4 replies to this topic

[Shortpoet-GTD]

Wildfires raging out of control seems to be the new normal for western states in the summer.

Two sides to the argument of letting fires burn without interference-
It's a natural cycle, eliminates old dead wood that has accumulated and certain pine
species need fire to reproduce.

Of course the other side is the sequestration the trees and grasslands provide.

But this post is more about the use of flame retardants.

Necessary evil?

With the understanding of people not wanting fires to rage out of control-homes
destroyed, lives lost, we (in general) do not have a fire fighting policy that allows
these fires to burn-

so we put them out as quickly as possible; often using flame retardants which can be toxic to fish
and water supplies.

This article (linked below) is speaking to new rules about release of these toxins close to water sources,
but the statements in the article about flame retardants being non-toxic and "safe" to use
raised my ire.

What are your thoughts on this?
Are we ruining the environment to save buildings or does it go deeper than that?
http://www.msnbc.msn...ws-environment/

[still learning]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 24 June 2012 - 02:45 AM, said:

......This article (linked below) is speaking to new rules about release of these toxins close to water sources,
but the statements in the article about flame retardants being non-toxic and "safe" to use
raised my ire.

What are your thoughts on this?
Are we ruining the environment to save buildings or does it go deeper than that?
http://www.msnbc.msn...ws-environment/

I don't see where fire retardant is "ruining the environment."

The article you've linked to is mostly about new restrictions placed on the use of fire retardants.  Ther is one statement that I can find regarding "non-toxicity" is "All of the retardants as concentrates are practically nontoxic. They're even less toxic by the time they're diluted," Johnson said."

The new regulations seem to do with not droppingor not spraying too close to water so as to not endanger fish and other aquatic life.
The fire retardants mentioned apparently contain ammonium phosphate, but which kind isn't mentioned in the article.  Also not mentioned is whatever else is included in the retardant mixture.
As the article says, ammonium phosplate (tri or di or monoammonium) conjures up use as a fertilizer, as a nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizer.  Thing is, the triammonium kind especially and the diammonium kind to a small degree will produce some free ammonia when dissolved in water.  If you've ever kept an aquarium, you get to know that fish (and other water breathers) don't tolerate free ammonia at all well.

"Practically nontoxic?"   Maybe compared to what used to be used.  Still wouldn't want to drink the stuff, but I personally would not be alarmed to be around it and wouldn't expect much environmental harm if not dropped into streams.  Rainwater later carrying the stuff into streams would dilute it enough to be tolerable is my guess.

Fire retardants:  http://www.npwrc.usg...eb/descchem.htm
Apparently the dry powder kind of fire extinguishers (including the home use kind) contain ammonium phosphate.

[dissn_it]

I had never thought about this before. It has to have some negative effects on nature, chemicals always do. Even if they do get diluted, there has to be some damage caused from using them. If I remember right, there used to be a policy to let the wildfires that were caused by nature burn themselves out unless they got to close to humans. I think it was the Yellowstone fire that changed that policy.

[FamilyTreeClimber]

I think that this is one of those necessary evils.  Not all fires can be allowed to burn themselves out.  There is, of course, the loss of life (human and animals), the houses burned down, the memories and mementos that people lose.

Fire can be beneficial to nature.  The Redwood and Sequoia trees need it for germination.  But, doesn't the fire itself create toxins?  I remember about 5 years ago there was a big wildfire about 3-4 hours north of us.  It burned for a couple of weeks.  By the end of the first week, our air quality was being affected.  We had grey skies and smog for a couple of weeks.  It made spectacular pinkish gray sunsets, but it was not clean air.  We weren't even near the fire.

I think we can lessen the need for fire retardants if we worked on prevention.  Controlled burns should be employed where it is safe.  People should be required to keep foliage away from their houses.  Trees that burn quickly like eucalyptus should be discouraged in fire danger areas.  I'm not talking about the little cabin in the woods.  I'm thinking more of cities built into nature.  The Oakland Hills fire of the early 1990s comes to mind.  It's a beautiful area.  Who wouldn't want a home there?  But, people were not cutting back plants and trees for fire breaks.  Eucalyptus trees were very common.  These people lived on hills that go brown in the late Spring and early Summer.  It was prime for a big fire.  Some common sense might go a long way.  In this case the fire department now does regular checks to inform people of hazards.

One of the big problems is that the funding for federal fire control has been cut drastically in the last 10-15 years.  I heard on the news that the newest water carrying plane (I don't know what they are called) in the federal fleet is 50 years old.  The rest are older.  It seems to me that you can't really fight fires of this size if you are using equipment from another era.  It was a problem with the Colorado fire.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

still learning, on 24 June 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

I don't see where fire retardant is "ruining the environment."

The article you've linked to is mostly about new restrictions placed on the use of fire retardants.  Ther is one statement that I can find regarding "non-toxicity" is "All of the retardants as concentrates are practically nontoxic. They're even less toxic by the time they're diluted," Johnson said."

You "quoted" it but didn't read it?
"This article (linked below) is speaking to new rules about release of these toxins close to water sources,"

And chemicals being released into ecosystems may or may not be bad - you decide- (imo, they are)
that's why I framed it in the form of a question-
"Are we ruining the environment?"

But if you think that using chemicals on ecosystems and water supplies is fine, that's your opinion.