Concerns about the use of flame retardants affecting drinking water in German drinking water reservoir
Thank you for choosing Automatic Translation. Currently we are offering translations from English into French and German, with more translation languages to be added in the near future. Please be aware that these translations are generated by a third party AI software service. While we have found that the translations are mostly correct, they may not be perfect in every case. To ensure the information you read is correct, please refer to the original article in English. If you find an error in a translation which you would like to bring to our attention, it would help us greatly if you let us know. We can correct any text or section, once we are aware of it. Please do not hesitate to contact our webmaster to let us know of any translation errors.
During a fire on the Brocken in September, a fire retardant was used for the first time, raising concerns about possible impacts on the water quality of the Rappbode reservoir. It supplies drinking water to around two million people, the German radio site MDR Aktuell reports.
An MDR AKTUELL listener inquired about the reasoning behind the use of the product RetStop and the potential consequences for the water.
Despite concerns from the park administration, which opposed the use of the fire retardant due to its water hazard classification, the decision to use it was made after consultation with multiple authorities.
District Fire Chief Kai-Uwe Lohse explained that the composition of the product was thoroughly examined, and the decision was made in close coordination with those responsible for the drinking water catchment area. The water quality in the Rappbode reservoir has not been affected so far, and the application site continues to be monitored.
The fire retardant "RetStop" is described as environmentally friendly by the distributor, "MainFire." All ingredients are approved as food additives within the EU, and the manufacturer claims it is not harmful to plants, animals, or humans. However, the safety data sheet does caution that the product should not enter bodies of water.
The national park administration, represented by Director Roland Pietsch, voiced criticism of its use. Due to the lack of approval and the unclear composition of the product, they could not rule out negative effects on the water.
Nevertheless, Pietsch expressed understanding for the rapid decision made by the incident command under the circumstances. Ultimately, the retardant was applied preventively over a six-hectare area of the national park to stop the spread of the fire – a precaution that turned out to be unnecessary, as the fire, contrary to forecasts, did not reach the treated area due to changing wind conditions.