Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
posted by Fnord666 on Monday October 07 2019, @05:41AM   Printer-friendly
from the can't-light-this dept.

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1337

New gel lets us spread flame retardant before wildfires start

The last few years have seen horrific fire seasons in California, resulting in destruction, deaths, and economic damage. And with climate change continuing unabated, things are set to get worse.

Prevention is better than firefighting; avoiding carelessness is one way to reduce the huge number of human-caused wildfires. But a paper in PNAS this week reports a new option for wildfire prevention: a fire retardant-carrying gel that coats vegetation in a thin film, keeping that vegetation safe from fire long enough to see it through fire season. If it is demonstrated to be safe, it could allow us to spray high-risk areas at the start of fire season and keep protection through until heavy rains start.

[...] Stanford materials scientist Anthony Yu and his colleagues wanted to figure out a way to get a retardant to stick to vegetation long enough to make it through California's fire season. They used nontoxic substances that are used in food and agricultural products—silica and cellulose—to make a carrier for a fire retardant that's already used in current formulations. The new gel makes the retardant stick to the vegetation for longer periods of time.

[...] The gel's longevity means that it could be sprayed at the start of wildfire season, and last long enough to offer protection until the first heavy rainfall. Once the heavy rain starts, wildfire risk starts dropping anyway.

The gel can be distributed using standard pumping equipment, so it should be quite easy to apply. And it wouldn't need to be sprayed everywhere: human-caused fires often start in high-risk places like roadsides. So, reducing wildfires wouldn't mean coating everything in retardant—focusing just on the high-risk zones would make a big difference.

Obviously, there's more testing needed before this option can be widely used, but this could be a beacon for a world facing ever more extreme wildfires.

Wildfire prevention through prophylactic treatment of high-risk landscapes using viscoelastic retardant fluids (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1907855116)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Monday October 07 2019, @04:01PM (3 children)

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Monday October 07 2019, @04:01PM (#903740) Journal

    If the fire-retardant gel doesn't kill the wildlife or the vegetation it's being sprayed on, it could be another useful tool in controlling wildfires. A lot of terrain in the mountains is too rugged to clear a traditional fire-break, and the retardant they already dump on fires doesn't stick around long enough.

    Personally I'm a bit torn about fire suppression policy. Timber is valuable and essential to the economies of many of America's states. So you don't want it to go to waste. Also, more people are building homes and communities in areas that were once untrammeled, so there are concerns of lives and property that need to be protected. On the other hand fire is a part of the natural cycle for forests and might be helpful in controlling other threats to timber and habitat like the pine beetle (which has killed huge swathes of coniferous forest in the Rockies).

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday October 09 2019, @06:28PM (2 children)

    by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday October 09 2019, @06:28PM (#904829)

    > Also, more people are building homes and communities in areas that were once untrammeled, so there are concerns of lives and property that need to be protected.

    Or you know - people could stop building houses in once-untrammeled wilderness where the geography make reasonable fire management impossible. Fire comes through? Evacuate. House burns down? Collect the insurance money. Nobody would insure your house because it's built in the middle of a fire trap? Good for them, and tough F'ing luck you idiot - you never should have built/bought a house there in the first place.

    • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday October 09 2019, @07:05PM (1 child)

      by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday October 09 2019, @07:05PM (#904847) Journal

      That's a fine idea, except today's firetrap so often turns out to be tomorrow's suburb or ex-urb.

      --
      Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday October 09 2019, @08:49PM

        by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday October 09 2019, @08:49PM (#904887)

        Doesn't change the fact that it's a firetrap