5

Every summer we see the same image: brave firefighters flying helicopters and planes with tanks full of water or fire retardant over yet another forest fire. But is there actual evidence on whether or not these tactics ar effective? Have there been any scientific studies comparing forest fires with active aerial intervention with those that were left on their own?

For example, the following article claims that:

Andy Stahl, director of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, has criticized aerial firefighting. “They must have a lot of money to spend — to waste,” he says of Colorado’s air corps budget. Stahl claims that fighting fire from the air is not only expensive, dangerous and environmentally harmful, but that it has yet to be proven to work.

Forest Service experiments have demonstrated that retardants can reduce fire intensity and spread up to twice as effectively as water. But in 2011, Stahl’s group did a correlational study using Forest Service data that found retardant use had no effect on wildfire size or initial attack success rates. (Jones said a new study hopes to address the data deficit, but data collection will need to continue for several more years.)

Once a big fire is burning, there’s no time to pause and debate issues of effectiveness or cost, however. “If a house burns down and you failed to use a 747 that could dump dollar-a-gallon fancy fertilizer water because you didn’t think it would make any difference, you shouldn’t be fighting fires,” Stahl says. “You will get clobbered politically when that house burns.”

JonathanReez
  • 10,917
  • 11
  • 51
  • 102
  • Related: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/22508/is-federal-firefighting-the-cause-for-the-increase-of-us-forest-fires-and-their – JonathanReez Aug 14 '18 at 18:33
  • This looks relevant: https://www.fs.fed.us/managing-land/fire/aviation/afue – Nate Eldredge Aug 14 '18 at 18:43
  • 1
    @NateEldredge As a Southern Californian living in a fire zone, I've seen water drops extinguish flames. Can we at least stipulate that water puts out fires? – jeffronicus Aug 14 '18 at 18:46
  • 3
    @jeffronicus I'm asking whether or not aerial firefighting is a cost effective solution to forest fires, given how much we hear about it every summer. Water does extinguish fires but a load of water from a single plane is miniscule. – JonathanReez Aug 14 '18 at 18:48
  • @jeffronicus - I have literally never heard, one way or the other, about what the question is asking. If it is clearly an effective tactic (which would imply that there is some well-established validation), can you offer an answer with references? That's not to say I'm questioning the validity of what you say, I'd just be interested in seeing that answer. – PoloHoleSet Aug 14 '18 at 18:55
  • 4
    @JonathanReez "Effective" is one issue; "cost effective" would be another, especially at scale. Here's an LA Times story from 2008 addressing the political pressure to send in the tankers when they're not necessarily effective: http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-wildfires29-2008jul29-story.html – jeffronicus Aug 14 '18 at 19:06
  • @jeffronicus post updated – JonathanReez Aug 14 '18 at 19:12
  • One source that looks good: http://www.publish.csiro.au/wf/wf13031 – A E Aug 14 '18 at 21:18
  • I think this is too broad. It may or may not be cost-effective as @jeffronicus has found. Also, you are not quoting an actual claim here, so technically you are in violation of the notability rule of this site. Perhaps ask on econ.SE. – Fizz Aug 14 '18 at 22:53
  • I mean one can find very specialized analyses like https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40490-015-0044-9 so there are probably a lot in the area. I don't know if anyone can draw overall conclusions, independent of country specific costs, frequency of fires in a region etc. – Fizz Aug 14 '18 at 22:59
  • 1
    Your question is basically like asking if cheese is more expensive than ham. Which cheese and which ham, and where? – Fizz Aug 14 '18 at 23:06
  • 1
    I think your original question was better. Cost effectiveness of fighting a wild fire versus not fighting one is going to vary a lot depending on the area and the circumstances of the fire. In an area with lots of valuable property that can be destroyed the value is going to be different then if it was a remote area with not much of value around. – Joe W Aug 14 '18 at 23:26
  • 3
    @JoeW and what constitutes value depends heavily on the person you ask. For a member of the Sierra Club that tree housing a nest of squirrels may be more valuable than the half a million dollar cabin 10 miles up the road. – jwenting Aug 15 '18 at 04:48
  • Definitely efficient for chemical producers. They can sell large volume to few buyers. – sanaris Aug 15 '18 at 12:41
  • Please quote a specific claim from that link. – Fizz Aug 15 '18 at 21:12
  • 2
    Uh, are you asking whether aerial firefighting is effective or if fire retardants are more effective than plain water?? They are two entirely different questions! – Daniel R Hicks Aug 16 '18 at 19:55
  • @DanielRHicks I'm asking if it even makes sense to use planes to fight forest fires. What the planes are carrying is irrelevant. – JonathanReez Aug 16 '18 at 20:04
  • But the last two paragraphs you just edited in are arguing over whether to use water or retardant. – Daniel R Hicks Aug 17 '18 at 00:27
  • @DanielRHicks the question is focused about using planes in general. – JonathanReez Aug 17 '18 at 00:30
  • 2
    "Forest Service experiments have demonstrated that retardants can reduce fire intensity and spread up to twice as effectively as water. But in 2011, Stahl’s group did a correlational study using Forest Service data that found retardant use had no effect on wildfire size or initial attack success rates." --- Aircraft are not even mentioned. – Daniel R Hicks Aug 17 '18 at 00:50

0 Answers0