What's in that bright red fire retardant? No one will say, so we had it tested
111 comments
·April 4, 2025Tabular-Iceberg
potato3732842
Or they don't want to make it obvious that they're taking something cheap and marking it up a million percent and nobody is asking questions. This happens a lot in "our only customers are government or compelled to buy by government" industries of which fire is one.
Hizonner
The usual reflexive secrecy. Nobody gives out any information about what's in any product if they can avoid it. This has really bad economic and environmental effects.
I don't know that this particular retardant is a big deal, but the rule really ought to be that the maker of every product must disclose to the public (not just actual buyers) (a) what they put into it, (b) where they got it, (c) how they assured that it was what they thought it was, (e) how they processed it, (e) exactly what analyses or characterizations they've ever done on the product or anything that went into it, and (f) the complete results of those.
Trade secrets not only shouldn't get any legal protection, but in many cases they should be illegal.
4gotunameagain
This is one of the downsides of an excessively litigious society.
Being afraid of potential risks, even if there are none, reduces transparency.
harimau777
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.
potato3732842
This industry learned a lesson from the AFFF debacle. And that lesson wasn't "share everything".
827a
What they're hiding from is literally just this "journalist", who decided they would publish this story before even knowing whether there is a story or not. That's the modern social media landscape; even if you aren't doing anything wrong, even if you're in the business of supplying reasonably safe, definitely life-saving fire chemicals to fire departments, you'll get an article written about you like this. The best course of action is to keep your head down.
windexh8er
They're also "hiding" this information from OSHA, as stated in the article.
l1tany11
Not if it’s below regulatory threshold. Which they seemed to say it was in the article (they said it’s below EPA threshold, so I assume that means the OSHA threshold too).
The article never says how much they detected. I can only assume it’s because it’s a nothing amount. If it was significant they would have been saying how much. It’s hard to take the article seriously as a result. We have crazy sensitive tests now, they do nothing in the article to show it’s not just another story about how sensitive testing is these days.
aaron695
[dead]
csours
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
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
That is why Therac-25 was mentioned, I guess. Software kills: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therac-25
perihelions
- "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-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/... ("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."
hello_computer
The devil is in the details. Even though all minerals contain impurities, NPK fertilizer is processed to reduce them to acceptable levels for agriculture. If they did not do this, places dosed with large quantities of it (year after year after…) would become superfund sites. It is the same reason coal is so nasty: the CO2 is nothing compared to the ash—which is loaded with heavy metals. If the ash retaining ponds around a coal plant ever broke, the land would be uninhabitable for centuries, so the the ppms and ppbs are crucial information here.
libertine
> "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.
graemep
You seem to be implying that all claims of regulatory capture, or even simple incompetence or bias, are all the result of Russian propaganda seems like a pretty bold claim to me.
I am sure there are people who want to sow distrust for their own ends, but there are also good reasons for distrust.
> 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.
Part of the solution is transparency and full information.
> “It’s not in our interest to share product with public or private agencies,”
Is not an attitude that inspires confidence.
libertine
> You seem to be implying that all claims of regulatory capture, or even simple incompetence or bias, are all the result of Russian propaganda
Can you quote me on that? Because it's like you didn't even read what I wrote. How can I be more clear than:
> 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.
How is this implying that ALL claims, incompetence, or bias ARE the result of propaganda? And where am I wrong to say that this sort of thing is being amplified by, for example, popular US Podcasts that were, and some for sure still are, being funded by the Russian regime?[0]
This isn't a conspiracy theory by the way: it's well known that there are people being paid to promote propaganda, and there are people - like you said and well - that want to sow distrust for their ends, and also get paid by Russia to do it. There's still an ongoing investigation about the example I gave, but it's probably a mix of both.
But these aren't just the two types of people in the information space, that's just silly. Still, you should pay attention to who has, or gets, a big reach.
> Part of the solution is transparency and full information.
Is it? Because the solution seems to be about having a certain aesthetic, being loud, and disregarding everything else - you just need to make pauses to say "and that's a fact/the truth is/everyone knows this/it's common sense". Just look at the Trump administration, it's working pretty well for them.
[0]https://www.cdmrn.ca/publications/tenet-media-final-incident...
null
alephnil
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
> 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.
somat
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/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
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.
Rotundo
It's ammonia phosphates with trace amounts of heavy metals.
fuzzfactor
I wonder who can figure out what the red coloring is ;)
Or if it will be accomplished one way or another?
scq
The red colour is iron oxide (i.e. rust).
Source: https://www.perimeter-solutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/...
null
ChrisMarshallNY
> 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.
DuckConference
All the heavy metals were below 1ppm, are any of the levels concerning?
orbital-decay
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
Many of the levels are well above the levels required for drinking water.
That isn't much to go on, however.
fuzzfactor
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
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/le...
jeffybefffy519
I found it a bit concerning that this doesnt talk about safe dosages of any of the heavy metals.
sparker72678
We should know what’s in the retardant, yes.
The alternative to retardant at the moment is uncontrolled wildfires.
urig
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
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
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
n2d4
Water is not a fire retardant. Water can extinguish fire, but you can't apply water on a forest to prevent a fire from spreading there in the first place.
Your last paragraph seems to agree with parent? We should know what's inside, but it might still be the best solution.
amarant
Yeah you can! Wet forest does not burn as well as dry forest!
Water is absolutely a fire retardant, however it may not be quite as effective as the red stuff from the article.
iamacyborg
Given the temperatures some wildfires are burning at, I suspect water isn’t available in suitable quantities to act as a retardant for fires that require these kinds of measures.
null
Teever
> 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
> “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.
someothherguyy
The federal government is at least somewhat aware of these issues
https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-t...
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-05/documents/fl...
Historically, its not unusual for California's government and industry to dump chemicals all over the state.
Ferret7446
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.
agency
> It isn't the responsibility of the manufacturer to provide samples for analysis
In a sane world it would be
littlestymaar
“Adding a regulation mandating manufacturer to provide samples for analysis would put too much of a regulatory burden on them and destroy the economy”
A conservative representative somewhere, maybe.
mistrial9
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.
memkit
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.
mike_d
> It essentially causes neurodegenerative diseases, especially if you inhale it.
Good thing they do mandatory evacuations before using it and don't let people back in until clean up has happened.
AnthonyMouse
How are you supposed to clean up fire retardant dropped from a plane over a large area?
consp
With water? Like, hose it down? It's mostly ammonium phosphate anyway and afaik it's water soluble.
Edit: yes it moves it around, and just like the cleaning person at the office does you move it into the water table or drainage system. Or do you separate your dirt when you mop a floor or wash your clothes?
BiteCode_dev
So the alternative is to let uninformed civilians clean it with their hose and bare hands?
phantomathkg
Source Please?
cyberax
> 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.
Skunkleton
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
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.
Tildey
AFFF is being/has been phased out pretty much everywhere in the first world. There is still plenty of it around though - disposing of, and then filling with fluorine free foam can be an expensive process.
Personally, it’s about $10/litre to dispose of. Regardless of concentration. So properly rinsing out old equipment is expensive. But I know the situation differs by country, and what’s deemed “acceptable” varies too.
Powder doesn’t contain fluorinated compounds, at least to my knowledge. The role of fluorosurfactants is in increased wetting and emulsifying with hydrocarbons. Not really applicable to a dry agent.
Phos-check doesn’t contain fluorinated compounds.
droopyEyelids
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
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
> “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.