[OnyxCougar]

OK, this may have been discussed before, but I've always wondered:

If a river is so polluted it burns, why not let it burn, and in the process, burn the impurites out?

(I know I could probably have asked that better, but I'm getting ready for work, so I'm in a hurry.)

Isn't fire one of the better natural cleansers? When the fuel is gone, the fire will go out, yes? I say let it burn, and in the meantime, the shame of whole situation is on the communities and surrounding areas that allowed the water to get so polluted in the first place.

I think it's ludicrous to put out a river fire with WATER, when that infusion of fresh water may have prevented such horrible conditions, and I won't go into the whole "shouldn't have let it get so dirty in the first damn place" argument.