Humanity's early fire-starting tools may have been dangerous because in the text is says,<span> "It could be lighted only by hard rubbing, and it sputtered and threw fire in all directions." This is dangerous because it would spew fire in all directions and if you think about it, the fire would hit something and then that thing would catch on fire. Lets say you were using the match inside your house. When you strike the match, a spark flies onto the wood floor and your house goes up in flames and you are stuck inside the house with no exit or escape. This may or may not happen, but because of the fire not being contained, there was a chance that you would be harmed.</span>
I would say that I am against the idea of using controlled fires to protect wild areas.
For one fires can very easily get out of hand, especially if the area is dry at the time that the fire is started. When and if the fire gets out of hand it would do way more harm than good to the wild life in the area.
Answer:
antidisestablishmentarianism
Explanation:
"Antidisestablishmentarianism" is a 28-letter word that is currently little used and can therefore cause awkwardness and reading difficulties. This word is described in the "Student Dictionary" and refers to something or someone that opposes the link between church and state and everything that represents that link.
Answer:
climaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
