The recent government alert warning of the possibility of “high profile events” between May 27, 2004, and Jan. 20, 2005, created mixed signals to fire and emergency responders across the nation. According to the alert, there are no specific reasons to increase the threat level, but the number of “target-rich” events during this period of time makes it a no-brainer that terrorists could strike.

On one hand, the awareness needs to be raised about the potential for more incidents. If the government didn't call attention to the increased possibility, it would be found at fault if something happened. The list of high-profile events over the next six months is staggering from a security standpoint.

But do you ever wonder what's really behind issued statements, whether they're from a corporation, organization or government agency? Are you leery of such news, or do you have faith that it's accurate? We hear a lot about the spin on stories; it can be an attempt to look on the positive side, or it may be a cover-up. The more cover-ups exposed from years past, the less inclined we are to believe today's news.

After Vietnam and the Gulf War, how much of what comes out of the war in Iraq do you believe? Do you put more faith in the e-mails sent from local soldiers to their families and friends? When a politician speaks, do we see an Abraham Lincoln or a Spiro Agnew?

This issue includes an interview with FEMA's Under Secretary Mike Brown, who was very approachable and very open. I believe it was a frank, honest interview — but time will tell. Among the questions and comments, the one thing that really struck me was how Brown defined “terrorism response,” preferring the term “all-hazards approach.”

An all-hazards approach makes good sense. When firefighters respond to an overturned truck on a highway, they don't know if the truck is filled with milk, gasoline or spent nuclear fuel. A 911 call for a man lying on a supermarket floor doesn't reveal if he is in ventricular fibrillation, overcome by toxic fumes or infected with anthrax.

Brown understands the job you do and why your department must be prepared. When the station doors go up or your pager goes off, you are facing unknown hazards. You can no longer assume anything. Unfortunately, the other truth is that the pie is only so big. If you had to estimate exactly what it would cost to make sure every fire department across the country was prepared to a minimum standard, what might that be? Where should the money come from?

While I was in Washington, D.C., for the National Fire and Emergency Services Dinner, a consultant offered more insight. While the fire service is the recognized first responder to any incident, in the event of a major disaster or catastrophe, the fire service would relinquish command to a federal agency to complete the incident.

“Homeland security will test the fire community for a specific period of time, and after that it will be taken out of the hands of the community,” the consultant told me. “The way the DHS is going is into prevention…. Those that can capitalize on the security market will do so. Fire departments are important to response, but everyday it's less important as other bureaucracies and businesses play politics.”

To help you find your way through the politics of response, this issue includes our latest edition of the Federal WMD Response Assets Guide. This year's poster features a map that explains FIRE Grant funding per capita for 2003 and contains updated information on agencies within the Department of Homeland Security. To order additional copies for each of your stations or for your local police and public works departments, please call our customer service department at 866-505-7173.