I received a response to Eddie G.'s comments on my initial story on the USFS firefighting issues from air tankers in the US. I was unable to insert the comments as a reply so I created a new post. The first in black are the comments by Eddie G. The second in red italic is the anonymous response to the comments.
Eddie G.: Gel
is NOT a retardant.
Gel
is a water enhancer that simply makes water more effective by
allowing it to stay in place. Once the water is gone, after only
minutes under fire conditions, there is ZERO effectiveness.
Retardants react chemically with the fuel to render it
non-combustible, don't rely on water to be effective, and are
effective until physically removed. Calling a gel a "retardant
gel" is wrong, misleading and dangerous.
Anon Response: The
definition of a retardant is anything other than water that slows or
stops combustion. The USFS own Specification 5100-306a for
“water enhancers” states in the first paragraph:
1.
GENERAL
1.1
Scope:
They
may be applied from ground or aerial application equipment, directly
to the fire area to SLOW OR STOP COMBUSTION, and for exposure
protection.
Effectively
defining the product as a RETARDANT!
Eddie G.: Gels and retardants must meet the SAME health, safety, toxicity and environmental friendliness requirements in order to be qualified. Calling retardant toxic and gel non-toxic is a lie.
Anon Response: Washington
Journal of Environmental Law & Policy 2011
Similarly,
a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service study found that use of
aerial fire
retardant likely
causes an
“increase in
invasive species, loss
of substantial
fraction of
population or
habitat, and harm to
soil chemistry
and plant
physiology,” as well
as direct
mortality to fish
and amphibian
populations.160
Aerial
fire retardant consists
of eighty-five percent
water and fifteen percent fertilizer, thickeners and corrosion
inhibitors.161
Each
year, firefighters drop millions
of gallons of this substance on
the nation’s forests, which may inadvertently
land
on people, on
animals and in
streams.162 The
retardant’s
effect
on
streams
can
be
catastrophic
and
can
kill
fish,
including some threatened
species.163
For
example,
in
2001
Fire
Regimes, 284 SCIENCE 1829, 1829–32 (1999).
157.
See ROBERT
L. BESCHTA ET AL.,
WILDFIRE AND SALVAGE
LOGGING 5, 11 (Mar.
1995)
[hereinafter Beschta Report],
http://www.saveamericasforests.org/congress/Fire/
Beschta-report.htm.
The Beschta Report is an independent
scientific study that questioned about salvage
logging in severely burned areas. See Keiter, supra note 6, at 336.
158.
Beschta Report, supra note 157, at 12.
159.
Id.
160.
Forest Serv. Employees for Envtl. Ethics v. U.S. Forest Serv. (FSEEE
III), 726
F.
Supp. 2d 1195, 1226 (D. Mont. 2010).
161.
Id. at 1225.
162.
See id. at 1244–45 (discussing Forest Service guidance on use of
aerial fire retardants that prohibits drops within 300 feet of
streams).
163.
See
Restoration Project: Omak
Creek, WILD FISH
HABITAT
INITIATIVE,
http://wildfish.montana.edu/Cases/browse_details.asp?ProjectID=48
(last
updated Apr.
7,
2007) (According to a study by the Wildfish Habitat Initiative, a
cooperative effort between US
FWS and
the
Montana
Water
Center,
Omak
Creek
in
Eastern
Washington State experienced catastrophic environmental harm
from
fire
retardant
drops. In
1992,
the
Confederated
Tribes of
the
Colville
Reservation
began restoring
Omak Creek
to
rehabilitate
historic
steelhead
and salmon
spawning
grounds.
The project
involved
removing
large
boulders
and
other
barriers
that tumbled
into
the stream
as a result of decades of blasting from mining and expansion
projects. In 2001, the project experienced a major setback. That
summer a wildfire raged on the public lands near the creek.
Firefighters called for retardant to be dropped to stop the blaze,
but instead
of
blanketing the
trees,
the
drop
blanketed
the
fragile
creek
eventually
killing a significant amount of the threatened steelhead in the
creek.
Eddie G.: In addition,
retardant must also pass a burn test to prove it is effective
stopping and slowing a fire. Gel has no such requirement. There is no
data anywhere that proves gel will stop a fire.
Anon Response: Gel
has been used since 1960 to STOP fires and many documents exist from
the USFS describing its retardant properties on hundreds of fires
In
addition all “water enhancers” go through a LIFT test for
extinguishment completed by the USFS
Eddie G.: The 300 foot
buffer around water streams, a policy that has been in place for 10
years, is good policy because anything dropped directly into a water
stream will impact water quality and could impact fish. Including
gel.
Anon Response: There
are exceptions to the rule when public safety is threatened, and the
current Record of Decision on retardant by specification states water
or more environmentally friendly product should be substituted ie.
Gel
Eddie G.: GelTech's BPAs for Delivery Equipment are for RETARDANT not gel. Perhaps you should read them.
Anon Response: Interesting
Issue and may be a violation of FCIC laws concerning competition in
contracting
Eddie G.: There is no evidence that FireIce is "the most effective suppressant/retardant in the world." In fact, the QPL would say otherwise. It takes 2-4 times as much FireIce as either AquaGel or Thermogel 500P to achieve the same result.
Anon Response: The
QPL is a recommendation from a laboratory looking at “water
enhancer” products from a primarily structure protection aspect.
All other firefighting agencies currently use the product at the same
viscosity as long term retardant with a 100% success rate.
Eddie G.: The planes
breaking off wings happened 8 years ago and had nothing to do with
the chemical on board. Read the Blue Ribbon Panel Report.
Anon Response: After
reading the report the loads associated with the payload causes
fatigue on some airframes including the plane in question.
Eddie G.: Just because
FireIce is mixed the same, uses the same equipment with the same
viscosity...does not make it a retardant versus a water enhancer.
That's like saying potatoes and watermelons are the same because they
both cut with a knife in a kitchen. Retardants and water enhancers
are totally different chemicals that do totally different things.
FireIce does not function, in any aspect, as a retardant.
Anon Response: The
USFS has called gel a “RETARDANT” since 1960
Eddie G.: Finally the mix
ratio of the new Phos-Chek products was reduced to reflect its
INCREASED effectiveness. It takes less of the new concentrate than
the old to achieve the same effectiveness. That REDUCES the cost per
gallon.
Anon Response: The
standing joke around the USFS, Tanker Base Managers, and pilots is
that Phos-Chek
is gum thickened water
