November 15, 2008
The New York Times
by William YardleyTo prevent wildfires from spreading in California, the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection uses a red chemical fire retardant. While it stops the spread of some wildfires, it also is very dangerous to aquatic animals and watershed. The state has been searching for an alternative control, so they will be able to use less of the retardant. So there's a decision to make wildfires or toxic watershed?
My first thought after reading this was: why are they even using the chemical retardant???! I'm mean, wildfires are natures way of clearing out the old to make room for the new? Why would anyone want to mess with mother nature? But then I calmed down and realized that there are actually a lot of people who live around the most common areas for fires. I guess it's the fear of the fire spreading far enough that it starts destroying houses and killing people. Luckily for me my family doesn't live in any part of the country that has problems with wildfires. On top of that, I almost didn't read the article because what do I care about wildfires? I live in Michigan. I read it anyway and it turns out that this retardant messes with the watershed and aquatic species. The mix of chemical is highly toxic. Now I know I don't live anywhere near California but seriously who would want to be so naive to say aww it doesn't matter. There's enough environment to go around. I think taking care of the environment needs to be a priority in everyone's life. Finding an alternative to the retardant would be a good way to start.
Until Next Time...
No comments:
Post a Comment