US Wildfire Suppressants Rife With Toxic Heavy Metals, Study Finds 73
A new study reveals that widely used pink wildfire suppressants contain high levels of toxic heavy metals like cadmium, arsenic, and chromium, with concentrations up to 3,000 times above drinking water limits. While the government and chemical makers have long concealed up to 20% of the suppressants' ingredients as "trade secrets," researchers have confirmed their role in environmental pollution, raising concerns over their extensive use in residential areas. The Guardian reports: The suppressants are a mix of water, fertilizer, and undisclosed ingredients, while the pink color comes from added dye to show firefighters where it has been sprayed. Metals are likely used as anti-corrosion agents to prevent the plane's tankers from disintegrating, they authors wrote. The mix works by coating vegetation and lowering the amount of oxygen that could fuel the fire. The substance was dropped by as many as 25 aircraft daily to contain the devastating Los Angeles wildfires, and photos from it vividly convey the trade off, showing homes and property covered in hot pink suppression.
The metal levels in the suppressants meet federal guidelines and the authors were initially most worried about environmental contamination, but the heavy use in residential areas this year raises a new set of concerns, Daniel McCurry, one of the study's co-authors, told the Guardian. "Are the hazardous waste thresholds the appropriate bar for these to clear, or, if they're being used in a massive scale in populated neighborhoods, do we need to get stricter on permissible concentrations of toxic compounds?" McCurry asked. [...] The producer of one of the suppressants has said a new generation of the product is "greener," McCurry said, but he added "until we are able to come across some of this material and test it, we really don't know."
The metal levels in the suppressants meet federal guidelines and the authors were initially most worried about environmental contamination, but the heavy use in residential areas this year raises a new set of concerns, Daniel McCurry, one of the study's co-authors, told the Guardian. "Are the hazardous waste thresholds the appropriate bar for these to clear, or, if they're being used in a massive scale in populated neighborhoods, do we need to get stricter on permissible concentrations of toxic compounds?" McCurry asked. [...] The producer of one of the suppressants has said a new generation of the product is "greener," McCurry said, but he added "until we are able to come across some of this material and test it, we really don't know."
Well, duh. (Score:1)
What do you think gives it that color?
Re: (Score:3)
What do you think gives it that color?
Pink dye? Babies' blood?
Re:Well, duh. (Score:5, Informative)
Any price and consequence are perfectly acceptable in order to save the Californian common smelt fish found everywhere on the planet, we humans are the parasite apparently so we deserve to burn according to some people: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] https://www.latimes.com/enviro... [latimes.com]
Those fish, or at least what was done to protect them, had exactly nothing to do with the fires (*). The reservoir wasn't empty because of water flow restrictions; it was empty because of repairs. The reservoirs that got slightly less water because of the smelt were in northern California, not southern California where the fires are.
For folks who don't have a concept of just how big California is, that's roughly the difference between Nashville and New Orleans. Nobody in his or her right mind would fly helicopters all the way from New Orleans to put out fires in Nashville, yet that's what our President apparently believes would have saved lives. There's really not enough crack in the world for that to make sense.
SMH.
* To be overly pedantic, the fish and the fires do have one thing in common — inadequate rainfall caused by climate change. But good luck trying to get a modern-day Republican to acknowledge that.
Re:Well, duh. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Saving lives is different from saving property. Saving lives is mostly relevant in the first few hours. After that, you should know whether you're in an area that needs to evacuate, and you should evacuate. After that, the firefighting goal is saving property, and the balance between that and long-term poisoning is not so clear cut.
Re: (Score:2)
Uhh we pipe oil from alaska to the gulf shores. Piping water from northern to southern CA does not seem like that big a feat by comparison.
Re:Well, duh. (Score:4, Insightful)
What's the difference in volume like?
Re: (Score:2)
Uhh we pipe oil from alaska to the gulf shores. Piping water from northern to southern CA does not seem like that big a feat by comparison.
Let's get started on that pipeline, then. It should be ready to go in time for the 2035 fires.
Re: (Score:2)
Given everything I have read about the water crisis affecting S California, the states that siphon off the Colorado river, and the drained underground aquifers in S California, they most certainly should build an interconnected pipeline. Not for just fighting fires, but for equalizing water levels across the state. CA is hiding the fsct you have more population in the south than you can actually sustain. This water problem will turn into riots if better planning doesn't happen in the next 10 years. I would
Re:Well, duh. (Score:5, Informative)
Given everything I have read about the water crisis affecting S California, the states that siphon off the Colorado river, and the drained underground aquifers in S California, they most certainly should build an interconnected pipeline. Not for just fighting fires, but for equalizing water levels across the state. CA is hiding the fact you have more population in the south than you can actually sustain. This water problem will turn into riots if better planning doesn't happen in the next 10 years. I would even dedicate a solar farm or wind farm to powering massive desalination. Perhaps ocean powered if feasible.
No disrespect intended, but California realized a very long time ago the issues you are highlighting and actually does have an interconnected water system. It's just not a pipeline. It is the California Aqueduct system (Info here: https://education.nationalgeog... [nationalgeographic.org] ). Because it is an open canal system, it very admittedly suffers from evaporation issues (which a pipeline would not suffer from). Some solutions to the evaporation problem are currently being tested, the best one (IMHO) being to shield the open canals with solar panels that would be connected to the grid.
Your call for desalination plants was also acted upon in certain regions, specifically San Diego. The largest desalination plant in the western hemisphere was constructed in Carlsbad at the cost of approximately $1 Billion Dollars and feeds into the San Diego Country Water system. It provides approximately 7% of the counties needs. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] )
Re: (Score:2)
Uhh we pipe oil from alaska to the gulf shores. Piping water from northern to southern CA does not seem like that big a feat by comparison.
Let's get started on that pipeline, then. It should be ready to go in time for the 2035 fires.
There was never any widespread shortage of water in southern California. There was a nearby reservoir that was drained for repairs, and that may have slightly impacted things, but not much, because the helicopters couldn't fly on at least one of those first couple of days, so the dry reservoir was moot. And of course, once the helicopters were cleared to fly, they could use booms in the ocean and just dump seawater if necessary, so it's not as if they didn't have other options.
The water shortages they did
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, you've got to be more precise about the "inadequate rainfall", as California has a long time (not just a few centuries) history of long periods of droughts. Population plays a part in the "inadequate", and so does the rising temperatures (hot places evaporate more quickly), but to demonstrate that a current drought is caused by climate change is difficult. This link https://water.ca.gov/drought#:... [ca.gov]. understates the case as the cycle of droughts goes back to before humans showed up.
Many smelt species [Re:Well, duh.] (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a quick note that the links you give are about three different things.
the first is about the family of fish, which includes many different species. The second is about delta smelt, an endangered species of smelt. The third is about rainbow smelt, which is the most common species.
But, turns out none of these are relevant, since protecting endangered smelt had nothing to do with the difficulty of controlling the LA wildfires.
Re: (Score:1)
Citation needed, or perhaps those Americans weren't citizens or even alive. Look at the last 10 elections and you'll find the outlier was 2020 not 2024(bellwether counties etc), but don't let facts get in the way of your delusion.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I have no problems clicking on the box that allows me an anonymous post, sure someone in the backroom can link it to my account but the only reason to do it is to be able to post where I already moderated.
Re:Well, duh. (Score:5, Informative)
What do you think gives it that color?
As has been described countless times, the color is added to make it visible where it has been dropped. Possibly the least poisonous part of it.
Bein able to read is a real advantage today...
Re: (Score:2)
contain high levels of toxic heavy metals like cadmium, arsenic, and chromium
What do you think gives it that color?
Red dye number three?
"Trade secrets" should not exist, especially this (Score:5, Insightful)
People have an absolute and inalienable right to know what's going into their environment, homes, and bodies. The idea that a company can simply say "too bad get fucked", especially on something the government is forcing onto people by the ton, is insane.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. These rights do not exist, and if they did they would be relative and 100% alienable.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea that a company can simply say "too bad get fucked", especially on something the government is forcing onto people by the ton, is insane.
Yes, isn't it? But it's perhaps the main purpose of government. Along with diffusing responsibility until it is no longer a thing.
Trade secrets (Score:2)
Trade secrets are fine, as long as you keep them to yourself. But if you start spraying stuff into the environment, the public should have a right to know what is being spread around.
Same holds for fracking liquids, too. You have every right to keep the composition of stuff you use in your manufacturing or refining a secret, but if you release it into the environment, the public should know what it is.
Re: (Score:3)
Deal with the fire first, then deal with the mess. Thats always the policy.
Your policy is fucking stupid. It should be deal with the fire without spraying heavy metals across the landscape that you cannot reasonably clean up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes because the CA government never once looked at the ingredients and made the decision that the chemicals that disrupt the fire triangle are a lesser evil than the fire. CA, the most over protective government on the planet was unaware of this. You dont know shit about how major contracts like this work. Everyone in that decision process knows everything about whats in it. Buy im sure a self proclaimed pot smoking moron like you knows more about that than the 300 chemical engineers evaluating this product
Re: (Score:2)
CA, the most over protective government on the planet was unaware of this.
If your assertion is that the government was in on this bad decision, that's fine and logical. If your assertion is that this makes it OK, you're a dumbfuck.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You aren’t a chemical engineer. You know nothing about chemically separating a fire triangle. These metals are not cheap and would not exist if not absolutely necessary. The fucking moron who fucking claimed it was an anti-corrosive is a fucking moron too. Metals are not generally used as an anti-corrosive. Polymers are anti corrosive. If they wanted to protect the tanks they would line them with plastics or bpa. These costly chemicals are a necessary part of fire suppression in this formula which is
Re: (Score:2)
So now you can explain why it was necessary to keep these ingredients secret
Re:"Trade secrets" should not exist, especially th (Score:5, Insightful)
They aren’t secret to the government. They’re only secret to people like you. Having been a naval nuclear engineer from 1988-1995, which btw comes with a secondary occupation of fire fighter as a member of shipboard crew, every chemical we handled had a MSDS sheet with every chemical and concentration in it. That is part and parcel to every compound sold to the government. There is no such thing as Coca-Cola secret ingredient when you have a government contract. It’s only a trade secret to the dumbass author that wrote the article. It’s only a secret to the general public and those that would steal their intellectual property. When you embark on a government contract of supply at this massive scale, you don’t have to hide behind trade secrets there are non-disclosure agreements out the ass that have already been signed over and again. There is no secret isotope or secret compound that is not already fully understood.
Re: (Score:2)
And you’re a fucking armchair quarterback who has no clue how things were really function. Go back to smoking weed at work stoner.
Re: "Trade secrets" should not exist, especially t (Score:2)
". Itâ(TM)s only a secret to the general public and those that would steal their intellectual property."
That was stupid corporate cock sucking fuckery. Any dickhead with a gas chromatograph can reverse engineer their formula. If it's not patent protected then it's just not protected.
Re: (Score:2)
oh i see the stoner woke back up again. mass spec does not tell you the exact compound. It can tell you what elements are present and in what concentrations. From that you can determine, usually, the manufacturer. Its not enough to exactly duplicate a formula. If you are talking designer molecules it cannot do that. For that you need an STM or electron microscopy. FWIW anything patented is more open-source than anything undisclosed as a trade secret. A patent requires a near step-by-step process to create s
Re: (Score:2)
These costly chemicals are a necessary part of fire suppression in this formula which is why its used instead of just water.
Turns out not to be true. Heavy metals are not a part of fire suppressant.
If we're talking chemistry here, I'll note that another critical chemical trait needed here is a surfactant, to make the water stick to the leaves it's sprayed on instead of beading up and rolling off. But, guess what? that doesn't use heavy metals either.
Corrosion is indeed a big deal, particularly if you're scooping up seawater.
Re: (Score:2)
Try again
Phos-Chek, a widely used fire retardant that contains cadmium and chromium
the primary surfactant is ammonium phosphate. Or potassium phosphate. Phosphates are in everything including commercial laundry detergents. Hell we use tri-sodium phosphate as a corrosion inhibitor and pH control in our Steam Plants onboard our nuke plants to keep the pH around 9.8-10.5. Chromium by itself is highly flammable and not exactly the first thing you reach for in fire suppression, except when it plays a role in breaking up the fire tetrahedron. Arsonic also exploded in presence of an o
Phos-Chek [Re:"Trade secrets" should not exist...] (Score:2)
Try again
Phos-Chek, a widely used fire retardant that contains cadmium and chromium
I am not sure who you are replying to. The line you quote is not anything I wrote.
The flame retardant in Phos-Chek LC95 is ammonium polyphosphate, not cadmium nor chromium. A reference is Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The suggestion that the purpose of the heavy metals may be corrosion resistance comes from the paper we are discussing, so if you disagree with the suggestion that it was added for corrosion resistance (your words: "The fucking moron who fucking claimed it was an anti-corrosive is
Use [Re:"Trade secrets" should not exist...] (Score:2)
Yes because the CA government never once looked at the ingredients and made the decision that the chemicals that disrupt the fire triangle are a lesser evil than the fire.
Probably not.
The analysis was based on the assumption that the use of the chemicals would be to spray on forest fires, not on populated neighborhoods.
Re: (Score:2)
it seeps into the ground water. forest, residential, ocean, aquifer, it wont matter. Thats not how these things get evaluated. The amount of testing and evaluation that goes into these products and their certifications occur not only at the state but federal levels. It is a years long process perhaps decades in some cases. Wildfires are not new to CA. An article I read said the Santa Ana winds result in a major wildfire every 10 years on average. They had to know exactly what areas are affected and what pro
Re:"Trade secrets" should not exist, especially th (Score:4, Interesting)
No its not stupid. Your view as usual is just myopic.
Sure it would be better not use heavy metals to fight fires. However if you read you'd understand that those chemicals are present to among other things protect the aircraft and tanks from corrosion. Maybe you have not looked lately but large aircraft capable to disusing huge volumes of liquid over fires are not exactly cheap.
The only reason we have enough of these things is because we have built a fleet of them over years and maintained them, as well as chosen suppressants that don't destroy them. Sure we could probably find some alternatives that are more green at dramatically higher cost, we could skip the anti-corrosives and have to retire the planes and equipment sooner again at great cost or a reduced capacity.
Finally we could tax everyone more so some of our richest citizens can enjoy security security they have now and not have a little less worry about contamination from fire suppressants. We could keep taxes where they are reduce other activities. - These are policy choices and they don't get made in a vacuum.
This is why over-regulation (read more then banning the very most destructive practices) is generally bad. All the political cartoons about robber barrons asides, the vast vast majority of even the very wealthiest industrialists are not actually saying "f* the planet, and screw Tinny Tim, if gets me another half percent ROI" but rather like everyone else they balancing an large number of objectives.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure you're replying to the correct comment?
Re: (Score:3)
Fracking also uses fluids with lots of "trade secret" chemicals, that are injected deep into the rock, and who knows what they are doing long term.
All because of the current mentality of fast short term gain, never mind the consequences ...
Re: (Score:2)
Dont drink the Fire Suppressant.
And to be on safe side, don't enter (or approach) the state where it is used.
Ever again.
Re:"High levels..." (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes because that's exactly how pollution works. Did you drink too much leaded fuel as a child?
Re: (Score:1)
No, that is indeed not how pollution works: You don't rate polluting chemicals by how safe they are to drink.
THAT'S THE POINT.
Sheesh.
You only stopped drinking leaded fuel when you read its nutrition label and found out its salt content was way too high?
Re: (Score:3)
No, that is indeed not how pollution works: You don't rate polluting chemicals by how safe they are to drink.
Of course you do, especially when you blindly spray them into the environment where they have a tendency to leech into water reservoirs and groundwater which is literally what pollutants are assumed to do.
You only stopped drinking leaded fuel when you read its nutrition label and found out its salt content was way too high?
No I stopped breathing lead from fumes due to the recognition that something being unsafe to poured into the environment gets regulated since it finds other ways into the body.
There's a reason these chemicals are regulated in much of the world, and the reason is that in places they are used they fuck up th
Solve one eco disaster by creating another (Score:3)
Cadmium arsenic and chromium, all highly toxic. We put out one immediate ecological disaster, and in the process we create another, that is more hidden and potentially a longer term problem.
Re: (Score:1)
'potential' vs 'immediate'. Yes, slow maybe-poison is better than burning to death.
Re:Solve one eco disaster by creating another (Score:4, Interesting)
We put out one immediate ecological disaster, and in the process we create another
Wildfires are social disasters, not ecological disasters. They're a part of the natural process by which forests maintain equilibrium. They're only called "disasters" when they affect buildings.
Capitalism is great! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Trade secret" to hide how much poison is in there, my ass.
It does not get much more depraved than this. Fix your society! Oh, wait, you just voted to make things like this perfectly normal...
Re:Capitalism is great! (Score:4, Interesting)
Just wait till you hear what's in fracking liquid - the stuff used to get oil and natural gas.
Oh, but wait, you can't, because "trade secret." Even though it gets injected into the ground during mining and for disposal, and sometimes that happens to be near the water table. Certainly a lot of it gets spilled on the surface, which mingles with runoff.
Keep in mind the oil and gas industry have broad exemptions to the Clear Air and Water acts. Wonder how that happened?
Heavy rain in LA (Score:3)
LA has had really heavy rain in the last 24 hours so now all that shit is in the ocean too.
I hope they remove all of it (Score:2)
I hope they remove all of the heavy metals, but it should be noted that the levels passed federal guidelines which are relatively strict. People at the EPA do actually care about how much heavy metals do end up in the bloodstream of animals and humans and how much suffering or illness might be caused thereby. Often older standards need to be updated though and I imagine we can expect that to happen soon unless there is no practical alternative here.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope they remove all of the heavy metals, but it should be noted that the levels passed federal guidelines which are relatively strict. People at the EPA do actually care about how much heavy metals do end up in the bloodstream of animals and humans and how much suffering or illness might be caused thereby. Often older standards need to be updated though and I imagine we can expect that to happen soon unless there is no practical alternative here.
Another reason for a certain president to cancel the EPA.
Re: (Score:3)
Before the EPA we got stuff like rivers catching on fire due to all the dumped chemicals, lead paint, leaded gasoline, asbestos, and more.
I can certainly see reforming the EPA, but I don't want smog back, I don't want China's lung cancer numbers, etc...
So no, please don't cancel the EPA.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to study a bit of geography. The Great Salt Lake is too far away to be used.
Re: (Score:2)
You need to study a bit of geography. The Great Salt Lake is too far away to be used.
Could try the Salton Sea, though.
(although I don't see why anybody would do that, since the actual ocean is only a mile or so away.)
Let's file a 300 page environment impact document (Score:1)
for every air drop of fire retardant. Now since to write that document you need to inspect the proposed drop site first, we'll just let the fire burn out so we can safely get a good look before we put pen to paper.
I'm sure what burnt isn't much better (Score:2)
I'm sure what burnt up isn't much better for the people.
I hope they put their prop 65 warning before dumping it.
yeah actually fuck you (Score:1)
you don't get to have trade secrets any more at all, liars. you've chosen your own ending and it ain't the good one
Insane (Score:2)
to allow "trade secret" when the public health and common environment is in such an extreme danger as heavy metal pollution represents is simply insane. Fuck their trade secrets, the public needs to know how the landscape gets poisoned.
Why do US people allow this insane influence and damaging unregulated control companies can have there?
considering the cost of wild fires... (Score:2)
considering that wild fires cost roughly $10 Billion in California... you could actually put 3 billion towards several desalination plants... and a further couple for operations every year.. and if used effectively... save money... with plenty of fresh water for Californians.
i guess it's cheaper to let fires cause $10 billion in losses every year than to invest $ in stopping that loss and eventually come out saving billions a year...