The calendar reminds me that this is the time of year for nonprofits to ask their members for a year-end donation. Your contribution ensures we can continue protecting our national forests, defend whistleblowers, and promote a positive environmental ethic within our land management agencies.
But what I really want to write about is alarming new research on aerial fire retardant. On October 30, scientists at the University of Southern California’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering published “Metals in Wildfire Suppressants,” which reports the first-ever chemical analysis of aerial fire retardants. The study answers the question:
“What’s in that red stuff dumped from firefighting airplanes?”
The answer? The most commonly-used retardant (Phos-Chek) contains toxic metals at levels that qualify it as a toxic waste Superfund site. Let’s take a look at the numbers.
California, where half the nation’s aerial retardant is dumped, set limits on toxic metals; anything over the limit is deemed a “hazardous waste.” The limit for cadmium is 1,000 micrograms per liter (μg/l). The USC scientists found cadmium at 14,400 μg/l in Phos-Chek — over 14 times the hazardous waste level!
Same story for chromium. The hazardous waste level is 5,000 μg/l. The Phos-Chek concentration of chromium is 72,700 μg/l. Vanadium? Phos-Chek has 119,000 μg/l of this toxic metal — five times the hazardous waste limit.
Think about it
The U.S. Forest Service is dumping the equivalent of a Superfund toxic waste dump on our national forests as it fights fires. Notwithstanding the typically dry jargon of academic research, it’s apparent the researchers were gobsmacked by their findings: “Phos-Chek would legally be characterized as hazardous waste under both federal and California regulations,” they write.
FSEEE brought the study to the attention of the Los Angeles Times, which published its story, “Wildfire retardant is laden with toxic metals, USC study finds,” on November 16. According to the Times article: “The findings offer a new clue to a phenomenon geochemists have documented for years: heavy metal concentrations in streams and rivers tend to spike after nearby wildfires. For instance, after the Station fire burned in Angeles National Forest in 2009, researchers measured cadmium concentrations up to 1,000 times greater in the Arroyo Seco.”
Consider California’s Proposition 65
Prop 65 regulates cadmium, chromium, and vanadium because they are carcinogens and can cause reproductive harm. This law requires that manufacturers of products sold in California identify on product labels the presence of these toxins. So what does Phos-Chek’s label have to say about these toxins?
“California Proposition 65: This product does not contain any substances known to the State of California to cause cancer, developmental and/or reproductive harm.”
As if that bold-faced lie weren’t enough, Phos-Chek doubles down with this greenwashing whopper:
Environmentally FRIENDLY
We believe protecting the environment is as important as protecting your home. That’s why PHOS-CHEK® contains ingredients that have met strict USDA Forest Service toxicity requirements. It has the additional benefit of providing nutrients for plant growth and re-sprouting. PHOS-CHEK® is approved for use by the USDA Forest Service and is friendly to people, pets and animals.
“Friendly to people, pets and animals” … huh, I’m speechless. Even its proponents are beginning to recognize that the retardant emperor has no clothes. According to the LA Times:
“Orange County Fire Authority Chief Brian Fennessy acknowledged drawbacks to use of retardant, including harm to aquatic life if it spills into waterways. But he said there’s simply no substitute for retardant when it comes to fighting wildfires. The viscous substance is more effective than water — it hangs up on the vegetation and retains its flame-slowing properties even when it dries, he said. If his crews were no longer able to use it, he said, ‘I think you’d see fires get bigger — that’s the basic answer. I think there’s a tradeoff there and a balance, and each situation being a little bit different, those considerations need to happen and they need to be talked about,’ Fennessy said.”
“Andy Stahl, executive director of environmental group Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, said the study bolsters fears of heavy metal concentrations in Phos-Chek that had until recently been supported by circumstantial evidence. For instance, a Washington air tanker base was in 2016 cited by the state Department of Ecology for violating the cadmium, chromium and vanadium limits set by its waste discharge permit. A Forest Service report said it could not rule out potential heavy metal impurities in retardant, which was hosed down from firefighting planes.”
— Alex Wigglesworth, Los Angeles Times, Nov. 16, 2024
It’s hard to talk about tradeoffs when the Forest Service and Phos-Chek’s manufacturer have been lying about the toxic chemicals in retardant for decades. Regardless, there’s no scientific evidence that aerial retardant actually keeps fires from getting bigger. The simple fact of nature is that retardant does not protect against high wind, which is when fires are at their most dangerous. Wind blows embers across retardant lines, across freeways; in fact, wind will blow burning embers for more than a mile, igniting whatever flammable roofs they land upon.
I truly wish that retardant was the silver bullet (sorry for the toxic metal pun) to stop damaging wildfires, but it isn’t. Protecting our homes and communities requires that we build homes that don’t burn because we ain’t ever going to eliminate fire from forests and grasslands.
Dumping toxic chemicals just adds insult to injury.
Back now to our regularly-scheduled programming. If you can make a year-end gift to FSEEE, it would be so much appreciated. We are a small group that relies 100% on our individual supporters like you. We receive no funding from government — and never will — because doing so would compromise our ability to hold government accountable. FSEEE punches far above our weight, too, thanks to our expertise as insiders within the U.S. Forest Service.
We rely on the owners of our national forests — YOU — for our financial support. So, please, do consider making an extra contribution as we end this year. The challenges ahead for protecting our national forests aren’t going to get any easier.
Sincerely,
Andy Stahl
Executive Director
PS: You can make your gift online or by mail. If you’ve not had a chance to renew your FSEEE membership in 2024, your special contribution will also renew your membership. Thank you!
