tl;dr: Peat fires are notoriously difficult to extinguish with water (millions/billions of litres of water applied over months), but water mixed with a certain non-toxic surfactant does a better job of penetrating peat and snuffing the blaze. This may be a very good thing indeed, considering how much of the thawing arctic, e.g., is peat, and how much more CO2 peat fires release than do forest fires.
I really wish folks would stop the TLDR thing as it's another form of editorialising (which we're discouraged to do with titles) and writing up a short interpretation which in many cases is subjective, quite often wrong, and loses nuances present in the article that can be important.
Just read the article.
I love the TLDR's. Instead of opening some ad-filled site, working my way through all the cookie banners and enabling just enough js to let the actual load, I can actually get the gist of it in about 10 seconds. Also, I prefer high information density, and pieces that start with the conclusion instead of some slow buildup to their point.
Its not clear to me why adding a comment would be a problem for others. What exactly does it harm or hinder your experience?
TLDRs seem really useful and as shown with the upvote count are widely appreciated.
I could read the article, OR i could find the editorialized interpretation in the comments that i most prefer, saving myself 5-10 minutes of reading the editorialized longform garbage that was linked.
Interpreting a rule against editorializing submission titles as discouraging editorializing in comments is a strange jump to make.