Reports do not recommend fire retardants as used in Chapada dos Veadeiros | National newspaper

Over the weekend, the Minister of the Environment announced the use of fire retardant in Chapada dos Veadeiros: the chemical mixes with the water thrown by airplanes on the flames. The manufacturer says the retardant is non-toxic and biodegradable, and is capable of reducing the time to put out a fire that spans nine kilometers from three days to five hours.

Ibama has been discussing the use of flame retardants for at least two years. In 2018, the institute warned of the risks of these chemicals to the environment and made recommendations to reduce the dangers to soil, water and humans in nearby communities.

In July, Prevfogo, Ibama’s Forest Fire Prevention and Fighting Center, reinforced the guidelines. The technicians stated that it is necessary to document the occurrence of adverse reactions in fauna whenever the death of animals is identified in areas close to the place of application of the flame retardant; institute the suspension of the consumption of water, fishing, hunting and consumption of fruits and vegetables in the region exposed to the product for a period of 40 days; and monitor these locations for six months.

Given the insistence within Ibama for the purchase and use of the product, Prevfogo reappeared in August, reinforcing that there is not enough information for the safe use of the product in Brazil: they have these components in areas such as the Pantanal, Terra Indígena Xingu or Parque Indígena Araguaia , which have a relative abundance of water. The same question is valid for areas of Caatinga or Cerrado with low water availability ”.

Additionally, one of the alerts involved the presence of a substance called ammonium sulfate. The manufacturer informed Ibama that the substance is in the composition of the retarder.

According to Prevfogo, “ammonium sulfate damages and kills leaves if exposed for too long. In this way, it is not possible to define the safety limit so that the retardant does not cause more damage than fire in a forest, such as when the fire is superficial and does not reach the treetops ”.

And that “long-lasting retardants can be more toxic in the presence of UV-B radiation and water. Therefore, it is not possible to ensure the use of these products in the Amazon or the Cerrado, with the intensity of the daily solar radiation received in the country ”.

The person responsible for the July and August documents was Gabriel Zacharias, who commanded Prevfogo. Ten days after the last alert, he was discharged. After that, the guidelines for using the retardant changed.

In October, the new occupant of Prevfogo agreed to the purchase. He said that “the non-use of retardant, given the seriousness of the situation, is capable of causing serious damage to biodiversity” and “the preponderance of the advantages of using the indicated product is demonstrated.”

After signing the opinions, José Carlos Mendes de Morais asked to resign. In a note, Ibama reported that “there is no legal prohibition or regulation that establishes government requirements in the form of registration or authorization to use flame retardant products. Based on technical information, it considered that the FireLimit product has a low-toxic profile for the environment and human health. Given the potential losses of biodiversity that fire offers, to dispense with the use of flame retardant products, little toxic and not very persistent in the environment, would be to ignore the preponderance of the gains compared to the evaluated risks ”.

But Ibama sources told Jornal Nacional that studies on the use of retardants and their consequences in tropical countries and wetlands are lacking.

On Tuesday (13), at a Senate hearing on the burning in the Pantanal, Minister Ricardo Salles said that the retarder was also used in Mato Grosso. And he listed cattle ranching, controlled burning, and retardation as actions to reduce burning.

“Another discussion that has been generating much controversy refers to the story of the firefighter ox, cattle raising in the Pantanal, since cattle also contribute to reducing excess organic matter, grass, in short, grass helps to reduce. There are a series of measures that arise from this debate that has been established, ranging from the use of cold fire, preventive controlled burns, the issue of livestock in the Pantanal, the use of retardants and agricultural aviation as a complement ”, Ricardo Salles said. , Minister of the Environment.

Carlos Bocuhy, specialist and president of the Brazilian Institute for Environmental Protection, warns: the retardant is toxic and has immediate effects. And using the figure of the firefighter ox is an excuse for deforestation.

“The flame retardant is a toxic product, so much so that for a period of 30 days after application, you cannot drink the water from the region. So this care, this quarantine that is subjected to the area shows the danger of the product, which takes time to neutralize it in the environment, “he explained.