So it used to be that the biggest health threat to firefighters was heart attack. However now departments, especially bigger cities, are starting to realize that the much bigger threat to firefighters is cancer.

From 2002-2017 cancer was responsible for 61% of line of duty full time FF deaths and 70% of off duty full time FF deaths.

Firefighters are around 300% more likely to get certain types of cancer than the general public.

Luckily the fire service is starting to make a shift to help reduce the risk. Instead of wearing your air pack/mask only when the smoke is really bad, masks are being worn anytime FFs are in the building (Within reason), departments are providing gear washers and extra flame resistant hoods & gear to allow FFs to immediately switch into a clean set while their primary set is being washed. And more information is available now on prevention and detection.

Our local Fox affiliate did a great report on this recently, it's about 50 minutes long but I'd highly recommend watching it.

https://www.fox25boston.com/ne...n-killer_1/715283731

I was a volunteer firefighter for 15 years.

For about half of that, I was an officer, ending up as a house captain.

I was qualified as an interior firefighter, but we had plenty of them. Competent pump operators, not so much, so I concentrated on running the pumper. If that position was covered, I usually did exterior overwatch/safety officer.

Nobody ever questioned packing up to attack the fire. (Duh...)

But, I was MUCH less successful getting them to pack up for overhaul.

"The fire's out. What's the problem?" Uh...smoke, fumes, airborne particles. Some of the older interior guys flat refused to pack up for overhaul, and the Chief let them get away with it, leaving me to look like an asshole.

One of several reasons I gave it up.

Seattle FD and University of Washington have been studying cancer rates in firefighters for at least 30 years.

Part of the problem was the firefighters themselves who continued unsafe work practices such as wearing contaminated turnouts for years and years because anyone who had clean turnouts had to be a rookie or scared of going into a fire. The leather lungers who never wore an air pack because anyone who did was a pussy. And then the guys who smoked and never wore an air pack and couldn't figure out why lung cancer deaths were so high. We all drove diesel engines with no ventilation in the fire stations to exhaust it out so you ate, worked, and slept in fumes.

When I was a new hire in 1979 I took a lot of shit for wearing an air pack even during overhaul. When I promoted seven years later anyone who worked at my station knew that they had better have an air pack on in smokey conditions and during overhaul. As more studies came out I took a lot of shit for putting my engine out of service so my crew could shower and take care of their equipment and clean up.

It seems like the west coast was always 15 years ahead of the east coast safety wise but we shoulder part of the blame along with kiss ass administrators who were to afraid to ask for funding to protect us because they didn't want to piss off the mayor or the city council. When the vertical standards and NFPA standards were finally adopted nationwide it was a Godsend because it forced departments to do it right.

Since I retired I would guess 30 others have and 1/3rd have some sort of cancer. I consider myself lucky but also feel I did as much as possible to protect my health. Some of the guys who are still working have suffered from cancer and it's not just cancer, it's weird cancers only firefighters get. A lot of young guys statewide have died of cancer in the fire service. It was a hell of a job and if I had to do it all over again I wouldn't change a thing except to push firefighter safety harder than I did.

quote:

Originally posted by oldfireguy:
It seems like the west coast was always 15 years ahead of the east coast safety wise

The west coast is ahead of the east on a lot of things related to the fire service, not just safety.

In my day when I used to teach at the local county fire academy we used to quote the #1 single cause of line of duty deaths was from heart attack.
The statistic was 48%. I lost a friend to a heart attack at a fire years ago.
I have been out of the service for several years. I am not up to date with the latest info.

My former career was working with fire investigators. They were seeing a statistically significant occurrence of bladder cancer in fire investigators. The push then was to even have investigators visiting the scenes wear respirators, even days after the actual fire.

What does the term "overhaul" mean to a firefighter? Dean

I spent 8 years as Paid On-Call in a fairly busy suburban department much earlier in my adult life. Even then it was clear that the influx of synthetic materials in structures was making the environment in and after a fire much more hazardous.

Once the fire was out and PPV had the structure visibly clear, masks came off and hung uselessly on your regulator during overhaul. If it was a nasty environment you might leave it on but typically a dust mask were all you had. Walking out of a structure covered in that blow in ground paper insulation like a snow man was typical at every scene.

Several of the older full time Fire Fighters that I served with fell to cancer, but a lot of them were smokers too. I always wondered about the guys who would come out of the structure remove their mask, and light a cigarette as they walked over to have their bottle changed.

Just finishing first year of treatment and screenings for work related (presumptive) melanoma . Worked every position from firefighter to Batt. Chief since 1977. Big changes in how we deal with contamination (Both Fire and Medical) since the time I started.

in 1964 the Moose club* had a benefit for an injured firefighter and his family , the Quonset hut meeting hall had 35 civilians and 35 fire fighters in it .

there wasn't a single fire fighter that was not smoking, you could not see the other end of the building.and ! and!
all the side windows were open as were the end doors.
since then I notice that more than a few fire fighters do smoke.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyal_Order_of_Moose

quote:

Originally posted by ryan81986:

quote:

Originally posted by oldfireguy:
It seems like the west coast was always 15 years ahead of the east coast safety wise

The west coast is ahead of the east on a lot of things related to the fire service, not just safety.

Interesting. Like what? (I'm not a firefighter)

quote:

What does the term "overhaul" mean to a firefighter? Dean

Overhaul is after the fire is out and all the smoldering crap has to be taken out of what's left of the structure. It's the bust your ass shitty work and the most dangerous because of all the smoldering crap. Firefighters hated wearing air packs during overhaul and would remove them and ended up breathing the most toxic of the smoke.

I’m towards the end of my career now, 24 years on the job and shift commander with the rank of Captain. Overhaul, as stated is the worst time to be dropping your face piece off. We have for years not allowed anyone to come off air until the structure is metered for carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide and those levels drop to zero. What we aren’t great at is getting our pump operators in the street to mask up when the smoke is blowing their way....I believe rhode island had a case of the pump operator dropping dead from cyanide poisoning during a smokey fire.

quote:

Interesting. Like what? (I'm not a firefighter)

There is an old saying in firefighting, never let tradition get in the way of common sense or safety. Probably the first 20 years of my career I never saw a photo of an east coast firefighter wearing an air pack and when I did they never had the mask on. They were the true smoke eaters of the fire service and were dying and going out on disabilities early in their careers.

There are lots of other things but unless you did the job it's hard to understand. They were killing dozens of guys during overhaul of buildings that collapsed during the process that would have been torn down anyway. I'm not talking twin towers stuff, I'm talking about burned out structures that were gutted and were not going to be salvaged. Ventilation practices, protective clothing, etc.

There comes a point where you have to weigh the risk vs the outcome. Why kill firefighters for buildings that are going to be destroyed anyway? It never made much sense to me and others. Now if there is a rescue then by all means it was balls out to get them or attempt to. It's a dangerous job and for me, if I had died trying to rescue someone then so be it but to die to save an insurance company some money is total bullshit when the building is going to be torn down anyway.

quote:

Originally posted by ryan81986:

quote:

Originally posted by oldfireguy:
It seems like the west coast was always 15 years ahead of the east coast safety wise

The west coast is ahead of the east on a lot of things related to the fire service, not just safety.

I can explain that in one sentence

"200 years of tradition, unimpeded by progress"

I think we just said the same thing in different words.

quote:

Originally posted by oldfireguy:
I think we just said the same thing in different words.

and at exactly 1418hrs

Wait, "overhaul" means the FD is carrying out furniture, papers, computers or whatever from a burned-out building? That seems crazy to me.

Yes Doc,
It’s to prevent a rekindle. It’s hot, dirty, and sometimes dangerous due to structural collapse and exposure to carcinogens.

As a follow up to the initial poster, while the IAFF may view those deaths as LODD most cities and states are still way behind in regards to considering cancer as line of duty. Even more frustrating is the fact that in my state certain types of cancer are presumptive so if you are diagnosed in theory it’s paid for with workman’s comp. We have learned that the normal practice is to deny any claims and only pay after a long fight. Sometimes the fight is so long that the firefighter is dead before it’s ruled work men’s comp.

The fire service has a lot of really good traditions, a lack of awareness in regards to cancer is not one of them.

quote:

Wait, "overhaul" means the FD is carrying out furniture, papers, computers or whatever from a burned-out building? That seems crazy to me.

There was a point to it and that was looking for hot spots so the fire would not rekindle and helping home owners recover items. It just got to a point where we were cleaning out the entire structures which is the job of the insurance company. A couple of years before I retired more and more departments were putting out the fires, looking for hot spots without hauling everything out, and moving on because we had just gotten to busy to stick around for hours and hours.

We have had presumptive cancer coverage in Washington for fire for several years and it actually works. The state cannot deny a claim unless they prove otherwise so the burden of proof is on the state. With all the studies that UW and doctors have been doing on firefighters here the state has not ever had a case they denied that I'm aware of.