FISH...
This article in the New York Times addresses a big issue in California. Wildfires are very prone there, and for some reason there are lots of people who want to live in those areas (I don't know why on Earth you'd want to live there, but maybe Cali has some pretty sneaky real estate agents). So when fires break out pretty much every year, the state uses a whole lot of fire retardant to try to slow down the spread of the fire (gee, San Fran could have used that back in 1906), sometimes to even extinguish it (even though that's not the intended use for it, hence fire retardant, not fire extinguisher). That would be okay, but since the most commonly used retardant is a mixture of nitrates, phosphates, and even ammonia, the state ends up with a lot of dead fish in the local rivers, along with other aquatic life. There are alternatives to chemical retardants, including gels and foams, but retardant is the most popular....AGAINST FIRE
On the other hand, only 14 cases have been found where retardant actually had any effect on the waterways, (but one drop in Oregon in '02 killed 20,000 fish) and by this year (this is a three-year-old article) the ammonia levels are set to be lower in the mainline retardant product. Plus, as some people in the article point out, as soon as the retardant is discontinued, there will be people calling in yelling, "Start dumping that retardant!" Many wildfire experts also claim that resources damaged by retardant could potentially be lost entirely by fire if retardant was discontinued.
MY THOUGHTS
This is definitely more of a gray issue as opposed to black-and-white. It seems like there's not much that can be done in terms of compromise. Appeasing one side will almost always screw over the other. I think, personally, we need to first off stop people from moving into these dangerous areas in the first place. If there's no one around that will be hurt, we won't need to fight wildfires to protect residential areas, just for national parks, monuments, and other protected sites. People should be urged to not develop near these giant forests where the wildfires are likely. It's just stupid that people want to live there in the first place.
QUESTIONS POUR VOUS
1) Which issue do you think takes priority, fire or fishies? Why?
2) What impact could retardants have on local watersheds?
3) What do you think must be done?
4) What's your opinion about fire retardants?
I honestly don't know what you can do here. If you use the retardent you risk losing fishes but if you don't you risk losing the entire forest to fire. But also these wildfires happen every year without fail. Now the watershed I am researching from class are the Pocosin watersheds. Now one of the interesting things about a pocosin watershed if that as part of their natural cycle they have a natural wildfire every 10-30 years to try and re-enrich the soil with the charcoal. Now these wildfires in California happen every year without fail. This is just my thought but isn't it possible that these wildfires are natural (seeing as they happen from the dry forest catching fire in the hot weather) and that this is how the forest is trying to reenrich itself? I think that is something they should look into but still have firemen on staff in case it starts spreading towards homes.
ReplyDelete1) I think fires take more priority as there is a risk to lose an entire forest not just some fish out of one species. I also say this as it sounded to me that the experts belueve there is a very high probability that the forests will burn down without fire retardent on hand. It also sounded to me that even though the fish die there has not been a huge effect on the ecosystem and that it has still gone on without the fish. There are also human lives at risk and we shouldn't take the chance.
2) I think that despite what I said in the previous answer that the retardents will have a very negative effect on the watershed if used for a very prolonged period of time. The combination listed is very, very bad for any ecosystem or wildlife and you probably wouldn't even have to have a fine understanding of those chemicals to know that. I think they should continue to cut down on the use, find a safer type of retardant, or just switch to gel or foam if possible.
3) I think they have to find more eco-friendly ways, and set up areas of land that can not be developed on to try and cut down on the number of houses near there. I think they can't really do anything about people already there though (You try forcing hundreds of people out of their houses. And if even if you could do it, I am sure there is a certain group called the ACLU who would love to have a talk with you about forcing hundreds of people out of their homes.) Other than just trying to cut down on the pollutant level and trying to keep down the number of people near the fires there is not much else to do.
4) I think that they are a valid product to use and while I am not sure about this, they must have some good things about them that gels and foams don't to still be used in such wide effect despite what is known about them. I do however think it is stupid for the Fire Department to think that it would put the fire out.
I have no clue why people WANT to live in California. Earth quakes, wild fires, land slides, tsunamis... that is all way to dangerous for me. I can't imagine living in a place where there are so many natural disasters, it sounds terrifying.
ReplyDeleteI disagree about this being a gray area. If there are fish-friendly alternatives to chemical retardents (like the foams and gels you mentioned in the article), and using them doesn't cause other environmental problems, then continueing to use the chemical retardents is morally wrong. If there is a solution and it is accessible, then there is no reason to not use it. Using gel or foam retardents would prevent fires without sacrificing the fish. Since California isn't using alternative retardents, should we assume that the other retardent forms present their own environmenal issues?
Answers:
1) I think the fires should take precendence. This isn't because the fish are unimportant, but because it seems like the fire could also cause environmental issues. Loads of animals would be killed, and many acres of land would be razed, killing plants and making it so surviving animals wouldn't have a habitat to return to. And the fires themselves, their fuel, their fumes, and the efforts taken to fight them seem like the would release all sorts of the pollutants, into both the air and the water. So really, preventing the fires is of much greater importance. But if alternative preventative methods could keep the fish and prevent the fires (or if people would stop developing areas they know are extremely susceptible to natural disaster and then waste loads of resources on protecting the buildings they shouldn't have built in the first place) then a choice wouldn't have to be made at all.
2) It seems like they could have long-lasting effects. Besides initially killing off the fish, if the retardent is soluble then it will have lingering effects and affect the fish population for years. Taking huge amounts of fish would affect the population of other organisms, too. And even if pollutant levels aren't high enough to kill the fish, the toxins could accumulate and kill organisms further along in the food chain through biomagnification. The retardents would not just affect the fish and the watershed, but eventually also the biosphere and the entire local ecosystem.
3) The best solution would probably be to stop developing the affected area and avoid the use of retardents at all, since even less harmful forms probably have some effect on the environment. But since that is extremely unlikely to happen, it seems like the best option would be to switch to a less harmful, alternative retardent, perhaps the gel or foam varietes Eric mentioned.
4) I think I've made it clear by now that this whole situation seems very wasteful and selfish on the part of the Californians.
Opinion/Reflection
ReplyDeleteI personally feel that this is a lose-lose situation either way. If the retardant is banned, then lots of areas will be burned down and people will get hurt, but if nothing is done, then the nitrates, phosphates and ammonia will pollute the land and kill fish. The side I am on would definitely be banning the retardant. It is so dangerous and extremely bad for the environment. By choosing this side I’m not saying that I don’t care if people and homes are damaged by fires; I do care about that. In fact, people are my top priority. But the article states that there are other alternatives to the retardant, like foams and gels. Just because the retardant is the most popular doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s the best.
I don’t like looking at the situation as “only 14 cases have been found…” (in referring to fish killed by the retardant) because I feel that it doesn’t matter how many cases there were, fish and other aquatic life still died. Since the retardant consists of phosphates, nitrates and ammonia, it is a very nasty pollutant. And when it rains and all the pollution runs off the land, it will go into watersheds, killing the aquatic life there. It’s just not fair to the fish. They didn’t do anything to deserve to be killed. And knowing that there are alternatives to using the retardants, things that won’t harm fish, I still can’t see why we aren’t currently using them instead. Why did we even start using the retardant in the first place?
This article reminds me of the time in class when we discussed pollution. Mrs. Deluca did the Enviroscape Demo, and we got to see how pollution starts on land, but then runs off into bodies of water like lakes when it rains. The pollutants almost always have a harmful impact on the organisms whose habitat it invades. I just feel that humans once again have gotten themselves into a pretty bad predicament.
Answer the Questions
1. I think the issue of fire definitely takes priority. Because people are involved in this issue, I feel that it is more important. The fish are a close second, believe me, but if I had a choice, I would rather save a person’s life than a fish’s life. Also, I think that the whole fire issue needs to be looked at more closely so that people realize using the retardant is stupid. If there are other alternatives that don’t harm the environment, then we should be using them instead. It’s simply the most logical way to solve the situation.
2. The impact that retardants have on local watersheds can be very severe. Depending upon the amount of retardant used, the affect can range from pretty bad to truly devastating. Either way, the nitrates, phosphates and ammonia will pollute the environment, and when it rains, the pollution will runoff the land into a watershed’s main waterway. Pollution in water destroys the plants and aquatic life living there. I personally don’t think that’s fair. Plants and animals shouldn’t have to suffer because of human error. We need to fix our mistakes.
3. I think that in order to solve this situation, the retardant must be banned. That way, it won’t be able to pollute the environment’s watersheds and kill the aquatic life living there. Also, there are alternatives to using the retardant, so if there are more environmentally friendly ways to extinguish fires, I think we should use them instead. It only makes sense to do that.
4. My opinion is that fire retardants are stupid and they need to be outlawed. While they are capable of putting out fires, that’s a) not what they were designed to do and b) harmful for the environment when used. If retardants were the only possible way to put out California wildfires then I might reconsider my viewpoint, but since there are alternatives, I feel there is no need for retardants. Using other options like gels and foams won’t be as harmful to the environment, and they can still get the same job done. That’s just my opinion.
Ask more questions
ReplyDelete1. Why do you think so many people want to live in California, even if they know how prone it is to wildfires and the devastating effects of the fires?
2. How do you think the retardants came to be used for extinguishing fires instead of their designed purpose?
3. Do you think the retardant issue is a big problem? Does it threaten our environment?
4. What way do you look at the situation in which “only 14 cases have been found where retardant had any effect on the waterways”? Do you agree with the quote or do you feel that each incident was a big deal?
5. Do you think retardants are okay to keep using? Or should people switch to alternatives like foams and gels?
Add a graphic
Here’s a link to a graphic that I feel depicts how vast and fiery California wildfires are.
http://www.nocaptionneeded.com/2008/10/california-wildfire-american-apocalypse/
Well, this is indeed a tough problem. If you use the retardants, you kill the fish, making a bunch of ecosystem problems. On the other hand, if you don't, it will kill the trees, the animals, and the people who live in the areas, making much more problems. What I think should be done is use the foams and gels mentioned briefly by Eric. Although getting people to leave California is a good idea, it's way to hard to commence. Despite all the problems, you're never going to get people to leave a state filled with sandy beaches, sunny skies, and movie stars. People just love that state too much.
ReplyDelete1. I would say fire is a bigger issue. Retardants slowly kill fish, whereas fires quickly kill people.
2. Well, I would say it would mess up the lives of all that live in or around the watershed. Poor fishies.
3. Use alternative methods of fire prevention.
4. I think that although it's bad for the environment, we shouldn't just throw it away or make it illegal. If we take it way too fast people won't have time to get the alternatives and many will risk losing their homes. I think it is a better idea to get rid of these in a gradual shift.
Would you be willing to leave California if you lived there?
If you had to take an extreme position and kill either all the fish in California with retardants, or all the trees with fire, which would you choose?
Do you know anybody in California who has been affected by fire?
I know someone who lives and California and is impacted by the fires!!! She has to evacuate her house every once in a while and she said the smell in the air sticks on her couches and clothes.
ReplyDelete