8 ms·

What's in that bright red fire retardant? No one will say, so we had it tested

193 points by littlexsparkee 2y ago

DuckConference 2y ago
All the heavy metals were below 1ppm, are any of the levels concerning?
- orbital-decay 2y ago
  In case there's some natural accumulation process, the concentration can reach any levels, so absolute quantity might (or might not) matter as well.
- ted_dunning 2y ago
  Many of the levels are well above the levels required for drinking water. That isn't much to go on, however.
  - fuzzfactor 2y ago
    Also, real ppm for this kind of thing is supposed to be by weight, so that would ideally be pounds per million-pounds. IOW if they dumped a million pounds all over the place, and there was 1 ppm of trace lead content, then there was one full pound of unwanted lead scattered across the same acreage as the 900,000+ pounds of active ingredient. However, ppm for environmental laboratories conventionally means milligrams per liter since that's a close equivalent to weight ppm, but realistically only for water samples. So for test material having a density different than water, some correction is needed which can often be neglected, but the real number is usually within the same order of magnitude.
    - Jabbles 2y ago
      If there were 280 drops of the DC-10 mentioned in the article, that is a maximum of 280 * 45000 = 12.6M litres of this, spread of 20 square miles. That is 7.5 kg (16 lbs) of lead. But what does that tell you? Is that a lot? The EPA warns against soil that is > 400ppm lead, which is a limit almost 1000 times higher than found in this. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/documents/lead-in-soil-aug2020.pdf https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/documents/le...
      - fuzzfactor 2y ago
        Looks like you've added some realistic data. The more the better. >But what does that tell you? It's a lot of raw data, but mainly reveals it's all estimation "all the way down". Definitely pounds to kilos of heavy metals were dispensed widely which were not there before. Probably a lot more kilos than people think when you consider all the kinds of heavy metal that's popular today, not only Led ;) And that's just the initial application. Contamination migration will be a much less accurately determined phenomenon, while being potentially much more toxic in those areas of concentration, and less so in areas benefitting from dilution.
- jeffybefffy519 2y ago
  I found it a bit concerning that this doesnt talk about safe dosages of any of the heavy metals.
casey2 2y ago
[flagged]
- netsharc 2y ago
  Breathing? That's not listed as a benefit in your job description! Makes me think of the 9/11 first responders, and Jon Stewart fighting politicians who want to cut off their benefits...
  - cube00 2y ago
    I only just came across his speech to Congress in 2019, highly recommend it, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uYpDC3SRpM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uYpDC3SRpM
memkit 2y ago
Fire retardant itself is much more harmful than heavy metals in this context. It essentially causes neurodegenerative diseases, especially if you inhale it. This applies to unintuitive routes of exposure, like taking a hot shower on an Air Force base that used flame retardant in fire drills decades prior and breathing in the water suspended in air.
- cyberax 2y ago
  > Fire retardant itself is much more harmful than heavy metals in this context. I haven't found any studies about that, can you link them? It doesn't look like ammonium phosphate is dangerous.
  - droopyEyelids 2y ago
    It's a doomscroller-brained comment, confusing the PFAS fire retardant foams used on military bases with this ammonium phosphate made from mined Phosphorite rock.
    - Tildey 2y ago
      AFFF is used in far more than just military bases. Outside of the USA, AFFF extinguishers, small vehicle/building hazard suppression systems, etc. are much more common. But yes Phos-check isn’t that
  - Skunkleton 2y ago
    https://nyulangone.org/news/flame-retardants-pesticides-overtake-heavy-metals-biggest-contributors-iq-loss https://nyulangone.org/news/flame-retardants-pesticides-over... I don’t think it is shown that the flame retardants used by cal fire are the same as those in the article from nyu.
  - KennyBlanken 2y ago
    They are talking about PFAS, which was (is?) in aqueous foam firefighting chemicals that were (are?) in widespread use. At air force bases, airports (both the trucks and hangar suppression systems), firefighter training facilities. Municipal fire departments have metering devices on their trucks and can mix in the foam additive if it's warranted. Foam is incredibly effective on a lot of fires. It gets into the groundwater from stuff like accidental hangar fire suppression system triggering, training exercises (at an airport near me, they have a dedicated steel structure that vaguely resembles a jetliner which they use for training, and yes, they use foam every time.) There are a lot of videos on youtube of the systems going off, intentionally (certification after installation - the system has to fill the hangar to X feet of foam within Y time), or accidentally being triggered because someone didn't respond to the prealarm fast enough to get to the control panel and stop it before the system started discharging. At AF bases, FF training facilities, and airports it gets into the groundwater and it's game over - everyone who gets water from that water table has to install an expensive filtration system. And that's assuming it doesn't get into a nearby river or stream. The stuff gets used on a lot of vehicle fires on highways, those are often near riviers, streams, lakes, reservoirs.... I hadn't heard that PFAS or related chemicals were in the colored flame retardant used in forest fire fighting, though.
Rotundo 2y ago
It's ammonia phosphates with trace amounts of heavy metals.
- fuzzfactor 2y ago
  I wonder who can figure out what the red coloring is ;) Or if it will be accomplished one way or another?
  - scq 2y ago
    The red colour is iron oxide (i.e. rust). Source: https://www.perimeter-solutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/PC-LC95-PCC-2019042-7_ML-2.pdf https://www.perimeter-solutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/...
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
revx 2y ago
Great investigative reporting!
- throwaway519 2y ago
  It would have been a first for an *ist.
cyberax 2y ago
So the article contains the data for the detected concentration. And it's basically a nothingburger. For example, the samples contained 37 to 80 micrograms per liter of cadmium. The safety limit for _drinking_ _water_ is 5 micrograms. So diluting the retardant with 10 times the water makes it safe enough to drink. Lead content in the samples was wildly different, from 7 micrograms to 800, indicating that the sampling procedure itself was unreliable. Similar story for chromium, 100 micrograms is the safe level, and 200-300 micrograms were in the tested samples. In fact, only arsenic is concerning, with roughly 10-60 times the allowed concentration for the drinking water.
- KennyBlanken 2y ago
  First off, water standards were weak in the first place (because of lobbying from the chemical industry) and have been weakened several times since, so they've become a joke. If you're over the federal limits, you're in pretty bad territory. It's also not a "nothingburger." How much area do you think one liter covers in ground area? Now go look at the giant cargo planes dropping the stuff thousands of pounds at a time? All that crap washes down into waterways or leeches into the soil, then into the water table. > Lead content in the samples was wildly different, from 7 micrograms to 800, indicating that the sampling procedure itself was unreliable. ...that's not what that indicates, no. It could also be that lead is very inconsistently spread through the chemical. Chromium doesn't have a safe level, just like there's no such thing as a safe level of radiation. Before you start hammering away that the chances to you or me are extremely low: so are house fires, murder, etc. They still happen, and they happen to somebody. A low concentration of chromium consumed by a large population will definitely cause health impacts.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    > It's also not a "nothingburger." How much area do you think one liter covers in ground area? Quite a lot? This makes it even safer. The next rainfall, and all the retardant is diluted to safe levels. > All that crap washes down into waterways or leeches into the soil, then into the water table. It's already there. Where do you think arsenic, chromium, lead, and other minerals come from? > Chromium doesn't have a safe level You do realize that chromium is a component of stainless steel? Your cookware leeches plenty of it. And it's not particularly dangerous, either, unless it's in its hexavalent form. > just like there's no such thing as a safe level of radiation. There is. The normal background are about 20 micro-Roentgens per hour.
Teever 2y ago
> Late last year, LAist requested samples of MVP-Fx from Cal Fire, the U.S. Forest Service and Perimeter Solutions, which manufactures the product, for the purpose of running an independent analysis for heavy metals. All declined. > “It’s not in our interest to share product with public or private agencies,” Jurasek said at the time. “You are not the first person to ask for us to give them fire retardant. It happens. It’s not something we do.” How is this legal? Like how can the government spray random chemicals all over the land and there's no way for the public to compel them or the people supplying them to declare what's in them?
- cube00 2y ago
  > “You are not the first person to ask for us to give them fire retardant. It happens. It’s not something we do.” Scary to think what other discoveries were missed if those other investigations had been given the samples they asked for. I also enjoy how they all pile on to say the results can't be trusted. > Cal Fire, the U.S. Forest Service and Perimeter Solutions all dismissed the results of the testing — saying that the samples couldn’t be relied on because they were gathered in the field.
- Ferret7446 2y ago
  It isn't the responsibility of the manufacturer to provide samples for analysis (unless the law compels them). Take it up with your government. > Like how can the government spray random chemicals all over the land and there's no way for the public to compel them There is, by voting.
  - mistrial9 2y ago
    no regulations are written by specialists and staff that implement the intent of the law passed by legislature or by executive order. Voting only pressures certain parts of that. The US and States have had large scandals regarding heavy industrial wastes over time.
  - agency 2y ago
    > It isn't the responsibility of the manufacturer to provide samples for analysis In a sane world it would be
jostmey 2y ago
I wonder if some of the high levels of lead found in the samples are from the airplane fuel, Which is sadly still leaded in the us
- tastyfreeze 2y ago
  It wouldn't be. Only avgas is leaded. Avgas is only used in piston engines. Turboprops and jet engines use jet A. Jet A is kerosene.
- ungreased0675 2y ago
  Why would there be any interaction or correlation between aviation fuel and fire retardant?
  - glitchc 2y ago
    Fire retardant is typically delivered via air. If the aircraft is running on avgas, the retardant may mix with the exhaust on release.
- cpgxiii 2y ago
  Lead is only in avgas used by piston engines. Approximately zero firefighting aircraft use piston engines at this point - turbine power and reliability are so good that most firefighting aircraft that started with piston engines have been retrofitted (e.g. Calfire's Turbo Trackers).
sparker72678 2y ago
We should know what’s in the retardant, yes. The alternative to retardant at the moment is uncontrolled wildfires.
- urig 2y ago
  That's an "all or nothing" fallacy, easily countered. One alternative is water. Plus alternative products might be less efficient but less contaminating. Finally, even with Phos-Check, success is far from guaranteed. Bottom line: the lack of transparency must be remedied and officials need to be aware and factor in heavy metal contamination into their decisions.
  - daedrdev 2y ago
    Fires burining neibhorhoods already produce massive ammounts of toxic and heavy metals. It literally is just adding a little more to the already extremly present pollution
    - GenshoTikamura 2y ago
      The present pollution is the result of incremental addition of little more to what was little less at that moment, while seeking excuse in alreadism
      - spwa4 2y ago
        The fire retardant ... actually does retard the fire, right. A tiny bit of extra toxicity in trade for much less stuff getting burned may be worth it. If you're looking for some negative on anything, you will find it. Always. The question should be if it's a net positive or not. In reality people are just looking for something bad, so they can find something that was wrong/against the law, so they can blame them, so they can get money from them.
        palata 2y ago
        > The fire retardant ... actually does retard the fire, right. A tiny bit of extra toxicity in trade for much less stuff getting burned may be worth it. And water does, too. The real question is: is this extra toxicity worth it? I understand your reaction, it's common. But irrational. It's akin to saying "If Trump can improve the country at the cost of some disagreement, then maybe it's worth it, so I voted Trump". What if he doesn't improve the country, and you just get the cost? It's a good question to ask. You should just not base your opinion on the uninformed assumption you make ("I assume that because it may be worth it, then it actually is worth is").
csours 2y ago
This feels like one of those things where context changes over time and takes a product outside of it's original use case. Fire retardant is an emergency measure, one that would rightly be expected to see exceptionally low usage overall. But over time, more people and property have gotten closer to the forest; forest fires affect more people for many reasons. So fire retardant use is not so rare. The Therac-20 was a fine piece of electro-mechanical-nuclear technology, but the Therac-25 moved the control scheme out of its original context, and took away some of the physical interlocks. The Therac-25 is not remembered fondly. Context changes over time, and assumptions need to be re-examined.
- thih9 2y ago
  It reminds me of handling null values or other kinds of exceptional situations in coding. We can assume they happen for some reason but unless we actually ensure that, the branch for handling the intended exception can silently start handling other use cases too.
  - IndrekR 2y ago
    That is why Therac-25 was mentioned, I guess. Software kills: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
jongjong 2y ago
I feel like the economy has become one giant scheme to enable chemical companies to peddle their toxic products onto the oblivious public. They put preservatives in everything... Even some brands of ice cream has preservatives...they taste awful. I don't know how anyone can eat that... Am I the only one who can taste that horrible bitter aftertaste? These products are inedible. The irony is that they load up processed foods with preservatives and ship them half way across the world... While people in your local community can't find work... They could have been making better food in a food truck and selling it locally, no need for preservatives. Why is this not possible in most places? I've lived in a country which had a strong foodtruck culture and the food there was both excellent and cheap. The model is proven yet it doesn't work in a lot of places for some reason. Too much regulation? Regulating the wrong things? They should be regulating chemicals!
- mike_d 2y ago
  The most common preservatives in food are salt, sorbic acid (occurs naturally in fruit), and sodium nitrate (mined directly out of the ground). If you constantly experience a bitter taste when eating foods you should speak to your doctor. It can be a sign of an infection or liver issues.
  - jongjong 2y ago
    Sodium nitrate has a bitter aftertaste to me. A bit like baking soda. I can usually taste it then I check the labels and sure enough I see 'preservative (252)'.
    - BenjiWiebe 2y ago
      I wonder if it's a genetic thing. I have a family member who complains about preservative taste, but I can't taste it.
      - jongjong 2y ago
        Interesting. After this comment I mentioned it to a family member who is in natural medicine and diet (no fan of preservatives themselves) and they were surprised that I could taste it. So Maybe there is a genetic component. I mean it's more like an aftertaste than a taste but it's obvious to me. Like if you eat pancakes with too much baking soda in them, it leaves a kind of numbing effect and slight bitterness on the tongue... Or maybe that's genetic too haha.
guerrilla 2y ago
I was always told it was boron (or borate?). People always called them boron bombers. Yes, that was a thing. https://www.borax.com/news-events/november-2022/boron-flame-retardant-history https://www.borax.com/news-events/november-2022/boron-flame-...
GenshoTikamura 2y ago
[flagged]
Tabular-Iceberg 2y ago
> “It’s not in our interest to share product with public or private agencies,” Jurasek said at the time. “You are not the first person to ask for us to give them fire retardant. It happens. It’s not something we do.” I don’t get why they are acting like they have something to hide. Phosphate is mined from rock, rock contains all sorts of other elements including heavy metals. That’s simply how minerals work. It’s not by itself an indication that anyone has done anything wrong.
- 4gotunameagain 2y ago
  This is one of the downsides of an excessively litigious society. Being afraid of potential risks, even if there are none, reduces transparency.
  - potato3732842 2y ago
    This industry learned a lesson from the AFFF debacle. And that lesson wasn't "share everything".
  - harimau777 2y ago
    Unfortunately, excessive litigation is one of the downsides of an under regulated society. If our only protection from corporations is lawsuits then we shouldn't be surprised that people bring a lot of lawsuits.
    - 4gotunameagain 2y ago
      And then you have the Germans, where they only feel safe in the most litigious and one of the most highly regulated countries of the world :)
  - mmooss 2y ago
    > excessively litigious I haven't heard evidence that litigation is excessive, except by very wealthy corporations and people. I think most or many people lack access to litigation - they can't afford to use it or to protect themselves from it.
alephnil 2y ago
Some of the heavy metals are likely from the fire retardant, and some are likely from the fire. Look at zinc vs lead for example. There is little lead in the unused sample vs the environmental samples, thus most of the lead is likely not from the fire retardant. I would guess the most likely source is lead from roofs of burning houses. Zinc on the other hand is present in all samples in about the same amount, including the unused one. That means that the zinc is likely from the fire retardant rather than the environment. Other metals are present in slightly higher amounts in the environmental samples, and often only in some of the samples. In that case both the fire retardant and the fires/environment are likely to contribute. To me it seems like copper, lead and manganese are mostly from the fires, while zinc and chromium seems to be from the fire retardant. Then there is the sample from the Franklin fire, that seems to be higher in everything.
- HelloMcFly 2y ago
  > Some of the heavy metals are likely from the fire retardant I'm not disagreeing with what you wrote, but they did also analyze unused, "fresh out of the package" retardant.
rvba 2y ago
Where is it manufactured? In USA or somewhere else? If it is manufactued in other country then they might not care about heavy metals in the product.
- hnbad 2y ago
  The US doesn't have a great track record of caring about the health of its citizens, no need to bring in xenophobia. Last I checked, parts of the US still have flammable drinking water. Many neighborhoods still have lead pipes because the companies required to replace them were allowed to offer paying off the affected tenants instead. The FDA is understaffed and barely tests a fraction of the things you'd expect it to, let alone more than once. The US has detonated multiple nukes on US soil. The CIA literally drugged random people with LSD. Volunteer emergency helpers during 9/11 received literally no meaningful long-term medical support - not to mention US soldiers exposed to the US burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US even relies on chlorination for poultry - a practice banned in the EU and UK among other places because it is only necessary if you want to compensate for poor hygiene standards. And do I need to remind you of the handling of the train derailment in Ohio that ended up poisoning the air in 16 states?
ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
> Lane feels firefighters were left in the dark That kind of thing happens a lot (see “9/11 Syndrome”). Kind of a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation. One of the things about fire, is that it alters chemistry. Perfectly safe materials, can turn into highly toxic gas, when heated. In many cases, this cannot be anticipated, or realistically prevented. There are also firefighting foams and whatnot. I think some of the foams contain fairly significant quantities of questionable chemicals. They are pretty much required, for Li-ion battery fires. Firemen kinda take the brunt of that. I know a number of retired firefighters, and they all have health issues.
- mmooss 2y ago
  Remember that some of the firefighters are prisoners (as in criminals), a vulnerable population that has less choice and less access to health care or other remedies.
perihelions 2y ago
- "Phos-Chek MVP-Fx is primarily made of ammonium phosphates, which are derived from phosphate. That rock, when mined, can contain trace amounts of heavy metals." The thing they're catastrophizing about is rock phosphate—ordinary fertilizer that's mixed into the soil of every food farm in the world. I'm not sure if the journalists who wrote this article are aware of this. "It's COVERING my garden plants!" reads quite definitely when you recognize it's f'ing Miracle-Gro. https://www.usgs.gov/centers/national-minerals-information-center/phosphate-rock-statistics-and-information https://www.usgs.gov/centers/national-minerals-information-c... - "Phosphorus is an essential element for plant and animal nutrition. Most phosphorus is consumed as a principal component of nitrogen-phosphorus-potassium fertilizers used on food crops throughout the world. Phosphate rock minerals are the only significant global resources of phosphorus." https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/risk/studies/metals.html https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/risk/... ("Heavy Metals in Fertilizers") - "Risk assessments conducted by the US Environmental Protection Agency and others have concluded that the hazardous constituents in inorganic fertilizers generally do not pose risks to public health or the environment."
- libertine 2y ago
  > "Risk assessments conducted by the US Environmental Protection Agency and others have concluded that the hazardous constituents in inorganic fertilizers generally do not pose risks to public health or the environment." What I believe you're missing is where this might be coming from. We live in an Institutional crisis, where for years propaganda was spread and amplified by internal and external actors (like Russia) to undermine institutions, with lies and conspiracy theories. Bold claims were made that organizations and the government were captured by private interests, completely disregarding that actual qualified people are working to make sure things are safe, like products we consume. Just for context, RFK Junior is the US Secretary of Health and Human Services. So, to circle back to your quote, the Risk assessment made by the US Environmental Protection Agency could be easily dismissed by the following unfounded and unsupported claim, "yeah the US Environmental Protection Agency is serving the big companies; they should be dismantled." Like it would be the easiest thing for Russia to start a trend to sway people to demand a ban on phosphate. They did similar things with regard to Ukraine, to the point where the US Administration is amplifying russian talking points. To be clear, I'm not saying this article is a propaganda piece; what I'm saying is that this sort of opinion from someone who doesn't seem to fully understand the subject is a prime example of something that could be amplified for propaganda and contribute to institutional demise.
somat 2y ago
I was trying to figure out what is in class A firefighting foam last week. Nobody really wants to say, it is all trade secrets, evading a direct response, using vague sweeping terms, like it contains surfactant and foaming agents. However based on the published MSDS. my guess, soap, it is mainly soap. https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/fire/wfcs/products/msds/foam/silvex-plus.pdf https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/fire/wfcs/products/msds/foam/silv... Note that I do think it is soap finely engineered for it's fire suppression characteristics. I also think you would get 80% there with a bottle of dish soap.
- BenjiWiebe 2y ago
  Ya some of us rural volunteer firefighters will use dish soap instead of foam concentrate. I personally haven't but some of the others in the department have.
  - Scoundreller 2y ago
    Or diy zip lock bags of baking soda to drop into chimney fires
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
pfdietz 2y ago
Some phosphate rock deposits have very high levels of cadmium. Phosphate fertilizers derived from high Cd rocks can have up to 100 ppm cadmium.
- compass_copium 2y ago
  This is much cleaner--35 /ppb/. Really irresponsible and bad journalism.
- perihelions 2y ago
  - "up to 100 ppm cadmium" This is remarkable, and leads to me question what numbers this article is reporting. Their cadmium figures are parts-per-billion—ranging 30–45 μg/L. That seems impossibly low for something that's mostly phosphate; i.e., the EU's inorganic fertilizer standard[0] is 60 mg/kg, and they call 20 mg/kg "low-cadmium". This would appear to be several order of magnitudes lower cadmium than "low-cadmium" fertilizer. That doesn't sound very plausible, does it? Given their common component. OP's using μg/L. What is a "liter" in the denominator? That'd be an odd unit for measuring a dry powder. Is it liters of the solvent they dissolved the sample in, before running the mass spec? Was it intended to be reported as a a quantitative measurement, at all? (Was there maybe a communication error between the lab technician and the journalist?) [0] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20181119IPR19407/fertilisers-cadmium-parliament-and-council-negotiators-reach-provisional-deal https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20181119IP... (Fertilisers/cadmium: Parliament and Council negotiators reach provisional deal")
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
hoseja 2y ago
This is like antivaxx. Yes you will find heavy metals pretty much everywhere if you test sensitively enough.

DuckConference 2y ago

All the heavy metals were below 1ppm, are any of the levels concerning?

orbital-decay 2y ago
In case there's some natural accumulation process, the concentration can reach any levels, so absolute quantity might (or might not) matter as well.
ted_dunning 2y ago
Many of the levels are well above the levels required for drinking water. That isn't much to go on, however.
- fuzzfactor 2y ago
  Also, real ppm for this kind of thing is supposed to be by weight, so that would ideally be pounds per million-pounds. IOW if they dumped a million pounds all over the place, and there was 1 ppm of trace lead content, then there was one full pound of unwanted lead scattered across the same acreage as the 900,000+ pounds of active ingredient. However, ppm for environmental laboratories conventionally means milligrams per liter since that's a close equivalent to weight ppm, but realistically only for water samples. So for test material having a density different than water, some correction is needed which can often be neglected, but the real number is usually within the same order of magnitude.
  - Jabbles 2y ago
    If there were 280 drops of the DC-10 mentioned in the article, that is a maximum of 280 * 45000 = 12.6M litres of this, spread of 20 square miles. That is 7.5 kg (16 lbs) of lead. But what does that tell you? Is that a lot? The EPA warns against soil that is > 400ppm lead, which is a limit almost 1000 times higher than found in this. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/documents/lead-in-soil-aug2020.pdf https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/documents/le...
    - fuzzfactor 2y ago
      Looks like you've added some realistic data. The more the better. >But what does that tell you? It's a lot of raw data, but mainly reveals it's all estimation "all the way down". Definitely pounds to kilos of heavy metals were dispensed widely which were not there before. Probably a lot more kilos than people think when you consider all the kinds of heavy metal that's popular today, not only Led ;) And that's just the initial application. Contamination migration will be a much less accurately determined phenomenon, while being potentially much more toxic in those areas of concentration, and less so in areas benefitting from dilution.
jeffybefffy519 2y ago
I found it a bit concerning that this doesnt talk about safe dosages of any of the heavy metals.

casey2 2y ago

[flagged]

netsharc 2y ago
Breathing? That's not listed as a benefit in your job description! Makes me think of the 9/11 first responders, and Jon Stewart fighting politicians who want to cut off their benefits...
- cube00 2y ago
  I only just came across his speech to Congress in 2019, highly recommend it, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uYpDC3SRpM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uYpDC3SRpM

memkit 2y ago

Fire retardant itself is much more harmful than heavy metals in this context. It essentially causes neurodegenerative diseases, especially if you inhale it. This applies to unintuitive routes of exposure, like taking a hot shower on an Air Force base that used flame retardant in fire drills decades prior and breathing in the water suspended in air.

cyberax 2y ago
> Fire retardant itself is much more harmful than heavy metals in this context. I haven't found any studies about that, can you link them? It doesn't look like ammonium phosphate is dangerous.
- droopyEyelids 2y ago
  It's a doomscroller-brained comment, confusing the PFAS fire retardant foams used on military bases with this ammonium phosphate made from mined Phosphorite rock.
  - Tildey 2y ago
    AFFF is used in far more than just military bases. Outside of the USA, AFFF extinguishers, small vehicle/building hazard suppression systems, etc. are much more common. But yes Phos-check isn’t that
- Skunkleton 2y ago
  https://nyulangone.org/news/flame-retardants-pesticides-overtake-heavy-metals-biggest-contributors-iq-loss https://nyulangone.org/news/flame-retardants-pesticides-over... I don’t think it is shown that the flame retardants used by cal fire are the same as those in the article from nyu.
- KennyBlanken 2y ago
  They are talking about PFAS, which was (is?) in aqueous foam firefighting chemicals that were (are?) in widespread use. At air force bases, airports (both the trucks and hangar suppression systems), firefighter training facilities. Municipal fire departments have metering devices on their trucks and can mix in the foam additive if it's warranted. Foam is incredibly effective on a lot of fires. It gets into the groundwater from stuff like accidental hangar fire suppression system triggering, training exercises (at an airport near me, they have a dedicated steel structure that vaguely resembles a jetliner which they use for training, and yes, they use foam every time.) There are a lot of videos on youtube of the systems going off, intentionally (certification after installation - the system has to fill the hangar to X feet of foam within Y time), or accidentally being triggered because someone didn't respond to the prealarm fast enough to get to the control panel and stop it before the system started discharging. At AF bases, FF training facilities, and airports it gets into the groundwater and it's game over - everyone who gets water from that water table has to install an expensive filtration system. And that's assuming it doesn't get into a nearby river or stream. The stuff gets used on a lot of vehicle fires on highways, those are often near riviers, streams, lakes, reservoirs.... I hadn't heard that PFAS or related chemicals were in the colored flame retardant used in forest fire fighting, though.

Rotundo 2y ago

It's ammonia phosphates with trace amounts of heavy metals.

fuzzfactor 2y ago
I wonder who can figure out what the red coloring is ;) Or if it will be accomplished one way or another?
- scq 2y ago
  The red colour is iron oxide (i.e. rust). Source: https://www.perimeter-solutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/PC-LC95-PCC-2019042-7_ML-2.pdf https://www.perimeter-solutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

revx 2y ago

Great investigative reporting!

throwaway519 2y ago
It would have been a first for an *ist.

cyberax 2y ago

So the article contains the data for the detected concentration. And it's basically a nothingburger. For example, the samples contained 37 to 80 micrograms per liter of cadmium. The safety limit for _drinking_ _water_ is 5 micrograms. So diluting the retardant with 10 times the water makes it safe enough to drink. Lead content in the samples was wildly different, from 7 micrograms to 800, indicating that the sampling procedure itself was unreliable. Similar story for chromium, 100 micrograms is the safe level, and 200-300 micrograms were in the tested samples. In fact, only arsenic is concerning, with roughly 10-60 times the allowed concentration for the drinking water.

KennyBlanken 2y ago
First off, water standards were weak in the first place (because of lobbying from the chemical industry) and have been weakened several times since, so they've become a joke. If you're over the federal limits, you're in pretty bad territory. It's also not a "nothingburger." How much area do you think one liter covers in ground area? Now go look at the giant cargo planes dropping the stuff thousands of pounds at a time? All that crap washes down into waterways or leeches into the soil, then into the water table. > Lead content in the samples was wildly different, from 7 micrograms to 800, indicating that the sampling procedure itself was unreliable. ...that's not what that indicates, no. It could also be that lead is very inconsistently spread through the chemical. Chromium doesn't have a safe level, just like there's no such thing as a safe level of radiation. Before you start hammering away that the chances to you or me are extremely low: so are house fires, murder, etc. They still happen, and they happen to somebody. A low concentration of chromium consumed by a large population will definitely cause health impacts.
- cyberax 2y ago
  > It's also not a "nothingburger." How much area do you think one liter covers in ground area? Quite a lot? This makes it even safer. The next rainfall, and all the retardant is diluted to safe levels. > All that crap washes down into waterways or leeches into the soil, then into the water table. It's already there. Where do you think arsenic, chromium, lead, and other minerals come from? > Chromium doesn't have a safe level You do realize that chromium is a component of stainless steel? Your cookware leeches plenty of it. And it's not particularly dangerous, either, unless it's in its hexavalent form. > just like there's no such thing as a safe level of radiation. There is. The normal background are about 20 micro-Roentgens per hour.

Teever 2y ago

> Late last year, LAist requested samples of MVP-Fx from Cal Fire, the U.S. Forest Service and Perimeter Solutions, which manufactures the product, for the purpose of running an independent analysis for heavy metals. All declined. > “It’s not in our interest to share product with public or private agencies,” Jurasek said at the time. “You are not the first person to ask for us to give them fire retardant. It happens. It’s not something we do.” How is this legal? Like how can the government spray random chemicals all over the land and there's no way for the public to compel them or the people supplying them to declare what's in them?

cube00 2y ago
> “You are not the first person to ask for us to give them fire retardant. It happens. It’s not something we do.” Scary to think what other discoveries were missed if those other investigations had been given the samples they asked for. I also enjoy how they all pile on to say the results can't be trusted. > Cal Fire, the U.S. Forest Service and Perimeter Solutions all dismissed the results of the testing — saying that the samples couldn’t be relied on because they were gathered in the field.
Ferret7446 2y ago
It isn't the responsibility of the manufacturer to provide samples for analysis (unless the law compels them). Take it up with your government. > Like how can the government spray random chemicals all over the land and there's no way for the public to compel them There is, by voting.
- mistrial9 2y ago
  no regulations are written by specialists and staff that implement the intent of the law passed by legislature or by executive order. Voting only pressures certain parts of that. The US and States have had large scandals regarding heavy industrial wastes over time.
- agency 2y ago
  > It isn't the responsibility of the manufacturer to provide samples for analysis In a sane world it would be

jostmey 2y ago

I wonder if some of the high levels of lead found in the samples are from the airplane fuel, Which is sadly still leaded in the us

tastyfreeze 2y ago
It wouldn't be. Only avgas is leaded. Avgas is only used in piston engines. Turboprops and jet engines use jet A. Jet A is kerosene.
ungreased0675 2y ago
Why would there be any interaction or correlation between aviation fuel and fire retardant?
- glitchc 2y ago
  Fire retardant is typically delivered via air. If the aircraft is running on avgas, the retardant may mix with the exhaust on release.
cpgxiii 2y ago
Lead is only in avgas used by piston engines. Approximately zero firefighting aircraft use piston engines at this point - turbine power and reliability are so good that most firefighting aircraft that started with piston engines have been retrofitted (e.g. Calfire's Turbo Trackers).

sparker72678 2y ago

We should know what’s in the retardant, yes. The alternative to retardant at the moment is uncontrolled wildfires.

urig 2y ago
That's an "all or nothing" fallacy, easily countered. One alternative is water. Plus alternative products might be less efficient but less contaminating. Finally, even with Phos-Check, success is far from guaranteed. Bottom line: the lack of transparency must be remedied and officials need to be aware and factor in heavy metal contamination into their decisions.
- daedrdev 2y ago
  Fires burining neibhorhoods already produce massive ammounts of toxic and heavy metals. It literally is just adding a little more to the already extremly present pollution
  - GenshoTikamura 2y ago
    The present pollution is the result of incremental addition of little more to what was little less at that moment, while seeking excuse in alreadism
    - spwa4 2y ago
      The fire retardant ... actually does retard the fire, right. A tiny bit of extra toxicity in trade for much less stuff getting burned may be worth it. If you're looking for some negative on anything, you will find it. Always. The question should be if it's a net positive or not. In reality people are just looking for something bad, so they can find something that was wrong/against the law, so they can blame them, so they can get money from them.
      - palata 2y ago
        > The fire retardant ... actually does retard the fire, right. A tiny bit of extra toxicity in trade for much less stuff getting burned may be worth it. And water does, too. The real question is: is this extra toxicity worth it? I understand your reaction, it's common. But irrational. It's akin to saying "If Trump can improve the country at the cost of some disagreement, then maybe it's worth it, so I voted Trump". What if he doesn't improve the country, and you just get the cost? It's a good question to ask. You should just not base your opinion on the uninformed assumption you make ("I assume that because it may be worth it, then it actually is worth is").

csours 2y ago

This feels like one of those things where context changes over time and takes a product outside of it's original use case. Fire retardant is an emergency measure, one that would rightly be expected to see exceptionally low usage overall. But over time, more people and property have gotten closer to the forest; forest fires affect more people for many reasons. So fire retardant use is not so rare. The Therac-20 was a fine piece of electro-mechanical-nuclear technology, but the Therac-25 moved the control scheme out of its original context, and took away some of the physical interlocks. The Therac-25 is not remembered fondly. Context changes over time, and assumptions need to be re-examined.

thih9 2y ago
It reminds me of handling null values or other kinds of exceptional situations in coding. We can assume they happen for some reason but unless we actually ensure that, the branch for handling the intended exception can silently start handling other use cases too.
- IndrekR 2y ago
  That is why Therac-25 was mentioned, I guess. Software kills: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25

jongjong 2y ago

I feel like the economy has become one giant scheme to enable chemical companies to peddle their toxic products onto the oblivious public. They put preservatives in everything... Even some brands of ice cream has preservatives...they taste awful. I don't know how anyone can eat that... Am I the only one who can taste that horrible bitter aftertaste? These products are inedible. The irony is that they load up processed foods with preservatives and ship them half way across the world... While people in your local community can't find work... They could have been making better food in a food truck and selling it locally, no need for preservatives. Why is this not possible in most places? I've lived in a country which had a strong foodtruck culture and the food there was both excellent and cheap. The model is proven yet it doesn't work in a lot of places for some reason. Too much regulation? Regulating the wrong things? They should be regulating chemicals!

mike_d 2y ago
The most common preservatives in food are salt, sorbic acid (occurs naturally in fruit), and sodium nitrate (mined directly out of the ground). If you constantly experience a bitter taste when eating foods you should speak to your doctor. It can be a sign of an infection or liver issues.
- jongjong 2y ago
  Sodium nitrate has a bitter aftertaste to me. A bit like baking soda. I can usually taste it then I check the labels and sure enough I see 'preservative (252)'.
  - BenjiWiebe 2y ago
    I wonder if it's a genetic thing. I have a family member who complains about preservative taste, but I can't taste it.
    - jongjong 2y ago
      Interesting. After this comment I mentioned it to a family member who is in natural medicine and diet (no fan of preservatives themselves) and they were surprised that I could taste it. So Maybe there is a genetic component. I mean it's more like an aftertaste than a taste but it's obvious to me. Like if you eat pancakes with too much baking soda in them, it leaves a kind of numbing effect and slight bitterness on the tongue... Or maybe that's genetic too haha.

guerrilla 2y ago

I was always told it was boron (or borate?). People always called them boron bombers. Yes, that was a thing. https://www.borax.com/news-events/november-2022/boron-flame-retardant-history https://www.borax.com/news-events/november-2022/boron-flame-...

GenshoTikamura 2y ago

[flagged]

Tabular-Iceberg 2y ago

> “It’s not in our interest to share product with public or private agencies,” Jurasek said at the time. “You are not the first person to ask for us to give them fire retardant. It happens. It’s not something we do.” I don’t get why they are acting like they have something to hide. Phosphate is mined from rock, rock contains all sorts of other elements including heavy metals. That’s simply how minerals work. It’s not by itself an indication that anyone has done anything wrong.

4gotunameagain 2y ago
This is one of the downsides of an excessively litigious society. Being afraid of potential risks, even if there are none, reduces transparency.
- potato3732842 2y ago
  This industry learned a lesson from the AFFF debacle. And that lesson wasn't "share everything".
- harimau777 2y ago
  Unfortunately, excessive litigation is one of the downsides of an under regulated society. If our only protection from corporations is lawsuits then we shouldn't be surprised that people bring a lot of lawsuits.
  - 4gotunameagain 2y ago
    And then you have the Germans, where they only feel safe in the most litigious and one of the most highly regulated countries of the world :)
- mmooss 2y ago
  > excessively litigious I haven't heard evidence that litigation is excessive, except by very wealthy corporations and people. I think most or many people lack access to litigation - they can't afford to use it or to protect themselves from it.

alephnil 2y ago

Some of the heavy metals are likely from the fire retardant, and some are likely from the fire. Look at zinc vs lead for example. There is little lead in the unused sample vs the environmental samples, thus most of the lead is likely not from the fire retardant. I would guess the most likely source is lead from roofs of burning houses. Zinc on the other hand is present in all samples in about the same amount, including the unused one. That means that the zinc is likely from the fire retardant rather than the environment. Other metals are present in slightly higher amounts in the environmental samples, and often only in some of the samples. In that case both the fire retardant and the fires/environment are likely to contribute. To me it seems like copper, lead and manganese are mostly from the fires, while zinc and chromium seems to be from the fire retardant. Then there is the sample from the Franklin fire, that seems to be higher in everything.

HelloMcFly 2y ago
> Some of the heavy metals are likely from the fire retardant I'm not disagreeing with what you wrote, but they did also analyze unused, "fresh out of the package" retardant.

rvba 2y ago

Where is it manufactured? In USA or somewhere else? If it is manufactued in other country then they might not care about heavy metals in the product.

hnbad 2y ago
The US doesn't have a great track record of caring about the health of its citizens, no need to bring in xenophobia. Last I checked, parts of the US still have flammable drinking water. Many neighborhoods still have lead pipes because the companies required to replace them were allowed to offer paying off the affected tenants instead. The FDA is understaffed and barely tests a fraction of the things you'd expect it to, let alone more than once. The US has detonated multiple nukes on US soil. The CIA literally drugged random people with LSD. Volunteer emergency helpers during 9/11 received literally no meaningful long-term medical support - not to mention US soldiers exposed to the US burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US even relies on chlorination for poultry - a practice banned in the EU and UK among other places because it is only necessary if you want to compensate for poor hygiene standards. And do I need to remind you of the handling of the train derailment in Ohio that ended up poisoning the air in 16 states?

ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago

> Lane feels firefighters were left in the dark That kind of thing happens a lot (see “9/11 Syndrome”). Kind of a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation. One of the things about fire, is that it alters chemistry. Perfectly safe materials, can turn into highly toxic gas, when heated. In many cases, this cannot be anticipated, or realistically prevented. There are also firefighting foams and whatnot. I think some of the foams contain fairly significant quantities of questionable chemicals. They are pretty much required, for Li-ion battery fires. Firemen kinda take the brunt of that. I know a number of retired firefighters, and they all have health issues.

mmooss 2y ago
Remember that some of the firefighters are prisoners (as in criminals), a vulnerable population that has less choice and less access to health care or other remedies.

perihelions 2y ago

- "Phos-Chek MVP-Fx is primarily made of ammonium phosphates, which are derived from phosphate. That rock, when mined, can contain trace amounts of heavy metals." The thing they're catastrophizing about is rock phosphate—ordinary fertilizer that's mixed into the soil of every food farm in the world. I'm not sure if the journalists who wrote this article are aware of this. "It's COVERING my garden plants!" reads quite definitely when you recognize it's f'ing Miracle-Gro. https://www.usgs.gov/centers/national-minerals-information-center/phosphate-rock-statistics-and-information https://www.usgs.gov/centers/national-minerals-information-c... - "Phosphorus is an essential element for plant and animal nutrition. Most phosphorus is consumed as a principal component of nitrogen-phosphorus-potassium fertilizers used on food crops throughout the world. Phosphate rock minerals are the only significant global resources of phosphorus." https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/risk/studies/metals.html https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/risk/... ("Heavy Metals in Fertilizers") - "Risk assessments conducted by the US Environmental Protection Agency and others have concluded that the hazardous constituents in inorganic fertilizers generally do not pose risks to public health or the environment."

libertine 2y ago
> "Risk assessments conducted by the US Environmental Protection Agency and others have concluded that the hazardous constituents in inorganic fertilizers generally do not pose risks to public health or the environment." What I believe you're missing is where this might be coming from. We live in an Institutional crisis, where for years propaganda was spread and amplified by internal and external actors (like Russia) to undermine institutions, with lies and conspiracy theories. Bold claims were made that organizations and the government were captured by private interests, completely disregarding that actual qualified people are working to make sure things are safe, like products we consume. Just for context, RFK Junior is the US Secretary of Health and Human Services. So, to circle back to your quote, the Risk assessment made by the US Environmental Protection Agency could be easily dismissed by the following unfounded and unsupported claim, "yeah the US Environmental Protection Agency is serving the big companies; they should be dismantled." Like it would be the easiest thing for Russia to start a trend to sway people to demand a ban on phosphate. They did similar things with regard to Ukraine, to the point where the US Administration is amplifying russian talking points. To be clear, I'm not saying this article is a propaganda piece; what I'm saying is that this sort of opinion from someone who doesn't seem to fully understand the subject is a prime example of something that could be amplified for propaganda and contribute to institutional demise.

somat 2y ago

I was trying to figure out what is in class A firefighting foam last week. Nobody really wants to say, it is all trade secrets, evading a direct response, using vague sweeping terms, like it contains surfactant and foaming agents. However based on the published MSDS. my guess, soap, it is mainly soap. https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/fire/wfcs/products/msds/foam/silvex-plus.pdf https://www.fs.usda.gov/rm/fire/wfcs/products/msds/foam/silv... Note that I do think it is soap finely engineered for it's fire suppression characteristics. I also think you would get 80% there with a bottle of dish soap.

BenjiWiebe 2y ago
Ya some of us rural volunteer firefighters will use dish soap instead of foam concentrate. I personally haven't but some of the others in the department have.
- Scoundreller 2y ago
  Or diy zip lock bags of baking soda to drop into chimney fires
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

pfdietz 2y ago

Some phosphate rock deposits have very high levels of cadmium. Phosphate fertilizers derived from high Cd rocks can have up to 100 ppm cadmium.

compass_copium 2y ago
This is much cleaner--35 /ppb/. Really irresponsible and bad journalism.
perihelions 2y ago
- "up to 100 ppm cadmium" This is remarkable, and leads to me question what numbers this article is reporting. Their cadmium figures are parts-per-billion—ranging 30–45 μg/L. That seems impossibly low for something that's mostly phosphate; i.e., the EU's inorganic fertilizer standard[0] is 60 mg/kg, and they call 20 mg/kg "low-cadmium". This would appear to be several order of magnitudes lower cadmium than "low-cadmium" fertilizer. That doesn't sound very plausible, does it? Given their common component. OP's using μg/L. What is a "liter" in the denominator? That'd be an odd unit for measuring a dry powder. Is it liters of the solvent they dissolved the sample in, before running the mass spec? Was it intended to be reported as a a quantitative measurement, at all? (Was there maybe a communication error between the lab technician and the journalist?) [0] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20181119IPR19407/fertilisers-cadmium-parliament-and-council-negotiators-reach-provisional-deal https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20181119IP... (Fertilisers/cadmium: Parliament and Council negotiators reach provisional deal")

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

hoseja 2y ago

This is like antivaxx. Yes you will find heavy metals pretty much everywhere if you test sensitively enough.