LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Truss debate unwarranted
I have just finished reading the dual efforts of Francis Brannigan and John Mittendorf, “The Timber Truss: Two Points of View” (May 1991).
My question is. Why are there two points of view? Our prime consideration at any building fire should be safety. Too much confusion is created by giving different opinions on such a serious subject.
Mittendorf states that the size of the truss will affect the time a truss can withstand the effects of fire before collapsing. He also mentions that some timber truss roof’s are capable of lasting up to 50 minutes. Yet he discusses two bow-truss construction tires where a total of 1 1 firefighters were killed in collapses that occurred within .55 minutes after arrival.
In contrast. Brannigan has said in his book and numerous articles that the metal connectors can fail first. We must “Beware the Truss.” With lightweight construction, should firefighters be risking their lives in buildings where calculating collapse time is next to impossible?
Editor’s note. In the July 1991 issue of Fire Engineering, the article “Infection Control: Protecting Employers and Employees’ listed the following in the sidebar on education and training requirements: “Understanding the risk differences between Categories 1 (bloodbome) and 2 (airborne) diseases.” Actually, Category 1 refers not to bloodbome diseases but to people who come in contact with bkxxl and Ixxly fluids routinely in their work; Category 2 refers not to airborne diseases but to people, such as emergency responders, who might come in contact with such fluids but not as a routine part of their job.
The bottom line is that any kind of truss construction is dangerous under fire conditions. If the fire is attacking the truss at all, it can collapse quickly. Does the firefighter belong on or under a truss that is burning?
The article was reminiscent of “Metal Deck Roof Debate” (Fire Engineering, March 1988). The same authors came up with two ways to fight the type of fire involving a steel bar joist truss. Mittendorf placed firefighters on the roof to cut a trench through the roofing material only. Brannigan stated that it should be cooled down from underneath. Confusion again reigned.
Safety on the foreground cannot and must not be overlooked. Do we belong on or under that truss at all if it is involved in fire? If firefighters can die or be seriously injured, maybe they do not belong in that position. The foreground is not the time to start wondering if the truss is heavy or lightweight, or how long the fire has been attacking the truss.
John Vitale Captain First Line Supervisors Training Program New York (NY) Fire Academy
Myths about AIDS
The article “AIDS in the Fire Service” by Dave L. Silvani in the May issue, while excellent, left some questions unanswered. The statement by Silvani “AIDS is not transmitted through casual nonsexual contacts at home. school, work, or public places, including drinking from the same glass or drinking fountain, shaking hands, kissing, hugging, crying, coughing, or sneezing” is incorrect.
I refer you to an article by Lorraine Day, M.D., in the February issue of New Dimensions. Dr. Day is former chief of orthopedic surgery at San Francisco General Hospital. She is an internationally renowned surgeon who has spoken on the dangers of AIDS at more than 100 medical and scientific conferences.
Myth: The AIDS virus is a fragile virus. It dies on contact with the air. The AIDS virus is not fragile. It stays alive in saliva on a dry surface at room temperature for seven days, as reported by the Pasteur Institute in France in 1985 (Lancet, November 1985). The AIDS virus survives freezing (it is the method used to keep it alive for research). AIDS cannot be killed by all routine household detergents and disinfectants. The AIDS virus is more resistant to denaturing (killing) when it is dry than when it is wet. When a body fluid containing HIV such as blood, semen, saliva, or urine is dried on a surface, it is not killed by 70 percent ethyl alcohol (Hanson, Montreal AIDS Conference, June 1989). The resistance of the virus in the dried state increases the hazard to emergency service personnel. What about dried saliva on glasses and silverware? Dried urine on toilet seats?
Myth: Intact skin is a complete and effective barrier to the transmission of AIDS. First of all. there is no such thing as “intact skin.” All skin has hair follicles, sweat glands, and glands for skin oils. In addition, tiny cuts, abrasions, and chapped skin are routine for all of us, whether or not we are aware of these breaks. As reported by the Centers for Disease Control, two nurses have contracted AIDS from a few minutes of contact with infected blood on skin that the nurses felt was intact at the time of contamination (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, May 22, 1987, 36:285). The Centers for Disease Control wrote that skin and mucous membranes are pathways for the transmission of AIDS (Federal Register, May 30, 1989).
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Myth: The AIDS virus cannot he transmitted by coughing, sneezing, or breathing. The truth is that the possibility of transmission by this method has been not only completely ignored but severely ridiculed by researchers and public health authorities. Their statements of denial regarding transmission are based on household studies done for relatively short periods of time (sometimes for one year or less) with the subjects of the study tested only once, when the negative “window” can be as long as 3 ½ years.
There are no long-term studies being conducted to investigate the possibility of household contact transmission of AIDS. Yet public health authorities know that long-term household exposure can cause eventual contraction of some infectious diseases such as tuberculosis or leprosy.
When a person coughs, sneezes, or breathes, droplets of saliva or a fine airborne mist of saliva particles is projected from the mouth and nose. These small airborne particles usually are invisible but may remain airborne indefinitely and can be inhaled by another person. The AIDS virus does not “die” on contact with the air. Even a surgical mask does not filter out the AIDS virus particles. Most AIDS experts admit privately that they don’t know how many virus particles it takes to transmit AIDS —many say probably only one particle. But when asked why AIDS can’t be transmitted by respiratory aerosols (coughing, sneezing, or breathing), the answer is, “If it could be transmitted that way, everyone would have the disease.” That type of unscientific thinking is unworthy of those whose obligation it is to protect the uninfected. For example, all public health officers know that tuberculosis is transmitted by respiratory aerosols, and yet not everyone has TB.
Another frequent response of health officials is, “There are no reported cases of transmission by respiration, coughing, or sneezing.” No one mentions that the Centers for Disease Control is not investigating this method of transmission because it has arbitrarily decided that it can’t happen. Yet it bases its assumption on the absence of data rather than on properly designed experiments showing a negative result. In addition, when the method of transmission is investigated, it is always assigned to the most obvious risk factor such as heterosexual sex with several partners, any type of homosexual sex, or suspected drug use. It would be very difficult to prove transmission by the aerosol route in most cases.
However, the recent case of a dentist allegedly giving AIDS to a young woman patient may become the first recognized case of transmission by respiratory aerosols. Both the patient and the dentist (now deceased) have denied that the dentist got stuck by a needle or cut during the procedure, and both acknowledged that he was wearing rubber gloves. The Centers for Disease Control, in a published report of this case, also confirm there is no evidence that any of the dentist’s blood came in contact with the patient. DNA sequencing was conducted on the two to confirm sources of transmission.
Myth: Heterosexuals don’t get AIDS. A few years ago we were told that only homosexuals can transmit AIDS. Then IV drug users (through the practice of needle sharing) were added to the list. We now know that male/ female sexual contact with an AIDSinfected partner can transmit AIDS.
Myth: Using a condom is safe sex. Women very well know that the worst method of birth control is the condom. The most recent studies show a pregnancy rate of 14.2 percent with the use of condoms, and women can get pregnant only three to four days per month. AIDS can be transmitted every day of the month. So the figure 14.2 percent would have to be doubled, tripled, or possibly quadrupled for the transmission of AIDS. Condoms tear, break, come off, and can develop small invisible holes if they dry out or are exposed to certain air pollutants or lubricants.
There is far more about AIDS that we don’t know than do know. We must be very careful when around someone with AIDS. The disease doesn’t just cause a rash. It kills you.
George Yarns Ex-Chief
Clark Summit (PA) Fire Company
21st century firefighter
Congratulations to Bill Manning for his June 1991 editorial opinion, which has been too long in coming. He hit the issue squarely on the mark; how painful it is to see it in writing in
a national magazine! It should be obvious that prevention is manifestly less expensive and more effective than suppression. There are those who will disagree, but the tide is turning. Keep up the good work.
Ralph B. Cardinal Casper (WY) Fire Department
The debate goes on
Congratulations to Peter G. Sparber for providing us with a true perspective on the legislative process in “HazMat Legislation: The Debate Goes On” (March 1991). Do any of us still believe that things happen in Congress because the members simply decide what is good or bad and then vote? The real game played in Washington and every state capital is called “politics,” and it is played very much as Sparber describes it.
It amazes me to see A1 Whitehead, a master of the political process, and Representative Applegate, a full-time politician (each had a letter to the editor in the June 1991 issue), crying foul because someone had the audacity to accurately describe what is going on with haz-mat legislation.
With all due respect to Applegate, his name has been attached to a conceptual system that costs far too much and achieves far too little. The International Association of Fire Fighters has been promoting “the system” for at least four years, using every political maneuver in the book to work for its implementation. This includes attacking any individual or organization that dares to question its feasibility or whether it is the best answer to the real problems that we face. In his most recent letter, Whitehead proclaims his self-righteous indignation over Sparber’s description of the political process taking place and insinuates that Fire Engineering is displaying wanton disregard for the health and safety of firefighters by publishing such a column. Maybe we need to look at this process in those simple terms of “good” and “bad.”
If we follow the IAFF logic, the National Volunteer Fire Council and the Hazardous Materials Committee of the International Association of Fire Chiefs are had. They are tainted with the “influence of the chemical companies” because they chose not to support the Applegate bill. 1 find Whitehead’s accusations outrageous with respect to the IAFC, Haz-Mat Committee, and I suspect that the same should apply to the NVFC. The IAFC committee is made up primarily of officers who are directly involved in responding to and managing hazardous-materials incidents, and they concluded that the proposed system was not feasible and not the best answer to the problem. Is that considered irresponsible?
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
The IAFF also has been conducting an anti-CHEMTREC campaign and seems to have succeeded in convincing Applegate that CHEMTREC is bad because it is funded by the chemical companies. Applegate believes that “firefighters across the nation have condemned CHEMTREC and now refuse to use it”; this must come as a surprise to CHEMTREC, because they seem to get more and more calls every year.
We can only wonder why it is so important in the IAFF strategy to discredit CHEMTREC and to malign any individual or organization that does not support the proposed “Applegate system.” We all are expected to believe that this system is so important to tlie health and safety of firefighters that we should completely disregard questions of feasibility and cost and jump on the bandwagon. Alternative approaches are not to be considered
We have to assume that Applegate was convinced by a group of good individuals who honestly believe that the proposed system will save hundreds of lives. These good individuals may not even have realized that there is a potential for tens of millions of dollars of profit to be made by the operators of such a system, as soon as the law requires everyone in the hazmat business to pay the franchised operator a fee to register even shipment. That may be one reason the chemical companies are not crazy about the idea.
We are expected to give unquestioning support to a plan that would generate these profits for some good people who happen to own big computers. Then these people will split some of the profits with us by giving us computer terminals and tracking data about the chemicals the chemical companies are trying to sneak through our local areas. The good people also will share more of the profits with us to develop training programs and do other things to make the world safe and wonderful. We can have a guaranteed share of the profits and take no responsibility for the outcome.
The dream that wras Applegate’s has been sidetracked by the very political process that was supposed to let it happen. It has been sent to the National Academy of Sciences for a feasibility study. Now, all of the interested parties get to participate in the “influence-the-study” phase of the political process and Applegate can take credit for accomplishing half of something.
Next time Congress meets we can get back to serious deal making and confusion. Now that we understand the political process, maybe we can all get together and agree on a simple legislative package that is not prohibitively expensive and really helps us to prevent and to manage hazardousmaterials incidents. I am sure that we all will recognize it and it will sweep through Congress with unanimous support. I hope that in future columns Sparbcr will keep us updated on how much progress we are making toward that goal.
J. Gordon Routley
Phoenix, Arizona
Residential sprinklers
The fire service owes hire Engineering Assistant Editor Mary Jane Dittmar a standing vote of thanks for the comprehensive and thoroughly documented article “Residential Automatic Sprinklers: Grass Roots Initiatives,” which appeared in the June 1991 issue of Fire Engineering.
This in-depth article tells both sides of the story. On one side, the fire service is realizing that residential sprinklers will not only save civilian lives but their own as well.
The builders’ side of the story also is well-told. I can testify to the accuracy of the statements made by the builders because I have heard them firsthand. In fact, I have a videotape made of the hearing by the Massachusetts State Board of Building Regulations and Standards when it turned down Egremont’s local option sprinkler bill; the words are verbatim. The biggest objection is cost.
Residential sprinklers may be controversial, but this is due partially to fear of the unknown on the part of home owners. We need to do a better job of educating the end user. We also need to be able to get the code writers and builders to sit in a room set on fire without sprinklers and then have them do the same thing in a room equipped with an approved sprinkler system. This will separate the men from the boys and fact from fiction in a hurry.
I would be remiss if I did not give a great deal of credit to Harry Shaw, consultant to Operation Life Safety, who helped Egremont and West Stockbridge obtain the federal grant from the National Fire Administration and FEMA, which was used to fund the Egremont Fire Technology and Sprinkler Demonstration. In addition, without the dedicated help of Franz Masse, Dr. Rung of Factory Mutual Research, and Tom Smith of the National Fire Administration, the Egremont bum never would have taken place. To all of them and Eire Engineering, we extend our hearty thanks for a job well done.
William H. Weigle SecretaryITrustee
Egremont (MAJ Eire Department
Cover letters
In the July 1991 issue, once again personal safety’ is jeopardized by the rescuer. I am speaking about the cover on which FDNY rescuers arc not wearing proper protective equipment. The firefighter on the rope is not wearing any, and the others are only wearing partial protection—and there is a fire on the floors above them. These brave souls are no good to anyone if they are injured during this incident. Once again the old traditional ways are being utilized. It’s not macho. Personal safety should always be the number one priority. Always. 1 hope that all young and prospective firefighters do not get this senseless. Shame on these “brave” souls for setting such a bad example. Next time it could cost them their lives, and we will say, “If they would have worn proper clothing, this could have been avoided.”
Steve May
Firefighter City of Rialto, California
Your July 1991 cover story and photos inspired me to write. I am sure you have received many letters criticizing these men for not wearing full protective clothing or for even attempting such a dangerous rescue. But instead of being critical, I would like to praise these men for a job very well done. In the fire service we sometimes are confronted with situations where bravery, teamwork, and talent are the only things that get us through. We face a lot of dangers. Many are everyday hazards like diesel exhaust fumes in stations, apparatus accidents, and the dangers of hypertension, heart disease, and job stress. Too many firefighters lose their lives from these dangers and others, and we should work hard to decrease them because we can.
Picture yourself in a situation similar to the one in Manhattan that day. Could you trust your team to lower you on the end of that rope? Could you trust your equipment? Could you even trust yourself? In many urban areas, some of the people we are risking our lives for are the same people who call in false alarms, set fires, and throw rocks at apparatus. Many cities are in financial distress, and the cutbacks have taken their toll on the fire departments. Yet these firefighters make some of the most daring and heroic “grabs” despite all that.
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
The members of FDNY Rescue 1 proved that day that “guts” and “brotherhood” still exist in today’s fire service. It is up to all of us to keep these two things alive and strong in these times—so the next person (be it a civilian or a brother firefighter) whose life depends on you and your team can have the best.
Douglas Smith Firefighter
Bridgeport (CT) Fire Department
Standards for dispatchers
I recently read the call for dispatcher standards in a Letter to the Editor in your July 1991 issue. I previously had read that the NFPA was issuing a call for interest on this particular matter. I am communicating my thoughts directly to the NFPA and would like to offer some observations.
There are a number of standardmaking organizations already addressing standards for dispatchers. The ASTM emergency medical services standard series, for example, may include the telecommunicator both from a training and a performance guideline standpoint. It is also possible that ASTM’s standard committee on search and rescue may develop similar guidelines or standards for telecommunications personnel in the search and rescue field.
The Associated Public Safety Communications Officers has developed a national training curriculum for telecommunicators. This standard is referenced in many states as the standard for 911 centers as well as for dispatch centers. The International Municipal Signal Association and the International Association of Fire Chiefs are involved in a joint approach to the fire alarm and fire dispatcher training and certification process previously operated soley by IMSA.
At last count 27 states have established or arc establishing some minimum standards for telecommunicators who are requiring some form of training and certification. A number of these states have adopted the Emergency Medical Dispatcher Training Program developed by I)r. Jeff (dawson.
UTTERS TO THE EDITOR
Much of the initiative in setting the standards for telecommunicators or requiring training and certification comes from passage and implementation of statewide 91 1 initiatives. These initiatives either set requirements for 91 1 or provide funding mechanisms should communities meet the relevant state standards.
It is clear that we need to be very careful about whether or not we develop yet another set of standards or another method of training and certification. If there is a clear-cut need for such an approach, then we should definitely do it. If, however, the demand for additional standard-making activity on the part of organizations such as the NFPA comes from a lack of awareness of existing standards and existing training and certification methods, then we need to stop and reassess the matter. If the demand comes from a desire to establish some form of standard that will allow for lateral transfer among communications agencies, the issue differs from trying to establish a standard of performance. We must know exactly what it is we are attempting to do before we move into yet another standard-making process.
Timothy R.S. Campbell Director, Emergency Services Chester County, Pennsylvania
A look from the outside
We read with great interest “NFPA 1904: A Look from the Inside” by John P. Morello in the April 1991 issue of Eire Engineering, and the thoughts provoked by it are in great measure our reason for writing.
We were not involved in the drafting of NFPA 1904 as we should have been in that we manufacture the Aerialscope and are affected by the content of its publication. The reason we were not involved would make sense only to historians. Morello’s admonition to get involved is certainly good advice and has not fallen on deaf ears.
The changes in aerial equipment to comply with 1904 are, as the article mentioned, far-reaching. We reflect the opinions we discern from the article that perhaps everyone affected has yet to learn of the costs imposed in compliance.
Our organization and several employees have participated in drafting standards in other industries and artfamiliar with the processes. We realize that practically every issue has at least two sides; Morello’s opinion is, we assume, the minority opinion of the NFPA Fire Department Equipment Committee. He raises interesting issues.
Gary A. McAlexander President
Baker Equipment Engineering Co.
Richmond. Virginia
