Robert Tutterow

They might be among the worst of the worst - snake oil salespeople trying to capitalize on the cancer epidemic among firefighters.

In recent months, I have been made aware of at least three companies/individuals making bogus claims. Every firefighter should be on alert for products and services that are being falsely touted to prevent or minimize the risk of cancer.

Firefighter Soap

Earlier in the year, I was made aware of a company using one of the company startup programs on the Internet to raise money for a soap especially formulated for firefighters to remove the byproducts of combustion from the body. Naturally, this piqued my interest, and I took a close look at the company’s Web site. Immediately a red flag was raised when I saw all the different fragrances offered. This just did not pass the “smell test” (pun intended) in my mental processing system.

As I scrolled through the Web site, I noticed that part of the revenue generated by those who contributed would be donated to the Firefighter Cancer Support Network (FCSN). Being fortunate enough to know people directly affiliated with the FCSN, I immediately contacted them to see what they knew about this product. They knew nothing about it, and they immediately contacted the company. Within a couple of hours, the reference to the FCSN was removed from the Web site. Apparently, the FCSN raised a few questions to this company that it could not answer, and the site was taken completely down a few hours later.

Miracle On-Scene Cleaner

A few months ago, I had an opportunity to observe a live fire training session at an acquired structure. At this training fire, there were a couple of people touting a cleaner to decontaminate personal protective equipment (PPE) while on the scene. The firefighters were sent to a designated area, before entering rehab, to be “decontaminated.” The firefighters kept their PPE on while they were sprayed with a garden-style sprayer with an agent that was touted to decontaminate the gear.

Because of my interest in PPE and focus on minimizing the risks of cancer, I naturally had to ask a lot of questions. Does it really work? Has it been proven to work? Does it harm the PPE? Are there other health risks to the firefighter? Does it harm the environment? Has it been approved for use by any of the PPE manufacturers? Unfortunately, there was no substantiation of the claims being made - at least by those applying the product.

Though skeptical, if by chance the product did what it claimed without any other adverse effects, this was going to be one great product for the fire service. Of course, a red flag was raised as, like the firefighter soap, this did not pass my “smell test.”

I was able to get the name and contact information of the head of the company that made the product. At the close of the training session, I immediately called this person. I told him who I was, a little bit about my background, and that I was a member of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) technical committee responsible for NFPA 1851, Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting.

He “pretended” to be excited to hear from me. I told him the type of information I was seeking, and he said he did not have time to talk at that moment but definitely wanted to speak with me in detail. We set up a time for the following day for me to call him. I called prompt

Robert Tutterow

They might be among the worst of the worst - snake oil salespeople trying to capitalize on the cancer epidemic among firefighters.

In recent months, I have been made aware of at least three companies/individuals making bogus claims. Every firefighter should be on alert for products and services that are being falsely touted to prevent or minimize the risk of cancer.

Firefighter Soap

Earlier in the year, I was made aware of a company using one of the company startup programs on the Internet to raise money for a soap especially formulated for firefighters to remove the byproducts of combustion from the body. Naturally, this piqued my interest, and I took a close look at the company’s Web site. Immediately a red flag was raised when I saw all the different fragrances offered. This just did not pass the “smell test” (pun intended) in my mental processing system.

As I scrolled through the Web site, I noticed that part of the revenue generated by those who contributed would be donated to the Firefighter Cancer Support Network (FCSN). Being fortunate enough to know people directly affiliated with the FCSN, I immediately contacted them to see what they knew about this product. They knew nothing about it, and they immediately contacted the company. Within a couple of hours, the reference to the FCSN was removed from the Web site. Apparently, the FCSN raised a few questions to this company that it could not answer, and the site was taken completely down a few hours later.

Miracle On-Scene Cleaner

A few months ago, I had an opportunity to observe a live fire training session at an acquired structure. At this training fire, there were a couple of people touting a cleaner to decontaminate personal protective equipment (PPE) while on the scene. The firefighters were sent to a designated area, before entering rehab, to be “decontaminated.” The firefighters kept their PPE on while they were sprayed with a garden-style sprayer with an agent that was touted to decontaminate the gear.

Because of my interest in PPE and focus on minimizing the risks of cancer, I naturally had to ask a lot of questions. Does it really work? Has it been proven to work? Does it harm the PPE? Are there other health risks to the firefighter? Does it harm the environment? Has it been approved for use by any of the PPE manufacturers? Unfortunately, there was no substantiation of the claims being made - at least by those applying the product.

Though skeptical, if by chance the product did what it claimed without any other adverse effects, this was going to be one great product for the fire service. Of course, a red flag was raised as, like the firefighter soap, this did not pass my “smell test.”

I was able to get the name and contact information of the head of the company that made the product. At the close of the training session, I immediately called this person. I told him who I was, a little bit about my background, and that I was a member of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) technical committee responsible for NFPA 1851, Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting.

He “pretended” to be excited to hear from me. I told him the type of information I was seeking, and he said he did not have time to talk at that moment but definitely wanted to speak with me in detail. We set up a time for the following day for me to call him. I called prompt

By Philip Paff

In Australia, a great deal of attention is on the past use of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) containing perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) such as perfluoro-octanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluoro-octane sulfonate (PFOS) by municipal, industrial, and defense force agencies.

The use and effectiveness of these firefighting foams produced from the 1960s to the early 2000s was good; however, the ongoing development of fuel, environmental, and personnel contamination issues saw a reduction and eventual phasing out of AFFF in the early 2000s. AFFF was intended to extinguish hydrocarbon-based flammable and combustible liquid fires (Class B). Firefighter contamination may have occurred during training or periodic vehicle maintenance. You may have seen AFFF use during foam training or demonstrations such as a simulated boat fire or aircraft crash.

These foam concentrates were mostly water and included a mixture of components such as solvents, biocides, corrosion inhibitors, and foaming agents. The added fluorinated surfactants based on PFOA and PFOS displayed the desirable properties of simultaneously being water and fat repellent. This property assisted with foam solution spread, thereby forming a thin layer over the fuel and creating a barrier that minimized evaporation and reduced heat flux from flame to the fuel, which, in turn, canceled out the feedback loop and extinguished the fire.

1 ARFF training exercises from the early 2000s. (Photo by Jed Crosby.)

What are fluorine-based AFFFs and why the concern?

The emerging issue with many of these foams is the potential health hazard posed by the inclusion of fluorinated surfactants - mainly the two compounds of PFOA and PFOS mentioned earlier. Typically, fluorinated foams contained 0.5 to 1.5 percent PFOS and trace quantities of PFOA. Studies have shown that PFOS is a toxic pollutant that remains in the environment indefinitely, with research estimating time frames of 30 to 90 years. PFCs are bio-accumulative, meaning that they can also build up in biological tissue.

PFCs have many applications, from coatings on nonstick cookware to an additive in concrete, and are very pervasive in our environment. Because of widespread applications, PFCs now contaminate every ecosystem on the planet. Being bio-accumulative ensures they enter the food chain; therefore, levels increase as they are consumed by animals such as fish and cattle, progressively being concentrated in the food chain before eventually ending up in humans.

These two materials are environmentally persistent, with a long half-life (it takes approximately 42 years to rid 50 percent of PFOS and 91 years to rid 50 percent of PFOA from the environment). PFOS is classified as a persistent organic pollutant, while PFOA is classified as a Class 2B carcinogen (it is possibly carcinogenic based on limited available evidence).

Impacts

There are two key areas of concern with these AFFFs containing these compounds: environmental impacts and health impacts.

Concerning the health impact, it is important to recognize that the body cannot metabolize these chemicals. Studies show it can take between four and eight years for the body to rid itself of half of any PFOS/PFOA exposure. There is some evidence reported in literature of animal studies of changes in the liver, kidney, thyroid, pancreas, and hormone product

By Philip Paff

In Australia, a great deal of attention is on the past use of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) containing perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) such as perfluoro-octanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluoro-octane sulfonate (PFOS) by municipal, industrial, and defense force agencies.

The use and effectiveness of these firefighting foams produced from the 1960s to the early 2000s was good; however, the ongoing development of fuel, environmental, and personnel contamination issues saw a reduction and eventual phasing out of AFFF in the early 2000s. AFFF was intended to extinguish hydrocarbon-based flammable and combustible liquid fires (Class B). Firefighter contamination may have occurred during training or periodic vehicle maintenance. You may have seen AFFF use during foam training or demonstrations such as a simulated boat fire or aircraft crash.

These foam concentrates were mostly water and included a mixture of components such as solvents, biocides, corrosion inhibitors, and foaming agents. The added fluorinated surfactants based on PFOA and PFOS displayed the desirable properties of simultaneously being water and fat repellent. This property assisted with foam solution spread, thereby forming a thin layer over the fuel and creating a barrier that minimized evaporation and reduced heat flux from flame to the fuel, which, in turn, canceled out the feedback loop and extinguished the fire.

1 ARFF training exercises from the early 2000s. (Photo by Jed Crosby.)

What are fluorine-based AFFFs and why the concern?

The emerging issue with many of these foams is the potential health hazard posed by the inclusion of fluorinated surfactants - mainly the two compounds of PFOA and PFOS mentioned earlier. Typically, fluorinated foams contained 0.5 to 1.5 percent PFOS and trace quantities of PFOA. Studies have shown that PFOS is a toxic pollutant that remains in the environment indefinitely, with research estimating time frames of 30 to 90 years. PFCs are bio-accumulative, meaning that they can also build up in biological tissue.

PFCs have many applications, from coatings on nonstick cookware to an additive in concrete, and are very pervasive in our environment. Because of widespread applications, PFCs now contaminate every ecosystem on the planet. Being bio-accumulative ensures they enter the food chain; therefore, levels increase as they are consumed by animals such as fish and cattle, progressively being concentrated in the food chain before eventually ending up in humans.

These two materials are environmentally persistent, with a long half-life (it takes approximately 42 years to rid 50 percent of PFOS and 91 years to rid 50 percent of PFOA from the environment). PFOS is classified as a persistent organic pollutant, while PFOA is classified as a Class 2B carcinogen (it is possibly carcinogenic based on limited available evidence).

Impacts

There are two key areas of concern with these AFFFs containing these compounds: environmental impacts and health impacts.

Concerning the health impact, it is important to recognize that the body cannot metabolize these chemicals. Studies show it can take between four and eight years for the body to rid itself of half of any PFOS/PFOA exposure. There is some evidence reported in literature of animal studies of changes in the liver, kidney, thyroid, pancreas, and hormone product