LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Hi-tech communication breakdown
If you stop and look around the fire service today, you might notice that our ability to communicate with each other on the foreground has significantly improved—or has it? With the opening of the UHF-TV frequency band and enhanced trunking of the 800 megahertz band, we have taken the pressure off the VHF band to conduct all our incidents. Now we have cellular phones with fax machines and mobile data terminals that don’t require any voice communication. This ability to “speed up” the dispatching process and transmit more information is seen as a wonderful advancement in safety and technology. Hut are we going too far?
Step into the cab of your fire engine and pick up the radio. Whom can you talk to today vs. whom you could talk to yesterday? Try to talk to the neighboring fire department on your new 800-MHz radio. Did your department buy the other department a radio so that both of you could work an incident together? Chances are the answer is no.
Remember when you shared a single frequency with seven other fire departments and everyone was competing for air time? A second-alarm fire was a nightmare for everyone involved. The advantage was that you could talk to all the units assigned to the incident Can you do that now with your 800-MHz radio system that the other six cities did not want to share? Can they afford to buy new radios? Probably not.
At the same time technology takes us forward, it also alienates us and sends us backward to an era prior to the development of mutual-aid frequencies and agreements.
Everyone is talking about “unity in the fire service.” How can we have unity when we can’t even pick up the radio and talk to each other? It’s all dollars and sense: Why don’t we use some sense before using some dollars?
Tim Karp
Rancho Palos Verdes, California
Letters on letters
In Letters to the Editor in the September issue, two items need to be clarified for your readers.
The first item appears in the Editor’s Note on page 28, which clarifies the differences between employee communicable disease exposure risk categories. In this clarification, emergency responders are erroneously described as being in the Category II risk group, which applies to employees who might be exposed to blood and body fluids but not as a routine part of their jobs. Actually, the Centers for Disease Control recognizes firefighters, emergency medical technicians, and paramedics as being Category I employees, or those who come in contact with blood and body fluids routinely in their work. This determination was made at a meeting at CDC in 198″*, just prior to the development of “Guidelines for Prevention of Transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Hepatitis B Virus to Health Care and Public Safety Workers.’’ Many fire service and emergency medical service groups, including the United States Fire Administration, worked hard to ensure that emergency responders were identified as being in this category.
The reason that emergency responders are classified as Category I employees is clearly evident. The CDC Guidelines state, “Fire and emergency medical service personnel are engaged in delivery of medical care in the pre-hospital setting.” The Guidelines also state, “The modes of transmission noted in the hospital and medical office environment are observed in the work situations of emergency and public safety workers, as well. Therefore, the principles of infection control developed for hospital and other healthcare settings are also applicable to these work situations.” The same rationale is identified in current and proposed Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations and the National Fire Protection Association standard, NFPA 1581, Standard for a Fire Department Infection Control Program.
The second item that needs clarification is the letter from Ex-Chief George Yarns of Clark Summit, Pennsylvania, entitled, “Myths about AIDS.” It is important to note at this point that the USFA, the lead federal agency in dealing with infection control issues as they relate to emergency responders, is currently developing a “Guide to Developing and Managing an Emergency Service Infection Control Program” and a two-day National Fire Academy field course entitled, “Infection Control for Emergency Response Personnel: The Supervisor’s Role.” These are hotli being developed by a team of experts from across the country, in cooperation with the CDC and OSHA; both have been reviewed by NFFA I 581 developers and more than 100 experts and other informed individuals from across the nation. Thus, it is of great concern to us that some of the common “myths” that we are trying to dispel through these efforts are identified as “facts” by Yarns.
Some of the information in Yarns’ letter is absolutely correct: “Intact skin” alone is not an effective barrier against bloodborne pathogens and anyone can transmit HIV or HBV or even the newest concern, Hepatitis C. It must be noted, however, that studies and research conducted more recently than those identified by Yarns contradict some of the other assertions in his letter.
It is important that fire and EMS personnel understand the risks they face. In fact, education and training in infection control are required by current and proposed OSHA regulations. Fire and EMS managers should ensure that they base managerial and programmatic policies on accurate infection-control information, such as that provided by the CDC, OSHA, the NFFA, the USFA, and their local public health agency.
Olin L. Greene
U.S. Fire Administrator
Emmitsburg, Maty land
The letter to the editor in the September issue from firefighter Steve May of Rialto, California, has shocked and angered me. His use of the word “senseless” in reference to the rope rescues made by Patrick Barr and Kevin Shea from a burning midtown high-rise is appalling. May also states in his letter, “Shame on these ‘brave’ souls for setting such a bad example.” 1 cannot believe that I’m reading one brother wishing shame on another brother. While I agree that personal safety should be a priority, I disagree with May’s statement, “Personal safety should always be the number one priority. Always.” When 1 was sworn in as a firefighter, 1 made a commitment to myself and to the citizens of the City of New York to protect life and property from the ravages of fire. In fulfillment of this commitment, my personal safety cannot be my number one priority. If it were, I could never enter a charged building or run into a burning building while everyone else was running out.
I am convinced that if those “brothers” on the cover of your magazine didn’t have on their gear, then there must be a damn good reason for it. Perhaps Shea’s turnout coat was being used as an antichafing device because the same rope was being used for a second rescue and due to the severity of the situation, there was no time to untie the original bowline knot and move the chafing device. Maybe the brother reaching out the window doesn’t have a helmet on because it fell off during his mad dash up 12 flights, and he was more concerned about the two human beings hanging on a rope 12 stories up than he was about his own personal safety or his helmet.
I don’t know’ all the facts about the rescue, and neither does May. I do know one thing: I’d be damned if I’d write a letter condemning their actions, wishing shame on them, or questioning their bravery if I did not have all the facts.
Clifford Stabner
City of New York Fire Department New York, New York
Points of view
This is in rebuttal to “The Personal Protective Envelope and Structural Firefighting: Increased Safety or Overprotection?” (Points of View, September 1991), specifically to some of the remarks made by Philip Morris. Reference is made to injuries that might be sustained by wearing all the protective clothing recommended by NFPA 1500. But he does not reference any reduction of injuries that have occurred through the wearing of this “protective envelope.”
We do not disagree that the senses are masked when wearing full protective clothing, including hoods and hunker pants. We do, however, disagree that the senses are the only indicators that warn of dangers that may be encountered in increased temperatures. Training is the most important aspect of good firefighting practices. Through proper training and experience, heat buildup can be detected.
To expose the ears or any other part of the body to high temperatures is not consistent with modern firefighting practices. Over the past decade, through the efforts of various technical committees of the NFPA, injuries and fatalities have been reduced. This reduction, by and large, has been due to advances made in personal protective clothing.
How much heat can the ears be exposed to before sustaining second or even third degree burns? During normal evolutions, the ears may be heated slowly, but what if the room lights up because someone conducted premature ventilation prior to placing a hoseline in operation? A rapid increase in heat will occur, and severe burns to the ears and neck may result. Ill is may happen once in a career, or never happen at all. but is it worth the risk?
We are certain that bunker pants will definitely reduce the chances of burn injuries. Whether we are kneeling or squatting, the turnout coat has a tendency to flap open at the bottom, exposing the thighs, groin, and lower abdomen. These exposed areas may be subjected to increased heat and possible injury.
We have been aggressive interior firefighters our entire careers. Prior to the increased use in hoods and bunker pants, we received minor burn injuries to the neck and ears. Yes, we used our senses to detect rising temperatures. As we became more experienced, we became increasingly aware of the need to protect ourselves to the fullest extent possible. As a result, we have been wearing bunker pants for the past 15 years and hoods for at least five years. During this time, neither of us has received any burn injuries. Is this due to the grace of God or the use of all protective clothing?
We are dedicated to firefighter safety and health and will continue to recommend the use of full protective clothing—including hoods and bunker pants.
Richard Moncur Stephen Vreeland
Members ofN.J. State Advisory* Council for Firefighter Health and Safety and N.J. State Firemens Mutual Bene volet it Association Occupational Health and Safety Committee
If you can’t say something nice…
With sexual harassment high on the national agenda, firefighters of all ranks may wish to think about a common sense behavior test recently published in the Rocky Mountain News and taken from the Corning company:
- Would you say or do this in front of your spouse or parents?
- Would you say or do this in front of a colleague of the same sex?
- Would you like your behavior reported in your local newspaper?
- Does it need to be said or done at all?
Weighing on-the-job comments within this context—especially the last point —is one intelligent way to reduce the likelihood of engaging in inappropriate and unprofessional behavior or creating even the slightest appearance of sexual harassment.
Joe Schumacher
District Manager
Arvada (CO) Fire Protection District
NFPA 1973 revision rationale
Effective October 9, 1990, the NFPA Standards Council issued a Tentative Interim Amendment (TIA) deleting section’s 2-5.5 and 3-6 on Water Penetration from NFPA 1973, Gloves for Structural Fire Fighters. This decision subsequently was reappealed to the Standards Council and, finally, to the NFPA board of directors. In each appeal, the original Standards Council decision was upheld.
The following viewpoint is given to help the fire service understand the issues behind the decision.
First, one must realize that a waterproof firefighter’s glove does not exist and that, in fact, the deleted requirement did not prevent water from penetrating the inner hand. Water can and will find its way to the hand entrance and work its way down into the inner glove. In fact, perspiration guarantees a wet internal glove. It should be noted at this point that many of the performance requirements within NFPA 1973 are determined with the gloves in the wet condition.
Second, the deleted requirement subjectively mandated the use of an internal moisture-barrier construction. In doing so, the requirement introduced a host of negative tradeoffs, which in eight years have not been fully addressed. Further, this requirement was design restrictive in that it failed to take into account existing proven technologies of design and material that actually enhance thermal protective performance when gloves are in the wet condition.
Third, the deletion of the water penetration requirement does not prevent a jurisdiction from specifying gloves with the internal moisture barrier. The fact is, all the NFPA 1973 gloves that were compliant prior to the deletion of the water-penetration requirement remain compliant with the standard. The difference is that now the fire service has a choice in the glove construction best suited to the needs of each department.
Copies of the Standard Council’s decision are available on request from Tempo Glove Company (1-800-5588520).
Melvin Cohen
Tempo Glove Mfg, Inc.
Milu aukee, Wisconsin
