By Mark J. Cotter
Firefighters and emergency responders have a long history of awarding our trust and respect to those who we think have more experience, and in return, we sometimes receive advice and instruction that can hurt or kill us or our customers. Our dedicated instructors and veteran responders don’t have devious intentions, but much of the information passed on from senior to junior members, and repeated again and again over several generations and careers, is wrong. Such misinformation might be communicated by word of mouth, in print, around the kitchen table, or in the classroom. In this series of columns, I intend to separate emergency service fact from fiction, science from magic, and, most importantly, right from wrong.
According to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, several definitions of “myth ” include: “1a: a usu. traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon; b: PARABLE, ALLEGORY”; and “2a: a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone, esp. one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society.” The fire and emergency services community probably qualifies as a segment of society (many would argue it is a society in and of itself), and we certainly have our share of beliefs and traditions. Using these definitions, a myth is not necessarily false or unfounded–it’s just something that is commonly believed.
In fact, many of our myths are actually inspiring and educational, especially when they illustrate our work and values. Themes such as heroism, lifesaving, and quick judgment, when ascribed to particular individuals or groups through a story or legend, are the basis of emergency services mythology. Positive myths might include a particularly gifted firefighter or officer, or a crew with a reputation for making aggressive and effective fire attacks or rescues. On the other hand, myths can be negative, such as a belief that a municipality “has it in” for the department’s members, maybe based on a bitter contract negotiation that occurred in the past. They can also be entertaining, such as accounts of a coworker who has had an extraordinary number of spouses or sexual liaisons.
These stories usually do not reach the status of myth until and unless the individuals involved are not directly affiliated with the listeners, a phenomenon that is addressed by another of the Merriam-Webster definitions: “3: a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence.” This separation might be the passage of time, such as when we recount the antics of a retired member, or a different locale, such as when we tell stories about some faraway department that we admire. Whether the storyteller is embellishing reality or merely repeating the story as it was told, the inability to verify the authenticity of the “facts” is what allows a basic story to reach the level of legend.
Myths can be viewed as an ingrained fact of life, and even a necessity, offering a ready method of passing on values and information. Storytelling preceded all other methods of recording and passing on the lessons of history. According to these definitions, a myth can be described as a rumor with a strong following.
The myths I intend to focus on in this series are not the possibly exaggerated fables of our brothers’ and sisters’ exploits and heroism, but only those beliefs and practices that meet this particular definition of the word: “2b: an unfounded or false notion.” In particular, I will go after those falsehoods that have been transformed into “lessons” that we are relating to our new members and each other. In fact, some of these planned targets might not yet be established myths since they are cutting-edge concepts and practices in emergency services that, thankfully in some cases, have not yet become “traditions.” For those “fresh” or “potential” myths, these articles might be viewed as an attempt at myth prevention.
Ready for an example? Water curtains. When I entered the fire service more than 30 years ago, the practice of spraying water between a fire and an exposure was an accepted method of preventing fire spread. It was so entrenched in practice that nozzle manufacturers had appliances that could be used for that purpose–basically a spray head with a narrow slit of an orifice oriented vertically that could be placed between two buildings, and supplied with a hoseline to provide a thin “wall” of water spray.
As with many fire service devices, departments that could not afford to purchase such a commercial product often fabricated their own–typically a short pipe with a female coupling on one end, and the other end almost butted against a larger metal plate, with about an eighth-inch separation, or with a capped end, with drilled slits or holes around the edge. Either arrangement produced a wide spray of water that could be maneuvered between something on fire and something not. You might still find these devices squirreled away in the pump operator compartments of older engines.
The main problem with this fountain-like demonstration of water flow was that it did not work, at least not for the purpose for which it was intended. Radiation, the primary means of heat transfer between nonadjacent bodies, occurs as easily through a water curtain as it does through air. Certainly convective heat and direct fire impingement are controlled, and the petroleum drilling industry continues to use these nozzles for those effects as they burn off gases on their off-shore platforms, but an exposure will readily absorb heat despite the pretty wall of water between it and the fire. Applying water directly to the exposure, which is more easily accomplished with a standard nozzle, is effective in cooling its surface, if not as impressive as a water curtain.
Looking at the practice of water curtains from our current vantage point, with knowledge of fire physics and in the context of this article, it is easy to see the futility of the practice. On the other hand, speaking from the perspective of someone who was taught about and drilled on setting up such a protective screen, I can assure you it made perfect sense at the time. If I stepped off the engine at a working house fire and was ordered to set up a water curtain to protect the as-yet-unburned home next door, I would have done so with as much effort and pride as if I was sent to attack the fire itself. The fact that it would have been much easier, not to mention actually useful, to just deploy a handline and spray water on the exposure would not have occurred to me or most anyone else at the time.
The persistence of the belief in and practice of water curtains demonstrates how myths take hold in our profession. It began with a problem: How can we limit fire spread between exposures, often buildings with only a few feet of separation? Next came a solution: Create a spray of water that is thin enough in one dimension to fit a in narrow space, but tall enough and wide enough in the other dimensions to cover a large area. The fact that this was an easy task using even homemade appliances likely helped promote its wide adoption.
Training on establishing water curtains focused on the performance of the evolution and the appearance of the “barrier” of water, but it took some time before someone checked to see whether that pretty spray was accomplishing its purpose. How many other activities do we drill on that have a similar unproven, or even disproven, effect? Such are the myths that I intend to address, and I have a long list already. These are things that sound right, look good, and are often widely adopted and practiced, but are useless.
At their core, the fire and emergency services are action-oriented; the most-admired practitioners are valued for taking definitive action in the worst circumstances, with little information, and in the face of incredible danger. With that mindset–do it now, keep it simple, ready-fire-aim–innovative methods that seem to support our mission of protecting life and property are often quickly adopted. Unfortunately, research and reason might be applied too late, if at all, sometimes after practices have become entrenched. We often institutionalize new ideas and tactics by discussing them at conferences and including them in training curriculums and even in textbooks. We may not ever take the time to critically evaluate the pros and cons, risks and benefits, and or the return on investment–and there is always an investment, whether it’s money, time, personnel, effort, or just attention.
For this column, my goal is to examine a variety of common current emergency service practices and beliefs under the harsh light of science and logic. I intend to critically look at a wide variety of assumed and accepted “facts” relevant to emergency operations that are erroneous, distracting, and dangerous. For those that have already been disproved–and there are many–the aim will be to encourage their abandonment in favor of more effective efforts. For the merely unproven, I hope a detached examination of the facts will show the need for obtaining evidence of value. Finally, I hope to instill a healthy sense of skepticism and inquiry that will continue to serve our industry and its workers as we face the inevitable and unending onslaught of new ideas and practices.
Just to whet your appetite, in future columns, I will examine such practices as rapid intervention team (RIT), large-area interior searches, line of duty death (LODD) reduction efforts, fire attack strategy, firefighter rehab, bailout techniques, fire cause determination, cervical spine immobilization, and advanced life safety (ALS) effectiveness. Prepare for some attacks on your beliefs, unlearning of facts and principles, and, hopefully, a clearer focus for our collective efforts.
Mark J. Cotter has more than 30 years experience in emergency services and is currently a volunteer lieutenant with the Salisbury (MD) Fire Department. He will be presenting “Emergency Service Myths” at FDIC 2009 in Indianapolis, Indiana, and can be reached at markjcotter@comcast.net.
- More articles by Mark Cotter
- More Fire Engineering Featured Content
- Firefighter training articles, drills, and simulations
Subjects: Firefighter strategy and tactics, fire service traditions and ceremonies
