On Feb. 17, 1975, a fire started at the New York Telephone Co. The five-alarm blaze burned for 16 hours, destroyed the main distribution frame and switching equipment, and surrounded firefighters in acrid smoke from the more than 100 tons of PVC-covered wires. It was one of the most toxic fires in FDNY's history.
The FDNY did not keep medical histories on the 699 men who fought the fire except for a red “Telephone Fire” stamp on each of their folders. In 1997, FDNY surveyed 239 firefighters who had been on that fire and subsequently had reported sick — of these, 18 were dead, seven from cancer. The firefighters' average age at the time of the survey was 50. Two years later, the cancer deaths had doubled.
In 2002, then-Fire Commissioner Tom Von Essen changed the way FDNY tracked firefighters' medical records and instituted regular physicals. Von Essen also had the department notify retired firefighters who were on the phone company fire of possible health issues.
A few months ago, I saw the press release on the National League of Cities-commissioned report, “Assessing State Firefighter Cancer and Presumption Laws and Current Firefighter Cancer Research.” The press release's headline stated there was no correlation between firefighting and cancer. As almost half of the U.S. state legislatures have signed laws extending workers' compensation benefits to firefighters who contract cancer, without requiring proof linking cancer and their occupation, the NLC report raised eyebrows.
Immediately, the report made me angry. Common sense would say that firefighters are more susceptible to cancer than the rest of the population because of the nature of their job. Whether inside fighting a fire or outside watching it, everyone knows the smoke is deadly.
Research has proved that cigarettes and second-hand smoke can cause cancer, so it stands to reason that burning PVC-coated wires, computers, batteries, synthetic petroleum fibers and whatever can burn, melt or explode must have equally negative consequences on health. The biggest difference between firefighters and the general population appears to be the age of onset — firefighters are contracting cancer at a younger age than the norm.
While the NLC's press release received a lot attention, I'm not sure it produced the results the organization hoped for.
The NLC's report called attention to the need for organized research, collection and tracking of this data. Some medical facilities already are conducting this research, as Sara Pyle reported in this issue (page 72). The fire service needs to standardize the way it monitors the health of its personnel.
After the report's release, Acting U.S. Fire Administrator Glenn Gaines acknowledged the need for more study and analysis. He encouraged firefighters to limit exposure to toxins and known carcinogens with appropriate PPE, decontamination procedures and exhaust removal.
Should firefighters expect any special exemption or benefits if they get cancer? It's said that anyone who lives long enough eventually will get cancer. But the firefighters, paramedics and emergency vehicle technicians who are being diagnosed with cancer in their 30s, 40s and 50s didn't have to wait that long.
Do you know a firefighter with cancer? Too many of us know firefighters who have been diagnosed with this awful disease and are in treatment, in remission or have died. If no one is tracking this data, how can we protect or prevent cancer from continuing to rob families and friends?
The longer we wait, the more the fire service will lose.
Subscribe
Subscribe
Subscribe
Subscribe
Subscribe
Subscribe
