Assignment 4

[NUrban]

1)   Read this blog at http://www.fireemsleaderpro.org/2018/12/26/new-structure-fire-response-paradigm/ (the article can also be found in the 2019 training folder under June).

2)   Post a discussion of whether you agree or disagree with this blog and why by June 15.  Your initial post should be at least 200 words and no more than 500 words. 

3)   Reply to two other posts after June 15th and before June 30th.  Your reply should be at least 50 words and no more than 150 words.

 Directions: To make your initial post select "reply" under the last written post.  Write your post and select "save".  When replying to two other posts, select  "quote" on the post that you wish to reply to.  You will see the persons initial post appear, you then write your reply and select "save".

[kclary21]

From Kent Clary:
I do not agree that interior structural firefighting will go away.  I believe there are many good points in this article, and we have learned a lot about our profession in the last several years, but we will still be putting out fires for many years to come. 
Firefighting has changed, and I believe we are much smarter about things we do, such as performing transitional attacks and having an awareness of cancer.  Buildings and their contents have changed, but so has the way we go about things.  We are not going to make every scene a HAZMAT incident, but we have to be smart and use SCBA and clean ourselves after calls. 
Fire prevention efforts have made an amazing impact on fires through the years.  They happen much less since America Burning was written, but 46 years later, there are still big fires.  I don’t see how we can hold the person who has a fire in their home accountable for this like they are a criminal.  There are also economic and political factors that work against making homes safer. 
The article mentions a rescue as being the only reason to enter a building.  Whether you decide to do interior firefighting, or not, we always have to prioritize a rescue.  However, I believe the old RECEOVS gives you a list of things to take care of, but often recovery is substituted for rescue.  It should not be, but we are trained from day one that life safety is the most important thing, so we confuse pulling a dead body from a fire with making a rescue.  This is another area where the thought process has changed through the years, but we have to remember this, and not blindly make primary search the number one task.  Take away the hazard and the problem goes away. 
We have to take precautions and protect ourselves.  We have to keep learning, reading, and paying attention to current research.  We will not completely eliminate the risks, but we can reduce them. 

[NUrban]

There are points of this blog that I agree with and others I do not agree with.

I agree with the statements in regard to being proactive with fire prevention and community outreach.  However, holding a homeowner responsible for not preventing fires seems to be far fetched due to the unknown causes of various fires.  I agree that changes need to be made to our structural turnout gear, maybe not to the point of wearing a fully encapsulated Haz-Mat suit.  But gear that limits our exposure to toxins that permeate through our gear may be in the future.

 I disagree with completely ruling out interior firefighting or search unless we see a “clearly visible and endangered occupant”.  I understand that there is theory that discusses smoke inhalation and a certain time not being compatible for humans to sustain life and if a person doesn’t leave after hearing a smoke or fire alarm they are most likely dead.  However, I believe our profession is getting smarter and more capable of problem solving than ever.  Yes, we shouldn’t blindly make an interior attack and search/rescue for every fire.  We have used public education to teach people to crawl low in smoke, cover the bottom threshold when closing a door, etc. There are circumstances where a child/adult may not be able to get out after hearing a smoke alarm and there may be opportunities to rescue them even if they aren’t completely visible.  We use our brain and have great firefighters that are able to understand risk factors and weigh the risks VS. reward.   Additionally, there have been many advances in the way we make fire attacks i.e. transitional attack and I am sure we will see more in the future.  I can definitely add to this,  but to sum it up, I believe we will completely rule out interior firefighting and search and rescue when a person has the ability to beam out of a structure if a fire should occur. 

[NBaldridge]

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. 

[eric.henry]

I found this article pretty interesting and there are some great points that were made. With that being said, as some have already posted, there are things in the article that I agree and disagree with.

How do you hold a homeowner responsible for an accidental fire of unknown cause? There are a lot of factors which would make that a legal nightmare for fire departments. We should continue to promote public education and maybe find a way to help push residential sprinklers in new construction.

I agree that the information regarding our exposure to toxic chemical in fires and how it directly relates to cancer is out there. We cannot play the "I didn't know" card anymore. Our PPE is not intended to be used in a hazmat situation and that is exactly what we encounter at every fire. However, it is not realistic to deploy a hazmat team to every structure fire. At least not in our immediate area. I would be interested to see that method trialed at some structure fires to see how feasible it really is. Maybe there is something to it. We hate change right? But once that change is here, sometimes it turns out to be a good idea.

Do I think interior attacks are going to go away? Not any time soon. I think a better approach would be to work with the companies that make structural firefighting PPE and find a way to make our gear more suitable to the conditions we face today. But I also realize that will be a long and costly venture.

In the meantime, we need to stay up to date on the information regarding fire attacks as it comes out. Flow path, transitional attacks, survivability, etc. We need to make sure our crews are trained regularly, and that they utilize the gear we do have until a better option is out there.

[nullj.21]

I agree and disagree with this article.

The first flaw is the comparison of firefighters to cowboys and that cowboys are now extinct.  Cowboys are not extinct.  There are many jobs that are still done on horseback and there are actual job titles out west as "Cowboy".  Although rare, they still exist.

The points in his article that address how the fire industry has changed are accurate as well as his recognition that the fire service will continue to change.   We have seen great advances in the fire service due to technology advances and research.    Departments that recognize these changes and adjust with them will continue to be utilized for requested services and prove their value.  the departments that refuse to adjust with the changes in the fire service will not be able to provide services people request in the manner that they request them.  For example-if a department refuses to embrace the social media usage, they may not be able to understand what and why their costumers desire.  They also may not be able to sell themselves and the services they are able to offer.

This article seemed to have been written by a closed minded person that did not consider his own research.

[Ron Bell]

I agree and disagree. Yes, things are changing. No, we will still do interior suppression.

This article is a good reference to create conversation on the topic of fire suppression activities, rescue role and responsibility, personal safety and post incident clean up to limit the risk of carcinogen exposure.

I agree with the author on the idea that fire is dangerous to occupants and firefighters and also deadly beyond the event to those exposed to products of combustion.

Fire flowpath training over the last few years has scientifically shown that the climate and culture of fire suppression activities are changing. Heritage versus modern materials burn differently, has different temperatures and different chemical profile during fire. This does not mean we will not be making interior fire suppression.

To compare this directly to a hazmat scene is a bit excessive. Yes fire and its products are hazardous. The chosen method of protection from fire and smoke is predetermined. Conversely, Hazmat scenes do require a slower, methodical approach to determine the identity of the product and exercise the best approach to mitigate the situation. The products are combustion during a fire event are already specified to use our gear, our SCBA, limit exposure and clean up post event. The hazmat decision making is reduced when dealing with an isolated fire.

Just because this guy wrote an article saying we need full level A suits and only fight interior fires if under 200 degrees does not mean we will stop doing what we do.

Mrs. Smith has an expectation that we will provide assistance to her in her time of need. We are a one stop shop for emergencies. We help people off the floor when they fall over, we provide medical care, we cut open cars on the roadway, we search for you in a house fire and we put out fire….and about a thousand other things.

We will adapt to a changing environment because of who we are and what is expected from us.

[dgerspacher]

I disagree with this article. It is true that we should be more aware of the toxins that we are exposed to and do everything possible to stay safe. I know I want to milk the hell out of my pension.

I would feel sorry for the department PR guy that would have to tell the citizens of a district that you were not going to fight fire inside structures anymore and you were going to also fine them if they had a fire. Hopefully you will not be asking for a levy anytime soon.

Their is merit behind being aware of time limits on conducting interior firefighting operations. Structures are more lightweight and studies show that collapse times are reducing but this guys statement that we not go in at all is stupid. We have all been on fires that we saved the structure and our customers belongings with a quick knock-down on a room and content fire. Are we  supposed to stand by and wait until it gets big enough to then put out from outside? Anybody who has ever worked with me knows I am more on the conservative side and don't have a gung-ho attitude about running in the front door on everything but this guys ideas are ridiculous.

Imagine putting level A suits on every time we have a fire for overhaul. This guy must have stock in a company that manufactures haz-mat suits.

[Kevin Stevens]

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

[jscottCCFD]

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. 

[brian.petry]

I agree with a thought that is expressed in the article, about a paradigm shift. This shift is in tactics on the time frame that interior firefighting can and will occur. I do not believe that interior firefighting will go away. Just as there has been a shift in wearing SCBA through overhaul since the atmosphere in the burned structure still has smoke coming from some of the items that had been on fire. The chemicals in smoke have been linked to causing cancer. Interior firefighting has already changed we are required to be smarter firefighters through knowing our enemy better. The fire is not what is going to kill us it is the structure collapse from the engineering that has gone into building cheaper and larger homes.

[ross.moffitt]

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.

[blykins]

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. 

[nunz]

           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.

          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.

[astafford]

I must say that I disagree too, though I do see what his point is, to lower the risk of developing cancer from being exposed to many toxins when performing an interior attack. His answer is to completely eliminate the interior attack and change the way we currently handle the fire scene.  In a harsh and a well-funded world that may be an option. We as firefighters take an Oath and hopefully realize the risk involved in performing this job. Now life here at St23 is much different than life at many other stations, but we do realize the risk and understand the threat of cancer and other conditions associated with this choice of a career. We take many steps in helping prevent said risk, from washing gear, practicing SLICERS tactics, Fire Prevention, using the risk assessment tool.  Our goal to protect life and property and ultimately protect ourselves from the risk of the job.  To say we will eliminate the interior is farfetched in my opinion. I don’t believe public opinion would be so open to the idea and to treat each scene as a Haz- mat situation would be costly.