Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shorts as a uniform option????

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Res45cuE
    As far as technology, LA City has been using full turnouts since the early 1970's. FDNY finally got them in 1993 (?) after how many guys suffered burns to their groins and thighs. LA is far hotter than NYC for greater periods during the year, so the heat is not a legitimate issue.
    We still don't have them - whats your point? And since you brought it up, how many guys did suffer burns to their groins and thighs? C'mon, tell us - I'm dying to know. How many in Chicago in the last ten years have suffered serious burns to their legs? You seem to think that wearing boots and coats is some sort of insult, so back it up with numbers. Lets hear your answer. Just because you wear bunkers, you think that gives you some special claim to knowlege? They may force us to wear them here soon too, but you have no idea what you are talking about. Our gear has proven it's ability to protect us over decades of hard use. I wear it every day.

    As for Phoenix, why would anyone care what some suburban, beurocrat, pencil pushing firefan thinks? I know I don't.
    I am a complacent liability to the fire service

    Comment


    • Some statistics

      Chicago, I queried Google under "FDNY burn statistics" and found the following website (I hope it works) www.cdc.gov/niosh/abstractsg4.html
      The study showed an 86% reduction in upper-body burns and a 93% reduction in lower-extremity burns when a full ensemble (coat & pants) are worn.
      Interestingly, wearing shorts and short-sleeve shirts have no impact on burns when a full ensemble is worn.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Res45cuE
        As far as technology, LA City has been using full turnouts since the early 1970's.
        Correct me if I'm wrong, but didnt (up until a few years ago) LA only use bunker PANTS only at night??????
        "Loyalty Above all Else. Except Honor."

        Comment


        • Sorry, guys, I fragged up the link. However, this is the cut-and-paste version. I'm sure you could find reams of reports, but this was my 5-second search.

          Our aim was to determine the impact of 3 different firefighting uniforms (traditional, modern and modified modern) on incidence and severity of thermal burn injuries, the major occupational injury affecting firefighters. Injury data was collected prospectively for the New York City Fire Department (FDNY) wearing FDNY’s traditional uniform (protective over-coat) from 5/1/93-8/31/93, FDNY’s modern uniform (protective over-coat and over-pant) from 5/1/95-8/31/95 and FDNY’s modified modern uniform (short sleeve shirt and short pants rather than long sleeve shirt and long pants worn under firefighter’s protective over-clothes) from 5/1/98-8/31/98. Outcome measures were burn incidence and severity. Adverse outcomes were heat exhaustion and cardiac events. During this 12 month study, 29,094 structural fires occurred; the incidence rate for upper extremity burns was 2,341 per 100,000 fires and for lower extremity burns was 2,076 per 100,000 fires. With the change from traditional to modern uniform distribution of burns per fire decreased significantly (P=0.001) for upper extremity burns (86%) and lower extremity burns (93%). Days lost to medical leave for upper or lower extremity burns decreased 89%. Burn incidence and severity were not significantly affected by the change to modified modern uniform. The distribution of heat exhaustion or cardiac events per fire was not significantly affected by the change from traditional to modern uniform and heat exhaustion was decreased (P<0.001) by the change to modified modern uniform. In conclusion, modern uniforms dramatically reduced burn incidence and severity, while the modified modern uniform significantly reduced heat exhaustion without significantly affecting thermal protection.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Res45cuE
            Interestingly, wearing shorts and short-sleeve shirts have no impact on burns when a full ensemble is worn.
            Originally posted by Res34cuE's Cut and Paste
            In conclusion, modern uniforms dramatically reduced burn incidence and severity, while the modified modern uniform significantly reduced heat exhaustion without significantly affecting thermal protection.
            No effect on burns, but SIGNIFICANT effect on heat exhaustion...which in the summer is a huge drain on manpower on the fire ground.

            I can see how this can work. Tucking pant legs into boots effectively encloses the leg, and does not allow cirulation of air under the bunkers. Fine for cooler weather. But in 80-90+ outside temps, all that will do is baste your goodies. Shorts can allow air to circulate to the skin directly under the bunkers, and air condition the "important parts," as well as allow the heat to escape more easily.

            Of course, that is purely my own theory as to why the report reads the way it does.

            If your department allows you to wear shorts...fine. If not, fine. What your department wears (and if some consider it appropriate or not) has little, if any, impact on me and my department. What works for you may not work for everyone.

            Stay safe!
            Last edited by Nine3Probie; 07-25-2006, 08:42 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Res45cuE
              Chicago, I queried Google under "FDNY burn statistics" and found the following website (I hope it works) www.cdc.gov/niosh/abstractsg4.html
              The study showed an 86% reduction in upper-body burns and a 93% reduction in lower-extremity burns when a full ensemble (coat & pants) are worn.
              Hmmmmmm, they put on pants and reduced their upper body burns by 86%? Those must be some pretty high pants. Still waiting to hear how many guys from Chicago were laid up because of lack of pants!
              I am a complacent liability to the fire service

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Res45cuE
                Sorry, guys, I fragged up the link. However, this is the cut-and-paste version. I'm sure you could find reams of reports, but this was my 5-second search.

                Our aim was to determine the impact of 3 different firefighting uniforms (traditional, modern and modified modern) on incidence and severity of thermal burn injuries, the major occupational injury affecting firefighters. Injury data was collected prospectively for the New York City Fire Department (FDNY) wearing FDNY’s traditional uniform (protective over-coat) from 5/1/93-8/31/93, FDNY’s modern uniform (protective over-coat and over-pant) from 5/1/95-8/31/95 and FDNY’s modified modern uniform (short sleeve shirt and short pants rather than long sleeve shirt and long pants worn under firefighter’s protective over-clothes) from 5/1/98-8/31/98. Outcome measures were burn incidence and severity. Adverse outcomes were heat exhaustion and cardiac events. During this 12 month study, 29,094 structural fires occurred; the incidence rate for upper extremity burns was 2,341 per 100,000 fires and for lower extremity burns was 2,076 per 100,000 fires. With the change from traditional to modern uniform distribution of burns per fire decreased significantly (P=0.001) for upper extremity burns (86%) and lower extremity burns (93%). Days lost to medical leave for upper or lower extremity burns decreased 89%. Burn incidence and severity were not significantly affected by the change to modified modern uniform. The distribution of heat exhaustion or cardiac events per fire was not significantly affected by the change from traditional to modern uniform and heat exhaustion was decreased (P<0.001) by the change to modified modern uniform. In conclusion, modern uniforms dramatically reduced burn incidence and severity, while the modified modern uniform significantly reduced heat exhaustion without significantly affecting thermal protection.
                Were these included in the study or were they thrown out? Heat exhaustion was decreased but were cardiac events also decreased?

                Everything else has a percentage to quantify the results, while the effects of heat exhaustion or cardiac events were not rated as such. What is "not significant?"

                Instead of testing a theory it appears that the study was being used to support a point. By calling heat exhaustion and cardiac events "adverse outcomes" does not support the accepted idea that bunkers are better than 3/4s and coat.

                Comment


                • Still waiting on actual numbers. Chicago has worn this outfit for a long time, so there must be a pile of evidence on how dangerous it is and how many hundreds - if not thousands - have been injured over the past decade. Eagerly awaiting your reply with the numbers (not studies by "experts", but actual raw numbers)
                  I am a complacent liability to the fire service

                  Comment


                  • P.S. Did some sissy pimp actually complain and get FFFred knocked off? You have to be kidding me! God forbid someone says whats on their mind! What a joke.
                    I am a complacent liability to the fire service

                    Comment


                    • You win!

                      Chicago, you win. You have successfully stumped me on the stats. I did a 2-minute search on Chicago FF burn injuries, but I could not locate anything. If you could provide me with a hint where to begin my search, I will begin our little scavenger hunt. However, is it possible that Chicago doesn't track these things? I thought the FDNY study was sufficient, because we believe NIOSH when it comes to LODD, but we can't accept their studies when it comes to something we don't agree with?
                      For the record, I could care less what FF's wear. My original post was in defense of Chief Alan Brunacini (ret.), who was being slammed for not appearing in any fire texts.
                      Having said that, riddle me this, Chicago- Why would an infamously frugal and cash-strapped city like NY decide in 1993 to equip their FF's with bunker pants? Hmmm... Oh, yeah, that's right, the FIRE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF NEW YORK wanted them. Do you think the mayor or city council know bunker pants froma pile of S%&#? Obviously someone in the FDNY was pushing for them (including the union, as I recall). I followed this story in the NY media with great interest in 1993. Although I am not a big fan of the NY Times, they actually had some decent coverage on it.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Res45cuE
                        Having said that, riddle me this, Chicago- Why would an infamously frugal and cash-strapped city like NY decide in 1993 to equip their FF's with bunker pants? Hmmm... Oh, yeah, that's right, the FIRE DEPARTMENT, CITY OF NEW YORK wanted them. Do you think the mayor or city council know bunker pants froma pile of S%&#? Obviously someone in the FDNY was pushing for them (including the union, as I recall).
                        And why would the City of Chicago - an organization that is notorious in it's dislike for the fire department - buy us anything? Because we force them to. The bunker gear issue here was brought up by one prominent member of our union. He brought it up because he felt sorry for one member who got knocked off the job due to leg burns. You can't fault the guy for caring about a guys injuries, but I want to know if he will be at the funeral of the first FF to drop of a heart attack due to core temperature issues. Will he tell the widow "Sorry hubbys dead and the kids have no father, but thank god no one burned a kneecap!" Gimme a break. Don't buy into the safety sissies line of thinking without a serious, solid reason to do so. There have been very few serious injuries here in areas covered by pants. Even our union man pushing the change admits that the numbers don't support the change.

                        P.S. Don't waste too much time looking for actual numbers on anything to do with the CFD. The city is very secretive and it will be a waste of your time.

                        P.P.S. Again, what do you care what some suburban firefan thinks about department operations? Unless you work in some sterile, racially uniform, stepford, desert suburb, I doubt his "ideas" have much meaning.
                        I am a complacent liability to the fire service

                        Comment


                        • Hold it.................... what am I doing ........................ damn it, I got sucked into the bunker gear argument again! .................... What the hell .....................
                          I am a complacent liability to the fire service

                          Comment


                          • A serious question

                            Chicago, it seems that you guys (CFD) and others (SFFD) are resistant because of the heat issue? Is there no happy medium? Couldn't you have them issued and then individually choose to wear them? At least you would have them available.
                            As far as Bruno goes, I like the guy. Do I think many of his ideas would float in other parts of the country, no. However, do I think he has done a great job between the union and the city, yes. Do I think he leads from the front and actually looks out for his men as a chief, yes. Would I want to be able to drive the FD dumpster to jobs when I am near retirement, yes. :-)

                            Comment


                            • Chicago, LOL. I didn't initially intend to hijack this thread. I realize this horse has been beaten, killed, dug up, beaten, killed, and dug up again, and again, and again.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Res45cuE
                                Chicago, it seems that you guys (CFD) and others (SFFD) are resistant because of the heat issue? Is there no happy medium? Couldn't you have them issued and then individually choose to wear them?
                                I am resistant because there is no proven need to change. If guys were getting burnt every other day, I would be the first guy advocating a change. But the fact is they are not. As I said before, our gear has proven itself effective over the last few decades - why should i want to change it? I would be fine with an option to wear pants if you want - but leave me my boots!
                                I am a complacent liability to the fire service

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X