This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
The second paragraph of this section, on torture and execution, is completely irrelevant to the paragraphs above and below it. If there's any point in retaining it, it should probably be moved below the paragraph on fire in warfare. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I would agree with you, on both points. Pyrotec (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
In the first paragraph, the sentence "[...] Evidence of cooked food is found from 1.9 million years ago [...]" lacks citation. There is evidence of cooked food from 1 million years ago. Request to make the appropriate edit and add a reference. The article is semi-protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:1603:C00C:15A9:269A:1337:C7DF (talk) 06:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Need to discuss seriously, the reactions of of fire. Those are irreversible. Man is the only species to use the fire in direct & indirect manner.' The oxygen is consumed during fire and the carbon dioxide with other gases is produced. The carbon is temporarily utilized by trees,ocean. The important aspect to consider is : When the wood is used or decomposes when tree is dead, the carbon is released again in the atmosphere.
Thus the use of fire should minimized. Life can be more comfortable. As fire destroys the valuable properties of the given substance,the quality is reduced. Reducing the use of fire seems to be the chief remedy to all man made maladies responsible for the current & impending evils on the living & non living on our planet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drkabra (talk • contribs) 00:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
It is unclear what point you are trying to make. Please keep your discussion limited to specific thoughts on how to improve the article. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
It can be intelligent information, only if we had more sources. OccultZone (talk) 08:02, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
(The following text was posted on my Talk:User page in rssponse to an edit I made to the Fire page. I'm moving it here so everyone can see it, and comment if they wish. DOwenWilliams (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC))
Hi there -- I have to say that I disagree with your reversion of my edit to the fire page.
As it now stands, the sentence reads "The negative effects of fire include water contamination, soil erosion, atmospheric pollution and hazard to life and property."
Hazard to life and property is obvious, and clearly is very serious and is applicable world-wide.
Atmospheric pollution is less obvious (needs some mention of particulates in my opinion) but is serious and world-wide.
Ditto water contamination: serious, world-wide but again needs some mention of the physical mechanism involved.
Now soil erosion (which is my research background, see David_Favis-Mortlock)... only in those areas of the world which are both relatively arid, and where rain (when it does fall) is intense, is fire an important trigger for soil erosion. In more temperate areas, the effects of accidental fire on erosion are both short-lived and minor: vegetation is not totally destroyed by fire in such areas (the heat does not penetrate so far into damp soils), also fire may well stimulate rapid post-fire new growth of vegetation by release of organic matter (hence slash-and-burn agriculture). Erosion may be increased temporarily and slightly, but it isn't a big deal. There is also deliberate burning: on intensively farmed agricultural areas in temperate regions, burning of crops used to be a regular tillage operation (less common now at least in NW Europe, due to smoke affecting nearby communities; burning of crops may still be practised in less crowded parts of the world). I'm not aware of any soil erosion resulting from deliberate agricultural burning.
So the list of four negative effects of fire consists of three apples and an orange, in my opinion. Soil erosion is the orange, I don't think it should remain in the list. (And other people might wish to say more about two of the apples: i.e. exactly how fire creates negative effects on atmosphere and water).
OK if I remove soil erosion from the list then? Ta!
I feel that erosion should be included in the list, but if you want to add a comment that it is less harmful than the others, that would be useful. DOwenWilliams (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2014
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Under section 1.1 Chemistry, the 3rd paragraph contains a sentence that reads "Without gravity, a fire rapidly surrounds itself with its own combustion products and non-oxidizing gases from the air, which exclude oxygen and extinguish it." The last word, "it", is sufficiently separated from what it refers to, "a fire", that its meaning is unclear. It could be interpreted, for example, to refer to the noun immediately preceding it, "oxygen", which does not make sense. I suggest replacing "extinguish it" with "extinguish the fire". Adventurer61 (talk) 02:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)