[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

[spwa4]

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]

> 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").

[spwa4]

> 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"

Frankly in my opinion Trump got elected due to this attitude. Obviously, Trump or no Trump (and when he gets out of office, even if that's only when he dies) we will still have to live with MAGA people, right? They're not going to disappear. And, frankly, the ONLY break on republican power at the moment is that while they have power, they have to live with democrats. No choice. (yes, there's state and judicial power, but at this point there at best reminding Trump he has to live with at least some democrat viewpoints and laws. Not zero, but not much)

Imho Trump, and definitely Trump's actions, are the result of MAGA people shouting very, very loudly "NO COMPROMISE". And, why? Well, the democrat-supported demonstrations (Gaza, BLM, climate, and ...) were to some extent shouting the same. "NO COMPROMISE". No talking. The Gaza demonstrations were totally unwilling to discuss what conditions to force on Hamas, any at all, just as BLM demonstrations were totally unwilling to discuss solutions, just as ... The Gaza demonstrations were about winning, not about Israeli-Palestinian peace. The BLM demonstrations were about winning, not about compromise. And so on. They were just accusing everyone else of being horrible, depraved human beings that should essentially be murdered to the last man because of some (admittedly very fucking serious) mistake they made.

Then some evil election planner went to Trump, and pointed out that the 2016-2020 presidency would come with the ability to get the supreme court in the camp of whoever got elected president AND the 2024-2028 election provided 2+ years majorities in congress, in addition to the presidency ... and Trump (+ cronies) jumped on it. Yes, the goal was probably to get Trump in for 3 terms, so thank God for Biden. But there you are.

But then, at the tail end of Biden's presidency ... the economy showed clear signs of going down significantly (Trump is to blame for the MOMENT of the stock market crash, but imho ... at best 50% for it happening at some point), and the incumbent party was voted out, first in congressional elections, then in the presidency. As always happens in those circumstances. I believe over 200 years only twice has it been different (and one of those 2 times was WW2, so presumably it was a time the average house cat would have agreed there were more pressing matters than the economy)

And now we're here, sitting pretty, after years of shouting "NO COMPROMISE! NEVER" ... with the people we were never going to compromise with in power ... in congress ... in the senate ... and the orange tomato president.

Let's face facts here: we will be making a LOT of concessions before the 2026 elections, because why would republicans give us anything at all? (yes, because we still have to live together). After that less, but still making concessions until, hopefully 2028. People actually thinking about pros and cons, even when there's an easy target to blame, I hope THOSE will bring us forward.

Making a coalition of people who realize that for 2 to 4 years, we'll have to live with republicans in power, and then for at least 4 years hopefully they'll have to live with democrats in power again. People who compromise and live together, THAT is the way forward. And frankly, that answers all the republican shouting points too. A large people who compromise ... can take on China, because over there, there is no compromise, and with that complete morons in power, and zero loyalty. They cannot win against an army of soldiers that believe they'll be welcome in the country they fight for.

[palata]

I'm honestly not sure what you are saying.

My point was really just to say that it's good to say "If this brings X at the cost of Y, then it may be worth it" (that raises great questions), but it is wrong to conclude just from that that it actually is worth it.

I see many people jump to this conclusion, and the logic is flawed. I mentioned Trump because I've heard many people justify their voting for Trump like this.

The correct way of doing it is:

1. "If this brings X at the cost of Y, then it may be worth it"

2. Investigate whether it would actually bring X.

3. Investigate whether it would actually cost Y.

4. Decide whether it's worth it or not.

[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.

[ted_dunning]

More precisely, not nearly as effective. The fire retardant is effective hours or days after being applied. Water would have long since evaporated and had almost no effect. Even on very short timescales, the retardant is still much more effective than water alone.

[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.