What's in that bright red fire retardant? No one will say, so we had it tested

Composition and what was tested

• Commenters agree the product is primarily ammonium phosphates derived from phosphate rock, with trace heavy metals, and iron oxide for the red color.
• Some note this is similar in origin to common phosphate fertilizers used on food crops, which also contain trace metals from the rock.

How concerning are the heavy metal levels?

• One camp reads the data as largely reassuring: all metals are very low (often <1 ppm), mostly below or near drinking water limits once diluted by rain and spread over large areas.
• Others argue even low concentrations become meaningful when millions of liters are dropped repeatedly, given potential accumulation in soil and groundwater and lack of explicit “safe dosage” discussion.

Measurement, methodology, and ambiguity

• Debate over units (μg/L vs ppm, by weight vs volume) and whether values refer to the raw product or to a lab dilution.
• Large variation in lead results may indicate either inconsistent sampling or batch-to-batch variability.
• Some point out that metals measured in field runoff may partly come from burned structures (e.g., roofs) rather than the retardant itself.

Comparisons to other exposures

• Several compare these levels to:
  • EPA soil and water standards (often far higher than measured).
  • Metals in fertilizers, cookware, and natural rock.
  • Massive toxic output from the fires themselves, arguing the retardant adds “a little more” to an already-polluted scene.
• Arsenic levels are flagged by some as the only clearly worrisome contaminant; others claim drinking-water arsenic limits are overly strict and not evidence-based.

Fire retardant vs foams and PFAS confusion

• Some comments initially conflate this product with PFAS-based foams (AFFF) used on fuel fires and at airports; others clarify that Phos-Chek does not contain fluorinated compounds and is a very different chemistry.
• Side discussion on class A foam and dish soap highlights broader opacity about firefighting agents.

Risk–benefit and evolving context

• Several argue the main alternative to retardant is much larger, uncontrolled wildfires, so modest toxicity may be acceptable.
• Critics counter that water and potentially less-toxic products exist, and that the true tradeoff is unclear without transparent data and long-term studies.

Transparency, regulation, and trust

• The manufacturer’s refusal to provide samples or full composition is widely criticized, seen as emblematic of trade-secret culture, weak regulation, and an adversarial, litigious environment.
• Some want mandatory public disclosure of ingredients and testing for any widely dispersed chemical, especially when used by government.
• Broader discussion touches on regulatory capture, institutional distrust, and how media framing can either catastrophize or downplay such risks.