I agree with your concerns entirely.
Mindi Messmer, MS, PG, CGshe/herSenior Research Scientist, Vista Nova+1-603-498-8847 | mmessmer@me.comlinktr.ee/mindimessmer
Forgive my ignorance but are you agreeing or disagreeing with me
Nope. I’m sure this trade secret protected compound is F-based.
I think these PFAS free foams should be treated with due skepticism. Here is the MSDS for one I came across. I do not currently know if it is in widespread use or even any use at all. I could also be over reacting. Caveat emptor. Information presented as-is. etc.:
-Jonathan Gerhardson
Firefighting Foam: DOD is Working to Address Challenges to Transitioning to PFAS-Free Alternatives
Government Accountability Office
GAO-24-107322
July 8, 2024
What GAO Found
The Department of Defense (DOD) has taken steps to eliminate use of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF)—a product used to fight flammable liquid fires—at its installations. AFFF contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which may have adverse effects on human health, including effects on fetal development, the immune system, and the thyroid. Also, PFAS may cause liver damage and cancer. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 required, in part, that DOD discontinue use of AFFF at its installations after October 1, 2024—with waivers possible until October 1, 2026, and an exemption for shipboard use. The military departments have developed implementation plans, schedules, and costs for replacing AFFF in all land-based mobile assets and facilities worldwide. Further, DOD has developed specifications for the development of a fluorine-free foam that provides a PFAS-free alternative for meeting DOD's fire extinguishing performance standards.
The military departments have identified challenges that may affect the time and resources required to fully eliminate AFFF at DOD installations. For example:
• There are several compatibility issues with qualified fluorine-free foams that preclude them from being drop-in replacements for AFFF for certain tactical firefighting systems, such as their inability to withstand certain temperatures or to be mixed with water in advance of use.
• There are substantial funding requirements for the transition from AFFF to a fluorine-free product—initial estimates stand at over $2.1 billion.
• DOD firefighters are not fully trained in use of fluorine-free foams, which differs from use of AFFF.
In February 2024, DOD reported to Congress that it anticipates needing to submit the two allowable 1-year waiver requests to the October 1, 2024, statutory deadline—extending some AFFF use at DOD installations to October 1, 2026. The extensions are primarily due to the time it takes to transition systems from AFFF to fluorine-free alternatives without compromising missions or safety.
...
For the full highlights, go to
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-24-107322
For the full report go to
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-24-107322.pdf
—
Lenny Siegel
Executive Director
Center for Public Environmental Oversight
A project of the Pacific Studies Center
LSiegel@cpeo.org
P.O. Box 998, Mountain View, CA 94042
Voice/Fax: 650-961-8918
http://www.cpeo.org
Author: DISTURBING THE WAR: The Inside Story of the Movement to Get Stanford University out of Southeast Asia - 1965–1975 (See http://a3mreunion.org)
_______________________________________________
Military mailing list
Military@lists.cpeo.org
http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/military-cpeo.org
|
_______________________________________________
Military mailing list
Military@lists.cpeo.org
http://lists.cpeo.org/listinfo.cgi/military-cpeo.org
|