While reading through old issues of Fire Chief, I came across a 1987 editorial that was written by the magazine's former editor, Bill Randleman. In “A Psychology of Safety,” Randleman questioned whether science and technology were really making the world a safer place.

This issue focuses on wireless technology in the fire and emergency services. Fifteen years ago, Randleman wrote about the trend toward seatbelts and enclosed cabs. The devices we take for granted today weren't even on his radar. For example, if you had a cell phone in 1987, how large (and cumbersome) was it?

A recent article in The Chicago Tribune on wearable electronics stated that the “Army intends to have soldiers in the field wearing ‘personal area networks’ by 2008,” according to a spokeswoman for the U.S. Army's Objective Force Warrior Program. Special options being considered in combat gear include helmet-mounted computer displays and a sleeve keyboard. Wearable electronics could also monitor health stats, indicating when soldiers are injured. Add GPS and their exact location could be pinpointed.

These advances are not limited to the armed forces. Textile manufacturers are experimenting with electronic fibers to conduct heat. Vests for babies could monitor breathing, and hoods with speakers and microphones in their collars may be commonplace shortly.

As technology advances, however, does it create a false sense of security? Have the new protective fibers that make turnout coats safer created the need for coat liners to detect core body temperature? Thermal imagers, smaller and more affordable today than when they were introduced, are a tremendous asset, but do they create a false sense of security when entering a burning room? Do protective hoods prevent your ears from telling you when to get out?

Does making our environment safer make us more careless? Maybe. My car has side airbags and ABS brakes. Do I find myself going faster because I know I can stop “better”? Well, yes. But all I need is one shudder from those ABS brakes and I slow down, backing off the gas pedal for a couple of weeks.

Maybe it's the same when we read about a firefighter fatality. Heart attack? Back off the French fries. Collapsed roof? Stay off roofs. Apparatus accident? Slow down and buckle up.

Today's technology has given the fire service laptop computers and instant diagrams of buildings, contents and hazards. PDAS allow fire inspectors to update information during the inspection. Flip a switch and all responding agencies (mutual aid, public works and more) can communicate on the scene. An emergency room doctor can monitor an incoming patient in the ambulance.

Manufacturers are doing their part to marry technology and emergency response. But Bill Randleman was right 15 years ago when he challenged fire administrators, instructors and educators “to be sure that we don't allow the technology and hardware of safety to beguile us into apathy about the most important factor in firefighter safety, the oldest and most reliable safety aid — training.”

Continuing our look back as we contemplate the future, in this issue I interview retired chief Donald Loeb in Size Up. Don has contributed more than 300 articles in the 30 years he has been writing for Fire Chief. He takes most of his own photographs for illustration, and he still types on a manual typewriter. But without a doubt, when we run one of his articles, we hear the pros and cons from readers. They're about firefighting basics — no high tech for Don Loeb — but they're basics we need to remember, which is why we're grateful for his role as contributing editor for all these years.