Assignment 4

[klalich]

     The point of the blog being to completely eliminate exposures to carcinogens on a structure fire is admirable, but I don’t know how feasible it would be to eliminate interior firefighting.  I disagree that firefighters are unaware of the risks of cancer like the cowboys and the railroad. I do agree with the author regarding the use of transitional attack, controlling the flow path, and the survivability profile of victims.  We have tried to limit the exposure like other organizations and should keep striving to find better ways to eliminate the risk of exposure. 

     There are many ways to reduce the risk of fire in communities.  Education of the public, code enforcement, and new building standards all help reduce the chances of a fire, but there is still a need to extinguish fires.  I believe our standard practice of doing thing safely and being mindful that structure fires are toxic greatly reduce our exposure locally. 

     I do agree with the idea of preventing cancer.  As the fire service evolves from traditional tactics to tactics based on scientific research I believe the risk to carcinogens will also be reduced.  We should always be looking at ways to limit risks and complete our jobs.   

[Haggard]

     The article has some good points which CCFD personnel abide.  We do “hit it hard from the yard” when we need to and when the circumstances require us to fight fire from the inside, we do. We provide public awareness and inspect businesses regularly.

     All throughout history, any structural firefighting incident was a hazmat incident.  The past just didn’t have the technology to incorporate a “safer” way of firefighting.  The safety industry has come a long way and will continue to make advancements for a safer profession.  There are still firefighters that do not wear their SCBA Mask when they should and do not keep their gear cleaned appropriately.  By firefighters continuously doing these things, will only increase the risk of firefighters developing cancer.
 
     I definitely do not agree with the author on us telling the public we will no longer fight fires from the inside, this is a career killer.  If we are not going in, then why does the community need us?  We will do what is needed to be done and do it as safely as possible.

     The author gets his ass handed to him in the comment section by the readers, as like any author, it is just his opinion, the reader can take what he read or disregard it.

[twilson21]

I disagree with the author as most of you do.  I think his motivation, or at least I hope, is to be thought provoking.  In recent years the cancer initiative fight has been a priority for the fire service.  We should learn what is hurting us and take measures to help limit exposure but to take a stand that eliminates attacking a structure fire is unrealistic and irresponsible.  Improving tactics during an incident and increasing knowledge of how to decontaminate after one is where the fight should be.  Convincing the public we serve that we will NOT be fighting a fire will be an extremely hard sell.  I don't believe any public education attempt would satisfy that goal.  Public education is still a primary objective and we should continue to promote the use of smoke/CO detectors and fire safety as a whole. When we arrive on an incident people want us to do everything that we can do to save them or their property.  Again I think his all out cease and desist method is his extreme way of getting fire professionals to be more thoughtful in our approach to our health and well being.  As someone else posted, throughout the article I was waiting for the “but…” but it never came.

[dgerspacher]

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

The 911 call from the lady in Florida brings up a good point. I am a firm believer in only risking a lot to save savable lives but that audio was a wake up call that human beings do not always follow scientific studies. Listening to the fire in the background I am sure that the house looked unsurvivable long before she had passed.

[NUrban]

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

 

The 911 call from the lady in Florida brings up a good point. I am a firm believer in only risking a lot to save savable lives but that audio was a wake up call that human beings do not always follow scientific studies. Listening to the fire in the background I am sure that the house looked unsurvivable long before she had passed.

This is a strange post since I am double quoting.  However; David, I completely agree with you with relating the Florida scene to contemporary fire service literature.  There are many avenues for us to continue to educate ourselves in today's fire service, some are good and some are not so good.  It is important for us to use discretion when reading articles and taking classes, that we understand that it may or may not work in our organization.  We should also be cautious of radicals. 

[LCarman]

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.
 

[jlogsdon]

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.

[jbuehler]

While I agree with the author about changing the way we approach the exposure of firefighters to toxic environments, I disagree with his approach to predicting when lives are savable. We cannot just assume everyone is dead. Many other factors contribute to survivability other than the sound of smoke detectors. He is correct in saying that we should be treating scenes more like hazmat events. We need to implement decontamination as a standard part of our operation. We should also make decontamination in returning equipment to service a much higher priority. There are several steps we can take to reduce our exposure. Just look around the station at some of the material posted about cancer awareness. The problem is that people don’t do it. This same lack of action is true about many other areas of firefighter wellness and safety. Whether it is returning from a structure fire, taking the time to exercise or choosing to improve your diet, we need to do a better job of taking care of ourselves. Coach Urban Meyer describes these actions as “below the line behavior” in his book Above the Line. They are referred to as BCD’s. Blame (others), complain (about circumstances), and defend (yourself), or BCD’s. When there is a lot of BCD going on, it means people are not owning their mistakes, not being accountable, and it typically means you are continually hearing excuses for why things don’t happen (Meyer, 2015). As leaders we must continuously maintain our expectations and hold each other accountable. This may not be a popular choice, but in the end people will be thankful.

[LCarman]

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.

[jbuehler]

Well said Kyle. I agree with many of your observations. It is an admirable task but must be approached with a sense of reality. I definitely agree with your suggestion of public education. Changing public perception of how we do our jobs will be a large part of cultural acceptance.

[jbuehler]

Adam, I agree this point of view is pretty far-fetched. Obviously, there are many situations out there like station 23’s that prohibit a “perfect prevention” scenario. I am aware of how much time and effort you have put into this topic and I am very grateful for your efforts! However, I feel that culturally we have a lot more work to do before people start to embrace the idea of firefighter heath and wellness.

[steve.cox]

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!!!!

[steve.cox]

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.

You are spot on with your comment about staying up to date with the fires we face today.  NIST is an excellent example of that.  Our industry for the first time is starting to ask the question "Why".  Why do we do it this way, why do we continue to kill 100 guys a year.  Things are starting to change.  It is up to us to continue this change to make it better for us now and others later.

[ross.moffitt]

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.

Bryan I think you make a good point about residential sprinkler systems. I believe if we could implement those that it would save lives and cut down on cancer to firefighters. This guys approach is extreme but he does make some good points. We as firemen need to be better at protecting ourselves.

[ross.moffitt]

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.

Joel I like how you reference other great leaders in your reply. Some people will write about anything, and they will get people to follow them like lost puppies. I feel for the most part we firefighters know the risk we take. I'm sure most of don't want cancer but we also don't want to see our citizens die in structure fires if we can prevent it.