Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Snipgan t1_j60ni6o wrote

Unions doing what companies won’t.

Good thing they are doing this as PFAs are rampant everywhere. Let alone to have them burning and melting while in a fire.

142

PastNectarine5852 t1_j615glv wrote

The federal government required fluorinated foams for a long time as well, so let's not let them slide.

28

Etheking OP t1_j61piol wrote

Fluorinated foams were co patented by the federal government: the Navy and 3M to be precise.

26

SadArchon t1_j60pr8f wrote

Arent the chemicals they spray in/on/around fires full of PFAS as well?

29

PastNectarine5852 t1_j6158x0 wrote

Only in certain circumstances, as there are fluorine free foams for fuel fires. Water sprayed on other types of fires is (ostensibly) pfas free. Dry chemical mixes also do not contain pfas as an active ingredient.

32

Blexcr0id t1_j63z8rj wrote

I heard years ago that there was a protein-based firefighting foam invented in the 80s/90s. Would be interested to see if that was true. Would been to consider BOD/COD in firefighting water runoff but that's definitely better than PFAS/PFOA/PFXX.

5

PastNectarine5852 t1_j63zs3j wrote

Fluoroprotein foams exist! But still contain pfas.

https://www.ansul.com/en/us/pages/ProductDetail.aspx?productdetail=Fluoroprotein+Foam#:~:text=Fluoroprotein%20foams%20are%20derived%20from,used%20in%20much%20lower%20concentrations.

5

Blexcr0id t1_j642cqo wrote

Interesting. Thank you. There must be a better solution out there that is relatively safe and effective, but I guess the chemical companies that produce and sell the existing firefighting foams wouldn't be able to maximize profit for shareholders...

1

PastNectarine5852 t1_j643wwj wrote

They all sell fluorine free foams, so they'd still make money.

Studies at the Naval Research Labs have shown that fluorinated foams just perform better, and for a while, the US govt (particularly DoD) required fluorinated foams. That's changing, but the performance differences have slowed the change to fluorine free versions.

https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2017249/naval-research-lab-chemists-search-for-pfas-free-firefighting-foam/

3

piecat t1_j67o96q wrote

I don't think I'd mind PFAs being used during, say, war time.

It's the fact that they practice with them all the time.

1

Replic813 t1_j62rul0 wrote

I work for a company that cleans up contaminated groundwater.

Pfas are a huuge problem. And basically no one knows about it.

I have to answer constant questions about the necessity of our work.

21

Etheking OP t1_j63ebdm wrote

Join us at www.reddit.com/r/pfas

7

Replic813 t1_j63lvui wrote

Already in it

3

Etheking OP t1_j63mxqe wrote

Well I feel your earlier sentiment. My colleagues work in communication including PFAS so we are hoping to fix this problem. That is, few people understanding this issue that literally impacts everyone on the planet.

2

thetrickypickle t1_j61esyy wrote

The same chemical contributing to one of the highest cancer rates in all professions is in the gear itself. Pretty sad

14

Ok-Welder-4816 t1_j61wdmv wrote

Is there an alternative that still works as well? I assume there's a reason these chemicals are used.

8

Etheking OP t1_j61xetg wrote

The NFPA which sets the standards for fire equipment ruled this requirement in 1971. Some of the companies which profit from the inclusion of these chemicals have been involved with the NFPA. There's a whole documentary about it mentioned in the article.

3

Sunflower_After_Dark t1_j61rbau wrote

In the near future, robots & drones will be fighting fires.

2

TSL4me t1_j61uruv wrote

Thats a long ways away due to weight issues. I could see a ground robot with active power supply running a heavy hose into a fire though.

7

damon459 t1_j628cix wrote

The Atlas weighs 190 pounds, less than the average firefighter who tips the scale at 250 without gear which adds another 50-75 pounds.

1

LeapIntoInaction t1_j66c3xo wrote

So... err... the union is asking for protective gear that doesn't work?

0

devious_204 t1_j61txti wrote

So how long before the higher ups at pfizer place a phone call to the higher ups of the gop to get their handlers on her?

−1

rem_lap t1_j61nfof wrote

Well that's fuckin ironic.

They're worried about their PPE containing PFAS?

They don't ever seem worried when they whip out the aqueous film forming firefighting foam (AFFF) and spray everything in the vicinity.

https://www.firerescue1.com/firefighting-foam/articles/forever-chemicals-what-firefighters-need-to-know-about-afff-and-pfas-8pdsKB4G2G1fJoIM/

−7

animealtdesu t1_j61x7oh wrote

Definitely a nuanced and intelligent take. We shouldn't remove toxins from PPE since foam is toxic. Or we could remove PFAS from foam too, which most departments do. Or they could just let cars burn, Hydrogen Cyanide and Carbon Monoxide is way better for the environment.

23

FL00D_Z0N3 t1_j6godax wrote

Foam is not incredibly widely used, and class B foam is even more rare in its use. Most departments still depend on pure water or class A foam mixtures for firefighting endeavors. PPE gets used everyday at most departments.

1