Assignment 4

[eric.henry]

Finally, Someone who is speaking "Truth to Power".  This guy gets it.  Just like the horse drawn pumps from the cowboy days, firefighting has evolved.  Interior firefighting is a thing of the past and should no longer be utilized in our profession.  I love and respect the guys I work with enough to never put them in that kind of environment.  I personally am allergic to cancer and want to part of it.  We should never put our selves in a spot to get it.  Robert (the author) is a pioneer.  This concept in today's world makes since.  After all, everyone we serve is now educated, just ask them.  They know to keep their smoke detector batteries changed regularly and to have them set around their house in purposeful spots.  They also know that putting smoking materials in trash cans and flower pots are hazards don't do it accordingly.  As a matter of fact, they are so smart that they don't leave the kitchen when they are cooking and keep an extinguisher at their side while doing it. 

The good thing is that when Robert's house does catch fire and one of his kids are inside, if it is over 200 they are dead and we don't have to do anything.  He will absolutely understand and will write another blog about how awesome we are that we showed up anyway to watch everything he owns and loves disappear right in front of him.  He will tell the world that we are great because we were able to sit around in a truck he paid for and tell him how sorry we are that he is legally and financially accountable for not preventing this fire.

Opinions are like A$$holes, everybody has one.  If I can come up with one crazy enough, I can be famous too!!!!

I feel like there is a little bit of sarcasm in your post...lol!  I think the author has good intentions with his article. But unfortunately he's lacking in the details. How possible or should I say, impossible something like that would be to pull off for departments such as ours. To treat each fire like a hazmat scene, not make interior attacks and hold people financially liable. Good-bye to any chance at ever passing another levy.

[eric.henry]

I do not agree with this article since it seems to be a bit radical.  The author seems to take a bit of a drastic approach in his opinion on fire attack or interior entry ONLY for obvious rescues. But, one cannot disagree that the fires that we encounter today are drastically different.  Furthermore the building construction, fire behavior, and environments we encounter today cannot be safely battled with antiquated strategies and tactics.
 
Science has proven that transitional fire attacks can have a profound impact on the overall safety of suppression efforts.  Simply, put water on the fire quickly, consistently, and cool the hazard zone in any way possible. The countless studies performed by NIST have debunked many deep seated beliefs that we were taught early in our fire service careers (pushing fire, unburned side attack only, upsetting the thermal balance).  That being said, we still have a responsibility to provide life safety efforts, property conservation, and incident stabilization…to include interior firefighting operations.  We must be realistic in our analyzation of survivability profiles for possible victims entrapped….but remain aggressive in ensuring life safety to our customers.

Our jobs have become increasingly complex and require first arriving officers / incident commanders to quickly and accurately size up the hazard zone and decide the appropriate strategy and tactics for each fire scene.  Additionally, we have come to understand and educated ourselves that the fireground continues to be a hazard zone during suppression, salvage, overhaul, and during the demobilization of crews including decon.  Cancer is a real and present threat to us, and we must be vigilant in taking that threat serious.

Science has certainly steered the fire service down a new path. Its crazy to see where we are now compared to when I started, or those who started long before myself. I think the best thing we can do is continue to follow the science, educate ourselves, our crews, and the public. We also need to be smarter about working in the hazard zone during salvage and overhaul. We can limit a lot of exposure by just wearing our SCBA and deconning ourselves afterwards.

[steve.cox]

I would disagree with the article.
For one, we have been doing education and fire prevention for years now, so that’s nothing new We have also known that the  burning of wood, plastics, furniture, electronics and other building materials releases hazardous substances such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that with proper use of your PPE and SCBA can greatly reduce the risk for exposer. Where we need to get better is after the event with decon, equipment and self and I believe we’ve made great strides in doing so.
Also, listen to the 911 call from the lady in Florida who latterly burned to death because the fire department would not enter the house. I wouldn’t assume that everyone is dead just because you have smoke and fire on your arrival. That’s just asking for trouble.
And last, holding home/business owner accountable for fires is silly, especially when a majority of them are undetermined cause. Good luck with that in court.
Kevin Stevens

Great point about the Florida lady.  That audio is so disturbing, I don't know how you can argue against doing searches.  You are 100% correct in your statement about conditions throught out any structure not being the same, or as them seem for that matter.  That is why we do 360's and investigation holes.  We need to evaluate every situation and not just jump in blindly.

[brian.petry]

I don't fully agree with this guy. It appears to me this guy is an extremist and wants people to believe that only he knows whats best for firefighting. UL has spent millions of dollars to educate firefighters on the use of applying water from the outside. UL also knows that applying water from the exterior is only a temporary task. Crews are to move interior and check for viable victims and finish extinguishing the fire. I do agree that we have to get better with Gross Decon after an exposure. I believe overtime that once you exit a structure fire you will have to proceed to some kind of decon station.
Completely eliminating interior fire operations and then blaming the homeowner or business owner and making them financially responsible is the wrong step. I agree that continued public education, and working to require residential sprinkler systems would help a ton with limiting our exposure. Fire is going to happen no matter what we do, and denying a tax payer a service they pay for isn't going to sit well with them. So if we want to keep our jobs we might want to continue putting our citizens safety first.

I agree with you here Ross that fire is going to happen no matter what and we must put our citizens safety first. I believe wholeheartedly that our citizens safety is paramount, however we need to keep our own safety in mind. This job for most is not just a job it is a career and a hobby all wrapped into one. The change in tactics I believe is warranted as we are currently using here hitting the fire then going in to finish up. The scientific approach that is being taken will take more time to come up with a better protective ensemble to protect firefighters during firefighting activities. Our interior firefighting activities do bring unfortunate side effects like the possibility of developing cancer through absorption of the cancer causing agents. This is to your point we have a job to perform but, assuring that we perform gross decon after a fire is important to slow the absorption. In addition all personnel that were involved in the firefight should at a minimum take a shower as soon as possible after clearing the scene.

[jlogsdon]

Completely eliminating interior fire operations and then blaming the homeowner or business owner and making them financially responsible is the wrong step. I agree that continued public education, and working to require residential sprinkler systems would help a ton with limiting our exposure. Fire is going to happen no matter what we do, and denying a tax payer a service they pay for isn't going to sit well with them. So if we want to keep our jobs we might want to continue putting our citizens safety first.

People already don't like paying taxes, so this guys idea would be a public disaster in itself. Like you said Ross, we just have to keep evolving with the technology but we will never stop fires from happening. Things have evolved in the short time I have been in the fire service, and things will continue to evolve.

[Kevin Stevens]

I do not agree with this guy and I hope anyone that reads this article would feel the same way.  Clearly the statement saying an occupied structure with working smoke alarms and the window of escapability is three minutes or less.  Obviously he has not heard the radio traffic from the Florida fatal fire in November 2018.  We as firefighters took this job knowing it is very dangerous and/or fatal.  To say we will only make entry if we know 100% the structure is occupied and has only been on fire for 3 minutes is just stupid. 
The fire service has made very good forward progress over the years with teaching and training on ways to protect firefighters and at the same time still continue to search structures, save lives and put fires out without burning the entire structure to the ground. 
Cancer is a problem we face with today's building materials and products in the structure once they are ignited and burn.  I agree with educating the public through fire prevention and fire safety inspections.  Sprinkler systems improve occupants survive-ability, prevent loss to the structure and reduce firefighters exposure.  Through building code changes maybe residential sprinkler systems can become mandated, again would save life, property and limit firefighters exposure. 
Bottom line is our tax paying citizens would not be happy if the watched the fire department let every structure burn to the ground.  We as firefighters took this job to protect our community and its citizens and do whatever it takes to do so.

Well put Ross, We are a public service, if the public can't count on us then why are we here.

[Kevin Stevens]

           I was waiting for the BUT at the end, saying that it would never really happen. I'm not sure if he truly feels this way or just trying to get a rise out of people and get them talking. It's what we do to protect our selves prior to and afterwards, is going to determine our level of exposure. I know we all like to get our gear dirty as possible, but this is the stuff that's causing cancer. If we put our gear on properly, everything zipped and buttoned up with nothing exposed. Then afterwards clean up with decon wipes and switch out our gear with a clean set. We can prevent most of the things that are killing us.

          I do agree with his statements about educating, inspecting structures to help prevent fires, although this still isn't going to stop fires. It's kind of like saying if I workout, eat right, I'm not going to die. Not everything can be prevented, this is why they call them accidents.
I agree Brian, we train a lot to be able to protect each other, We should know by now when we can or can't enter a structure.

          Our tactics are changing to, with hitting it from the outside prior to entry. Either way we are still going to have to enter the structure. I could not see pulling up to a working fire and saying to the homeowner that we're not going in, regardless the amount involved. I could only imagine the backlash the fire departments would get for this new tactic. I can't save your house but I'm going to stop your neighbors from burning down, hopefully.

[NBaldridge]

While I do agree that interior will continue to evolve with the goal of safety, I have a hard time even taking this article serious. First of all, anyone can become an expert since there's no real hard line qualifier for doing so. For example, Troy Bonfield has published several articles for Fire Engineering on topics of leadership, trust, morale, etc. This guy is under the impression that we can prevent all  fires by education. His statement "The only way to stop exposing more firefighters to an increased risk of developing cancer–a risk that’s already greater than that of the public we serve–is to stop exposing them to the heat and toxic smoke of interior structural firefighting" is true but not reasonable. The fire service continues to make things safer for firefighters, but there will always be some inherent risk. By his theory, there will be no fire departments, only haz-mat crews to clean up.
This is a double edge sword for us in the fire service. With new presumptive cancer laws for BWC and now more work related cancer claims, this increases cost and liability. This in turn creates the environment of the only safe working condition is in the cold zone. This may create the idea that maybe our jobs aren't necessary.

Well put on how "anyone can become an expert since there's no real hard line qualifier."  Makes me think of Theodore Roosevelt's quote of the Man in the Arena in regards to the author of the article. 

[NBaldridge]

I would disagree with the article.
For one, we have been doing education and fire prevention for years now, so that’s nothing new We have also known that the  burning of wood, plastics, furniture, electronics and other building materials releases hazardous substances such as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that with proper use of your PPE and SCBA can greatly reduce the risk for exposer. Where we need to get better is after the event with decon, equipment and self and I believe we’ve made great strides in doing so.
Also, listen to the 911 call from the lady in Florida who latterly burned to death because the fire department would not enter the house. I wouldn’t assume that everyone is dead just because you have smoke and fire on your arrival. That’s just asking for trouble.
And last, holding home/business owner accountable for fires is silly, especially when a majority of them are undetermined cause. Good luck with that in court.
Kevin Stevens

Very valid point on the 911 call and fire in Florida, dont get tunnel vision about thinking that there is zero survivability based on conditions.  Just keep in mind that not all structures are built or furnished the same and will definitely not react the same when exposed to fire.

[jlogsdon]

I do not agree with this guy and I hope anyone that reads this article would feel the same way.  Clearly the statement saying an occupied structure with working smoke alarms and the window of escapability is three minutes or less.  Obviously he has not heard the radio traffic from the Florida fatal fire in November 2018.  We as firefighters took this job knowing it is very dangerous and/or fatal.  To say we will only make entry if we know 100% the structure is occupied and has only been on fire for 3 minutes is just stupid. 
The fire service has made very good forward progress over the years with teaching and training on ways to protect firefighters and at the same time still continue to search structures, save lives and put fires out without burning the entire structure to the ground. 
Cancer is a problem we face with today's building materials and products in the structure once they are ignited and burn.  I agree with educating the public through fire prevention and fire safety inspections.  Sprinkler systems improve occupants survive-ability, prevent loss to the structure and reduce firefighters exposure.  Through building code changes maybe residential sprinkler systems can become mandated, again would save life, property and limit firefighters exposure. 
Bottom line is our tax paying citizens would not be happy if the watched the fire department let every structure burn to the ground.  We as firefighters took this job to protect our community and its citizens and do whatever it takes to do so.

Good points here Brian. It hasn't become a big enough problem yet to get tougher safety standards in the building code because of the added cost to adding items like residential sprinkler systems. Statistically speaking, we do not have one of the most dangerous jobs, we do however have people going to bat for us to protect us even further. Some of these things are making PPE more protective, using data to help us make smarter decisions.

[slong]

I can't agree with this article in its entirety. The author does make some good points about trying to prevent occupational cancer. This is a real concern with our job and it should be taken seriously. We as an organization should be doing everything we can to help prevent contamination when possible. However the reality of our job is at times we are asked to do things we know will place us in danger, either immediate due to obvious hazards or long term due to higher cancer rates. To say we should never go interior unless we have an absolute rescue is taking things to the extreme in my opinion. We train to know our "enemy". If we learn building construction, fire behavior, and train on transitional attacks then we can apply our knowledge and make an educated decision on the fire ground. Anytime someone takes a radical approach to something in the fire service and says "never" or "always" I think we all need to look into it deeper. Our job, in my opinion, is a hard job to use works like "always" and "never" because of the fluid problems we face.

[justin.biel]

That was probably one of the dumbest articles I think I have ever read and I hope he wrote it because he lost a bet.  Does the fire service evolve and change? of course it does but I cant see interior firefighting going away.  As far a teaching the public fire prevention, we do that.  You can lead a horse to water but you cant make it drink.  Are we supposed to go door to door and check all smoke detectors to 20,000 residents every year?  Is the job dangerous? Yes.  Are we exposed to some nasty crap? Yes.  The reality of the job is we are there to mitigated a situation and to say we should not go interior anymore unless there is a absolute rescues because everyone "is dead" long before we get there is dumb,  tell that to the lady that died on the phone with dispatch in Florida. We save life and property, risk a lot to save a lot, risk little to save little.   Mr Avsec, At no point in your rambling incoherent article were you ever close to anything that could be considered a rational thought.  Everyone in this group is now dumber for having read it.  I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

[brian.petry]

I believe that there will be a significant reduction in the use of interior firefighting in the future but I do not think that it will be completely eliminated.  We have definitely become smarter at how we handle fires with controlling the flow path, transitional attacks, and understanding the survivability profile of conditions.  While all of those things combined have decreased the exposures and length of time in the hazardous conditions, we still have the duty to act to protect life and property.  We do have continue to push forward in the advancement of technologies available in the protection of the fire service’s largest asset; us the Firefighters.

Utilizing Level A suits sounds like a great concept; however, this concept sounds like a logistical and fiscal nightmare.  This concept brings thoughts to mind of where do we store them on the apparatus, how many to store, who holds the monetary responsibility of replacement, etc.

The statement of holding property owners liable for having a preventable fire in their structure does sound like a far reach, but is not entirely out of the question.  However, I believe that would responsibility would lie with the insurance companies to deal with rather than the fire departments.

[brian.petry]

I believe that there will be a significant reduction in the use of interior firefighting in the future but I do not think that it will be completely eliminated.  We have definitely become smarter at how we handle fires with controlling the flow path, transitional attacks, and understanding the survivability profile of conditions.  While all of those things combined have decreased the exposures and length of time in the hazardous conditions, we still have the duty to act to protect life and property.  We do have continue to push forward in the advancement of technologies available in the protection of the fire service’s largest asset; us the Firefighters.

Utilizing Level A suits sounds like a great concept; however, this concept sounds like a logistical and fiscal nightmare.  This concept brings thoughts to mind of where do we store them on the apparatus, how many to store, who holds the monetary responsibility of replacement, etc.

The statement of holding property owners liable for having a preventable fire in their structure does sound like a far reach, but is not entirely out of the question.  However, I believe that would responsibility would lie with the insurance companies to deal with rather than the fire departments.

I believe that there will be a significant reduction in the use of interior firefighting in the future but I do not think that it will be completely eliminated.  We have definitely become smarter at how we handle fires with controlling the flow path, transitional attacks, and understanding the survivability profile of conditions.  While all of those things combined have decreased the exposures and length of time in the hazardous conditions, we still have the duty to act to protect life and property.  We do have continue to push forward in the advancement of technologies available in the protection of the fire service’s largest asset; us the Firefighters.

Utilizing Level A suits sounds like a great concept; however, this concept sounds like a logistical and fiscal nightmare.  This concept brings thoughts to mind of where do we store them on the apparatus, how many to store, who holds the monetary responsibility of replacement, etc.

The statement of holding property owners liable for having a preventable fire in their structure does sound like a far reach, but is not entirely out of the question.  However, I believe that would responsibility would lie with the insurance companies to deal with rather than the fire departments.

One issue that I can see which seemed readily apparent to me is that Level A Haz-mat suits are not rated to be working in or around fire. The suit does fully encapsulate the wearer but does not offer any protection from heat or insult from heat. I agree this would be a logistical and fiscal nightmare. I do believe that trying to hold the property owner responsible for a fire is a stretch.
One concern is the wearer and the amount of time the suit can be worn, and most importantly the rehab time for a person that has been working in a Level A suit. We can use current best practices of performing decon on all firefighters gear before leaving the scene and having all firefighters that were engaged in suppression activities shower upon their return to the station.

[Haggard]

I do not agree with the author of this article that states that interior structural firefighting will go away. I do think that there will be a reduction in the use of interior firefighting. As a profession we have become smarter at how we fight fires, firefighters are more aware of the toxins that they are exposed to during a fire and take the appropriate measures to minimize their exposure to these nasty toxins.

I do agree that we must make public fire life safety education and code enforcement components of our job description. We must continue to educate the community through our prevention programs to reduce fires in our homes and business with-in our community.

Larry,
I agree that there will be a reduction in interior firefighting.  Hopefully all fire departments will follow the rule.. Risk a lot to save a lot when determining to enter a burning structure.  Educating the public on how we do what we do will go a long way in securing their support.