Letters to the Editor
Let’s not be hazardous…
As a firefighter involved with toxic chemicals, I feel I must comment on your picture (page 18) in the December issue.
The firefighters pictured may have been the four who were treated for stomach and respiratory problems. One firefighter has his hand placed on his helmet (his chin strap isn’t in place). Another doesn’t have his chin strap down. Both helmets can fall off, which is not very good, especially in a hazardous materials environment.
I cannot see any firefighters with their collars turned up, collar snaps snapped, or ear flaps down. High gauntlet gloves could have been worn after the fire was out. At least SCBA were used, and one firefighter pictured is wearing a hood.
There are many schools across the country involved with hazardous materials. Let us use them.
Jim Hoffman Firefighter Rocky Mountain Arsenal Fire Department, CO
Editorial Content
I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate you and the staff of FIRE ENGINEERING on the direction your editorial content appears to be heading.
As a subscriber to the publication for many years, I finally concluded that the old format presented much that was unprofessional. The necessity of a balanced policy concept is most important in these days of highly sophisticated industrial advancement, construction challenges, hazardous materials, transportation problems, etc. It is imperative to have a media where constructive criticism and corrective evaluation of procedure operation throughout the fire prevention and firefighting establishments worldwide, be recognized.
I am a veteran of 40 years with the New York Fire Department, retiring as an assistant chief of department, commanding the Bureau of Public Relations. During this long career I experienced all methods of fire prevention and extinguishment both ashore and afloat, domestic and foreign.
In conclusion, quoting from your editorial (Dec. 1983), “If one man knew everything there would be only one man.”
Charles E. McKeogh Asst. Chief of Department (retired)
Smoke Bomb Alternative
Over the past few months I’ve been reading various articles relating to the concerns of using smoke bombs for training. Our company faced the same problems with them; that is, the expense, the toxic gasses given off and the dangers of breathing them, and the mess left behind.
The solution to our problem was the portable Roscoe Smoke Machine. This machine weighs 15 pounds and produces an artificial smoke that is completely safe to use. The smoke machine uses a fluid that is non-toxic so it won’t irritate eyes, skin or vocal cords. Also, the fluid is not petroleum-based so there won’t be any chance of combustion. The smoke doesn’t leave a residue so training can be held anywhere.
The big plus in using this machine is that instructors and safety people in the training room don’t have to wear breathing apparatus, thus eliminating garbled instructions to training personnel. Also when looking for a “victim” in rescue training, his position won’t be given away by the sound of the “victim’s” breathing apparatus. We have also used this machine for fire prevention demonstrations.
This tool has become a big asset to our training and fire prevention programs and has completely eliminated the need for smoke bombs.
Bruce E. Meek Lieutenant/Training Officer Cedar Top Vol. Fire Co. #1 Mohnton, PA
Editor’s Note: The only way we can shape FIRE ENGINEERING into the type of magazine that will benefit your fire department is if you provide us with feedback. Did you get any tips from this month’s Volunteers Corner on industrial fire brigades? Did you feel the information was accurate? Inaccurate? What about straight line hydraulics? Was it beneficial?
Write and tell us. That’s what Letters to the Editor is for.
Perhaps a point made in an article could have been made clearer. Maybe there’s another way to approach a problem than the way we stated. Maybe you have a question on a particular feature—in my experience, questions asked are usually representative of the hundreds that go unasked.
FIRE ENGINEERING encourages more letters to the editor; because only by exchanging ideas, having an informational give and take, can we gain the knowledge and understanding so necessary to our jobs, our goals, and our safety.
