Is that red fire retardant from planes

Brian D. · Post by **Brian D.** » Sun Jul 24, 2016 2:07 pm

hurting our fisheries? Evidence proves that it is..

“There is enough research out there that says it is pretty toxic to aquatic areas,”

http://www.sgvtribune.com/general-news/ ... nvironment

ACRon · Post by **ACRon** » Sun Jul 24, 2016 7:35 pm

The pilots are briefed in detail about sensitive environmental areas. Sadly it is a loss benefit risk analysis. If the fire is not stopped the damage to the environment is extreme. Including massive erosion, run off and mud slides which enter the drainages causing severe damage to the water ways. Research is constantly strive to improve the retardant.

Immediately after fire incidents extensive rehabilitation of the fire lines is mandated. They go in and cut erosion control, dropping snags, and if possible reseeding. Damaged or dying timber is harvested instead of letting it go to waste. The timber companies that get the contracts to harvest the timber are required to perform rehabilitation as part those contracts.

mark poulson · Post by **mark poulson** » Mon Jul 25, 2016 5:52 am

I'm pretty sure they are trying to minimize any damage to the environment. No one wants the same disaster that we had when people use PCB's to oil down dirt roads.
At the same time, they are trying to find more effective things to use on fires in such remote and inaccessible areas.
But firefighters are really stuck between a rock and a hard place.
They are tasked with protecting people and their homes first, but developers are building homes in more difficult terrain all the time, and zoning laws are letting them do it, for more tax revenue.
Having to spend precious resources protecting remote homes, instead of being able to concentrate on containing a fire, spreads these underfunded resources too thin.
All the politicians' sympathy and moral support doesn't make up for the greedy decisions that let homes be built where they put people, and firefighters, in harms way.
Remember the mayor in Jaws who didn't want to close the beaches because it was bad for business?

WRB · Post by **WRB** » Mon Jul 25, 2016 12:07 pm

Long before modern man decided to build homes in fire prone areas fires occurred as part of the ecosystem. Fire retardants are not natural and very harmful to the ecosystem, if you spilled fire retardant the hazmat folks would arrive in protective suites to clean it up!
It always comes down to cost effective fire fighting verses the environment and saving lives and buildings. Super Scoopers use water to cool down fires, water is environmental friendly. In SoCal helicopters are preferred to drop both water and retardants because a helicopter has multiple uses from medical transportation to emergency rescue operations year around. Super Scoopers are contracted only during the primary fire season to save money.
When you live in the hills It comes down to a wall of fire coming towards your home, all you want at that time is put the out!
Tom

ACRon · Post by **ACRon** » Mon Jul 25, 2016 6:30 pm

Tom, You are right on target regarding developers pushing homes into the urban interface and creating dangerous situations. There is a need for fire but it is incompatible with homes in the interface.

The reasons helicopters are utilized in SoCal is cost effectiveness and multi-use. Additionally they are manueverable and can hit pin point drops in/around homes. There is a variety of tankers utilized before they get to the Super Scooper. Cal Fire has a variety of tankers beginning with S-2's, DC-6s, DC-7s, P-3 Orions, P-2 Neptunes, VLAT's, military aircraft and contract aircraft.

Actually hazmat crews would not show up if there was a retardant spill.

WRB · Post by **WRB** » Tue Jul 26, 2016 1:44 pm

Don't confuse me with facts! Good reply.
MSDS on Phos-Chek has some hazardous chemicals, the end solution becomes a fertilizer.
I had hazmat show up for a someone spilling a quart of oil in the parking lot.
Tom

MGJR · Post by **MGJR** » Tue Jul 26, 2016 6:47 pm

Here is the deal, some components of retardants used in fire suppression are toxic to aquatic organisms. However, it is not like there are significant quantities of it entering the aquatic ecosystem. Pilots and firefighters are briefed on ecologically sensitive areas and are not supposed to apply in close proximity to streams/rivers. As mentioned above, the ecological damage from a high intensity wildfire far surpass the localized and acute effects of retardant. I know first hand that whenever retardant is dropped within any of these sensitive areas, the USFS evaluates the potential affects as part of their ESA consultations. There are far more chemicals and toxins out there that you need to worry about than fire retardant.