[r9etb]

One can certainly debate whether there's a real health risk, but the basic fact that the chemical is there is not at all surprising. Simply consider the number of huge forest fires in the NW over the past few years, and the correspondingly huge firefighting efforts. The retardant gets dropped in the mountains and washed into the watersheds, and so of course it gets into human tissues.

What's interesting, and of course will not be picked up on, is the fact that the envirowackos are probably most to blame for this: their "lawsuit to prevent logging" strategy is directly responsible for the fuel buildup that led to the largest fires, and thus to the contamination noted.

The law of unintended consequences is a powerful and fascinating thing.

[anonymous_user]

The law of unintended consequences is a powerful and fascinating thing.

I chuckle about environmentalist wackos and the law of unintended consequences whenever I fill my gas tank for $50.

[Cold Heart]

Thanks for an intelligent reply.

[Valpal1]

Bingo, hope the loggers lawyers make this connection and arguement next time they get sued to stop the logging.

[Iconoclast2]

Isn't this stuff used in manufacturing fabrics to federal safety standards? This may not be a NW issue at all.

[drungus]

Simply consider the number of huge forest fires in the NW over the past few years, and the correspondingly huge firefighting efforts. The retardant gets dropped in the mountains and washed into the watersheds, and so of course it gets into human tissues.

The retardants used in wildland firefighting are NOT PDBEs. A typical slurry includes of ammonium phosphate or sulfate.

PDBEs are used in furniture and such. While it might be tempting to blame the envirowhacko stance on forest policy for PDBE in breast milk, there is simply has no factual link.