Haakon
has an accommodating arse
Maybe... Glad they're not taking a chance on them though. Fires are getting bigger and nastier.They're naturally protected from fire. This is why there are 1000 y.o trees down there.
Maybe... Glad they're not taking a chance on them though. Fires are getting bigger and nastier.They're naturally protected from fire. This is why there are 1000 y.o trees down there.
Yeah I doubt they got people with no idea to recommend fire retardant over letting them burn.Fire retardant is made out of fertiliser.
I just hope they haven't poisoned them.Maybe... Glad they're not taking a chance on them though. Fires are getting bigger and nastier.
Many of the Australian understorey and overstorey vegetation species have evolved underlow soil P availability (Attiwill and Adams 1996, Heddle and Specht 1975, Specht et al.1997). High levels of phosphates and sulphates in soil solutions may present a risk to plant health. The Victorian Code of Practice for use of retardants already recommends that heathland ecosystems are not to be treated. Some of the substances (e.g. phosphates), and probably some of the performance additives in the fire retardant, may be absorbed and retained for a long time in the soil, thus changing soil processes. These long-term changes insoil processes may affect plant growth and plant populations, affecting species richness.
Which our native forests don't like. Fish have problems with it too. It isn't supposed to be used near water sources. A creek feeds those trees. I could go on, but obviously nobody manufactures and profits from things that may damage our environment, right?Fire retardant is made out of fertiliser.
is this rather loaded statement specifically about the use of fire retardant in the current context?but obviously nobody manufactures and profits from things that may damage our environment, right?
Just a general. I don't know enough about it, but I fear the authorities aren't much better off.is this rather loaded statement specifically about the use of fire retardant in the current context?
or just a general observation?
There are documented cases of fish kills, soil degradation, etc. In some environments it can be beneficial, in others not. Why do you think they ban it from heathland? As I said, I don't know much about it. I'm curious. Anyone can supply anecdotes, but they aren't science.With regards to fire retardant, the stuff is fine. It barely poses any sort of risk to humans or the environment. You need to be eating the stuff 3 times a day or some other similar deliberate act of foolishness to get sick from from it and even then its no guarantee and only mild. Just ask the department of defence or the people living around the red zone of Williamstown RAAF base. Its actually good stuff.
Google the key words from the end of my post.There are documented cases of fish kills, soil degradation, etc. In some environments it can be beneficial, in others not. Why do you think they ban it from heathland? As I said, I don't know much about it. I'm curious. Anyone can supply anecdotes, but they aren't science.
It's still an anecdote. How does it detract from my point? Williamtown is salt marsh.Google the key words from the end of my post.
I think @pink poodle is agreeing with you in his own round about sarcastic way. This stuff is not safe but there is very little research on it because there is no money for said research. I just get confused why everyone wants to hear from the scientists now, isn't it the media and politicians that do science now?It's still an anecdote. How does it detract from my point? Williamtown is salt marsh.
It doesn't detract from your point. The red zone refers to the area around the base where people's live have been totally fucked over by the RAAF's irresponsible use of fire retardant. The Dept of defence denies accountability. If you google a few news articles about it you'll see what I mean l.It's still an anecdote. How does it detract from my point? Williamtown is salt marsh.
fire retardant versus death by burning to death.
Use of retardant so you can play with your big red trucks, is a different pros versus cons decision
Different stuff. The bushfire stuff doesn't need to work on liquid fuels that don't mix with water.With regards to fire retardant, the stuff is fine. It barely poses any sort of risk to humans or the environment. You need to be eating the stuff 3 times a day or some other similar deliberate act of foolishness to get sick from from it and even then its no guarantee and only mild. Just ask the department of defence or the people living around the red zone of Williamstown RAAF base. Its actually good stuff.
From my reading of that article they applied to trees away from the Wollemi gorge as a break.
either way, a bunch of professionals arent going to poison trees with agent orangeFrom my reading of that article they applied to trees away from the Wollemi gorge as a break.
hope you guys are all ok.We are as prepared as we can be but to be honest the house is not yet totally defendable despite our best efforts.
The previous owner left it with too many gaps that we've not been able to fully plug as yet.
Add to that the fact that we've little more than 10,000 litres of water on hand, M'lady is working at fire control and I have three lads 10 and under in my care...I'm not sure how much fire fighting I can practically do. Leaving is on the agenda...
I believe you’re confusing AFFF firefighting foam, that contains PFOA and PFOS, with fire retardant. Both these chemicals were widely used in previous generations of firefighting foam, though I don’t believe they’re present in the retardants currently in use.With regards to fire retardant, the stuff is fine. It barely poses any sort of risk to humans or the environment. You need to be eating the stuff 3 times a day or some other similar deliberate act of foolishness to get sick from from it and even then its no guarantee and only mild. Just ask the department of defence or the people living around the red zone of Williamstown RAAF base. Its actually good stuff.