By Rich Marinucci

Recently, it was reported that a Baltimore City Council Member was proposing an ordinance that would prohibit firefighters from fighting fires in abandoned and dilapidated structures unless there was a confirmed life at risk–essentially a do not enter mandate. This was in response to the tragic fire where three firefighters lost their lives fighting a fire in an abandoned structure.

There are a few things that strike me regarding this. It was reported that no one in the fire department or fire service was contacted; this includes the fire chief, union, or anyone else. Now I am only commenting on what I read, so if there is different information, please let me know. But based upon what I know, my first reaction is to wonder how someone outside of the business can arbitrarily suggest this without contacting the experts in her community. This would seem like a knee-jerk reaction that should have required a little more communication and consultation. And of course, the comments from the Chief and others are what I would expect regarding the information presented.

While my initial reaction was probably like most everyone else in the fire service, I have since given it more thought. No, I haven’t changed my opinion with respect to the failure to consult fire professionals. But it is worth discussing the reaction of the council member. You could say that those outside the industry wonder why we take risks for things that are not worth anything. They look at what we do and can’t wrap their brain around the idea that we will put ourselves in harm’s way for worthless property.

Of course, many people know that there can be lives at stake in abandoned structures and firefighters do the right thing to look for people in survivable spaces. Yet, when the life hazard is cleared, we should start thinking about the viewpoint of those outside the service have regarding this. There is no expectation to protect property with no value. Maybe the fire service should take the lead on this and not wait for those on the outside to provide direction.

The Canadian fire service has taken a strong stand on occupational cancer in the fire service and is working to change the results. A recent article cited that 86% of the line-of-duty deaths (LODD) in the past year were the result of occupational cancer. This is a striking number and may also be closer to the real numbers in the United States fire service. A national cancer registry has been established and data should begin to identify specifically the numbers in this country.

It would not be a surprise to find numbers similar to those reported in Canada. If this is the case, will the U.S. fire service take more aggressive action to reduce these statistics? There is no doubt there are risks in this job. Likewise, we all know that often times, unnecessary risks are taken. When presenting classes on fire safety, I will ask if anyone ever “saved” a car that was on fire. Obviously, no one has, and all the cars end up in the junk yard. If this is the case, why risk getting cancer to extinguish the fire? You still need to put the fire out, but it should be done with no risk, or very minimal if there are no other options and letting the fire burn itself out is not an option.

The same discussion could be made regarding dumpster and trash fires. These are a couple of responses that, if the right approach is taken, can start reducing unnecessary exposures. Some departments have started taking this approach, but it should be in everyone’s policy manual. There is a need to change the culture and look at the incidents where the outcome is pre-determined, that is the fire department will not change the outcome, and only take risks to match the expected benefits.

Read more

• 80
• 0
• Article rating: No rating