Write an argumentive essay against the idea of using controlled fires to protect wild areas. Please give me a real answer to my question instead of something stupid. Thank you

Controlled wildfires are sometimes used to try and improve the ecosystem. However, they often end up causing more problems than they are worth. They lead to health problems for some, they are hard to control, expensive, and they can set off other natural disasters leading to further damage.

Like any fire, the controlled wildfires have smoke. With towns on the edges of forest nowadays, this can cause some serious health problems. Over the years, there have been several cases where, after a controlled wildfire, people near the area it took place, reported having respiratory system problems or worse chronic heart and lung diseases.

The towns right next to the places being burned, have also burned down before due to the inability to properly control the fires. In one town, in California, 14000 houses were burned down in one go. Not only do the fires cost money because of damages, but they also cost a lot to start.

Controlled fires, are costly, for example, one of these fires called the Camp Fire in California ended up costing over 16.5 billion dollars, in total. This includes damages to the town mentioned above. These damages were just from the fire, but sometimes they can cause other natural disasters.

When hillsides are stripped bare from their vegetation, it then creates the potential for a mudslide or landslide to occur. After the forest fire goes out, precipitation can cause the ash and soil from the event to begin washing downward. In 2017, Santa Barbara County experienced such an event where waist-high mud came down and 35 mph, killing at least 17 people and its wake. Rushing water also picks up debris, rocks, and even vehicles on its way down to create more damage.

In conclusion, controlled fires are costly and shouldn't be done.

Explanation:

where is the writing? (so i can answer)