It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: howtonhawky
Fire retardants used in firefighting can be toxic to fish and wildlife as well as firefighters by releasing dioxins and furans when halogenated fire retardants are burned during fires, and drops within 300 feet of bodies of water are generally prohibited unless lives or property are directly threatened. Fire retardant - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org...
I ask with all due respect for any non believers to simply admit that it is harmful to us and the eco system.
There are viable alternatives that are non toxic or at least much less non toxic that what we are using.
Here is one here...
Bentonite Toxicity. Bentonite is a ground naturally occurring clay. It is inorganic, non-toxic, non-irritating. It is not considered hazardous on skin contact (it is employed in cosmetics and skin products as a suspender). Bentonite Toxicity (hazard) - Digitalfire digitalfire.com...
originally posted by: howtonhawky
originally posted by: SailorJerry
originally posted by: howtonhawky
originally posted by: CADpro
It must be really really...I mean REALLY important for some to be right no matter what the circumstances are. I've noticed this strange behavior across the spectrum of the many personas of this member.
Yea how about you post on topic.
I am interested in your take on the poison featured in the op instead of your fanboy club rants.
Its not toxic
End of, time to create another thread
It has gotton the best of you.
It would serve you well to read my post on the subject but since i have learned you are being effected i will just for you post the fact again.
Fire retardants used in firefighting can be toxic to fish and wildlife as well as firefighters by releasing dioxins and furans when halogenated fire retardants are burned during fires, and drops within 300 feet of bodies of water are generally prohibited unless lives or property are directly threatened. Fire retardant - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org...
you just got served
originally posted by: howtonhawky
Oh look! I was correct again.
The phosphorus is made by an explosives company.
en.wikipedia.org...
This is sickening on sooo many levels.
originally posted by: dragonridr
originally posted by: howtonhawky
originally posted by: SailorJerry
originally posted by: howtonhawky
originally posted by: CADpro
It must be really really...I mean REALLY important for some to be right no matter what the circumstances are. I've noticed this strange behavior across the spectrum of the many personas of this member.
Yea how about you post on topic.
I am interested in your take on the poison featured in the op instead of your fanboy club rants.
Its not toxic
End of, time to create another thread
It has gotton the best of you.
It would serve you well to read my post on the subject but since i have learned you are being effected i will just for you post the fact again.
Fire retardants used in firefighting can be toxic to fish and wildlife as well as firefighters by releasing dioxins and furans when halogenated fire retardants are burned during fires, and drops within 300 feet of bodies of water are generally prohibited unless lives or property are directly threatened. Fire retardant - Wikipedia en.wikipedia.org...
you just got served
Unserve this is talking about fire retardants used in homes. Typically bromide is used just so you know Foscheck does not contain bromide. Just about every post you make shows a lack of knowledge in chemistry i actually have to pick which ones to correct or id have 20 posts replying to you.
originally posted by: dragonridr
originally posted by: howtonhawky
Oh look! I was correct again.
The phosphorus is made by an explosives company.
en.wikipedia.org...
This is sickening on sooo many levels.
Not sure of your point white phosphorus is often used in munitions but has no fire retardant properties at all. In fact quite the opposite it will assist a chemical reaction. No fire retardant would ever include white phosphorus. By the way phosphates are needed for plants and animals to survive. Ready for the scary part with the current uses we have about a 100 year supply. Now we can make it but it wont be cheap so your going to see all food products increase in value.
Someone mentioned earlier that you have multiple profiles ("handles" / accounts) here on ATS.
originally posted by: CADpro
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
You have a PM
Thank you !
or you have some sort of a mental condition which would seem to suggest psychiatric treatment may be helpful. This observation is not intended to be an insult,
Ammonium phosphate is the salt of ammonium and phosphate. It is a highly unstable compound with the formula (NH4)3PO4. Because of its instability, it is elusive and of no commercial value. A related "double salt", (NH4)3PO4.(NH4)2HPO4 is also recognized but is too unstable for practical use. Both triammonium salts evolve ammonia. In contrast to the fragile nature of the triammonium salts, diammonium phosphate (NH4)2HPO4 is a valuable material, mainly as a fertilizer. Also of value is monoammonium salt (NH4)H2PO4 which is also valued as a fertilizer. These two salts provide plants with fixed nitrogen and phosphorus.[2]
I advise any who wish to try to disprove the theories givin here to do so with facts and not feelings.
Perhaps you may want to answser the question of why we use fertilizer on fires when we could use something non toxic that works as well.
Why do you all take the stance that the current retardation is the only option. It is not.
Perhaps you could tell us where is the logic in releasing burnt fertilizer vapor into the air is a good idea?
i am asking you to quit being divisive. I feel it would be childish to report you but it needs to be done. Take a break you are triggered.
you are ignoring facts and trying to crap on the whole discussion by not admitting that the retardant contains fertilizer
instead you try to claim that the constituents found in the substance is not fertilizer
Now that we established that foscheck is 10% fertilizer
Foscheck is fertilizer Are you really gonna revert to verbal stupidity?
Are you gonna try to tell us now that fertilizer with water in it is not fertilizer?
originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: dragonridr
lolers
I am not buying your excuse that since they feed it to us in small quantities then it must not be a waste and it is good for us.
It is still industrial waste from making explosives and not safe for humans,wildlife or fish.
10% would be close to .75lb per gallon.
You would not be healthy if you inhaled that stuff during vaporization or if you drank it. It is not rocket science or any forbidden chemistry that if you put it in a river or lake and it kills fish then it is harmful for humans too.
You drink too much brondo bro.
They had a bunch of this stuff left over from making bombs so they decided to poison us with it instead of proper disposal.