Fire is as likely to come from
arson as it is anywhere else, and it's a little suspect when someone tries to get somebody else to quickly rule out arson as even a possibility rather than as absolute, the way some writers write stories in the news about how the fire is thought to or does absolutely come from lightning, without offering any other realistic possibilities. Does telling people a fire came from lightning rather than arson or another source really make them feel safer when they can end up just as dead from a fire that started from lightning? Theres no good reason people shouldn't question or speculate about where
forest fires came from, especially when it's all over the west coast, which is unusual most years (even for fire prone areas). Its as possible that someone that doesn't hold trees sacred or thinks of them as
matchsticks would have an interest in burning them as it is that an
industrial accident, electrical accident, or lightning caused the fires.
