Assignment 4

[Haggard]

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.

Justin,
I found your response to the article both humorous and exactly like everyone else who has read it.  We all agree that we are doing the things that need to be done to ensure our safety and the safety of our residents.   T

[astafford]

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.

I am with you Larry! I believe a well ran prevention bureau will communicate to the public the importance of fire prevention; in return lessen our risk of catching the cancer. I believe having a prevention officer who is passionate about fire prevention can make a large impact on the community.     

[Ron Bell]

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.

I agree. Big fires happen less, but still happen. Our approach is modified, but still includes interior attack for suppression. I also believe if Mrs. Smith has a house fire we should not consider her a criminal, she is a victim of fire loss not a criminal.

[Ron Bell]

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 enjoyed the satirical approach to break down his views of what we should do, who is responsible and how the victims should be held accountable. The sad part is this guy writes a published article and receives instant credibility as a "specialist". We are supposed to learn his beliefs and add a portion of it to our toolbox. If this guy is a leader in his organization I hope for the community he serves his organization is not full of mindless "Yes" men.

[kclary21]

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.

I agree with your view on this.  If we don't do anything at a fire, why would we be there?  Also, it is a good reminder to think about what you are reading and who the author is.  We don't know anything about them except for the bio they put in with the article. 

[kclary21]

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.

Good points.  When you deliver that message to your public, that will be the end of your department.  Sometimes you have to go inside just to get to the fire.  That is what keeps little fires from becoming big ones. 

[nunz]

     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.

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.

I agree with you, we still have to do our jobs. Although we can be more mindful when we do it though. Construction materials and interior furnishing contain a lot of hazardous materials and that's what we have to be careful of. That's why I think we have to make sure we put our PPE on correctly and completely, along with keeping it on until the area can be monitored. Also better tactics, like hitting it from the yard, it's works.

[nunz]

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.

I understand what this guy was trying to say but I think he went a little too far. There's always going to have to be some sort of interior attack or at least make sure the fire is out and no hot spots. But to say to stop it completely is a little much. The fire industry is changing and there's a lot of testing and research being done to protect us. We as firefighters have to accept these changes and that we can't go on doing the same things we have been doing ten years ago or even 5 years ago. They're are depts. that refuse to change their tactics or the way they do things and it shows.

By the way I still see cowboys.

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

[blykins]

     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.

I agree, education, training to change how we fight fires today and in the future along with understanding the cancer risk is hopefully what the author was getting at.   

[blykins]

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, UL has been doing fire testing for years, longer than this guy has been alive.  UL research is trusted.  this guys thoughts are not.

[slong]

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.

I agree with you.  I think the author is taking things to the extreme with his thinking.

[slong]

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 think your point about the tax payers is very true.  I would be very hard to pass a levy with this guys ideas.

[nullj.21]

One of the big problems with holding the home owners liable would be the insurance companies involvement. Insurance companies are cost driven.  They don't want to lose money even if it means not doin the right thing.  This is one f the reasons why you see insurance companies coming after fire departments for action or inactions taken during extinguishment.  Fire departments have bigger pockets than home owner and that is why they are coming after us.  So I strongly doubt insurance companies would go after home owners.  If they did it would be to get out of paying a claim. 

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.
[/quote]

[nullj.21]

As far as being aware of toxins and reducing or avoiding our exposure to them- The fire service in Europe is having great success with techniques that control our exposure to toxins.  They are having great success and still performing interior fire attacks.  The US fire service should look into some of these techniques (but still wear tradiiotnal fire helmets).

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.
[/quote]

[dgerspacher]

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.

I like the way you give Troy his well deserved kudos on being an expert. Dont forget, we have had a long list of "classroom experts" that deserve mention also.  ;