a prescribed fire because there are fundamental differences in the amounts of smoke produced and the exposure of people to smoke. Impacts of wildland fires on health must be distinguished from impacts of prescribed fire because they are very different. Prescribed fires, which are lower intensity and often produce less smoke, are designed to prevent the detrimental effects of catastrophic wildland fires.

The health effects of fire that are most relevant to health and management issues are injuries and premature death, property damage, and a reduction in air quality. There are other health effects of fire, however. Physiological impacts caused by the smoke from forest fires include heart and lung conditions, carcinogenesis, premature death, suppressed immunity, and physical and cognitive impairments. There are some consequences for human health from the changes in water resources that occur as a result of certain types of severe fires. Psychological changes in individuals and communities may result from fire. Visibility impairments may occur when smoke occurs along roadways and scenic vistas.

Threats to human health can vary in severity. For many people, fires have very little or no health impact. Other people experience adverse health effects, especially fire workers who have higher degrees of exposure, residents of wildland-urban interfaces, outdoor enthusiasts, and vulnerable groups including the elderly, children, women, minorities, the poor, and people with pre-existingheart andlung problemsand psychological disorders.

Scientists from numerous disciplines conduct research on the health effects of fire research including pulmonary medicine, epidemiology, public health, clinical and animal toxicology, sociology, and anthropology. Fortunately, risk management techniques have been developed to reduce the threats to human health from fire.

Human health costs of wildland fire and prescribed fire: can one help mitigate the other?

Forestry management practices can shape patterns of health, illness, and disease. A goal of many land managers is to craft ecosystem management plans that simultaneously optimize forest health and human health. In regard to forest fires, the objective of balancing human health and ecosystem health is very difficult to achieve.

The predominant view of fire ecologists and forest managers is that prescribed burning reduces long-term net health costs by reducing the risks of catastrophic wildfires that could result in even greater levels of air pollution and have other injurious effects. Fire ecologists promote prescribed burning as a technique for enhancing ecosystem health in fire-influenced areas that rely on periodic burnings. Many fire ecologists also promote a “let it burn” policy for wildfires arguing against the expensive policies designed to suppress or eliminate unplanned wildland fires. In this view, fire is regarded as beneficial in the long-term ecosystems and people. Unfortunately, some members of the general public perceive the biomass smoke of prescribed fires and wildfires as equally harmful to human health.

Attitudes and policies regarding prescribed fires are somewhat different than for wildland fires. In the case of wildland fires, theoverwhelming public sentiment isthat fires are destructive. Government policies are generally designed to control or eliminate unplanned wildland fires. Attitudes and policies tend to protect human health in the short term, but fire ecologists assert that they are deleterious to ecosystem integrity and human health in the long term. Some activities and phenomena that increase the threat to human health from wildland fires are themselves detrimental to human well-being including mining, settlement in dangerous areas, over-development, and overpopulation.

One hypothetical avenue to reduce human health risks is to extinguish wildfires (Brauer 1999). In reality it is not possible to extinguish all wildfires and completely eliminate human health risks. The complete elimination of forest fires as a source of airemissions is not realistic. It is possible to minimize airemissions from forest fires through the use of land and fire management techniques.