> The military’s firefighters use aqueous film-forming foam, or AFFF, which contains extremely high levels of PFAS, in training exercises and emergencies. Though AFFF is effective, it has led to widespread contamination around bases and airports, and Congress just mandated the military check for PFAS pollution at 700 facilities while earmarking $571m for cleanup, though observers say the cost will likely be much higher.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/06/military-bas...
Also in a lot of ways the military just seems to have safety standards a few decades behind everyone else. Various fuels, solvents and lubricants they use for aircraft etc. also contain carcinogenic compounds, and they just seem to have a history of never disposing of them properly (an example is the burn pits in Afghanistan where they would just dig big holes and burn toxic solvents along with plastic waste etc. in the air, causing huge health problems and many deaths for a lot of veterans).
I suspect they have the same standards as most industry. They just have a ton of exceptions and other get-out clauses in the form of national safety arguements.
These arguements will fall off steadily as new materials/techniques become commonplace, it becomes shown that the risks don't justify the supposed national safety benefits, or (in the case of bases on foreign soil) relevant treatises come into effect, so safety procedures will be seen to "catch up".
Though sometimes on top of "national security" reasons there is also the "who will know until far too late if ever" thinking to contend with…
Essentially, yes.
> What good does having a standard do if it's not consistently applied?
They are quiet standards than the military, having the standard generally is a good thing. A military base in, local it in foreign soil, being able to exempt themselves from the standard doesn't make it a bad standard for everyone else to follow. "If captain Billy put his head in a fire, would you?" and all that.
Also if the standards are eventually applied as the exemptions stop working for one reason or another, they do their job eventually which is more often than not better than never.
Why is not the government making a lower quality, cheaper foam to use in those training seasons that does not cause cancer? That would save a lot of money.
Or just buying their training foam from Amazon...
There are different class fire extinguishers depending on what is on fire.
https://vanguard-fire.com/what-are-the-5-different-classes-o...
You cant use water on any sort of "gas" fire because the gas (airplane fuel, etc) will simply float on top of the water and remain on fire. Throwing water on it can actually help it spread as well.
We're talking about open air fire treated with carcinogenic foam in large quantities where 1m+ large flakes land in somebody's private garden.
They give an example of both military and civilian firefighters doing training that involve using a lot of fire-suppressing foam. These foams contain carcinogenic compounds that can be washed into the groundwater by rain.
In Denmark we have recently had just that happen to people living near firefighter training grounds [link]
link (machine translated since I couldn't find anything in english): https://www-dr-dk.translate.goog/nyheder/indland/store-maeng...
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/navy-finds-radiation-i...
Apparently it’s an ugly, post-industrial sewage pit populated by an extremist anti-male lesbian commune, and Coastguardsmen receiving hazard pay.
I figured it was just local prejudice, but there’s some truth to the myth?
David Bond has a series of articles about things like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKNfFm0QDXQ
Don’t ever live on or near a decommissioned military base.