Have you ever read America Burning? At one time, the report of the National Commission on Fire Prevention and Control was sort of a prerequisite to bringing about change in the fire service, starting in the early 1970s. Those who read it when it was brand new were galvanized to action. However, with the passage of time, the report has slowly but surely moved from the front burner to the back burner of fire literature. It is too bad because America Burning could almost as easily be written about the contemporary fire service. Same song, second verse.
Don't get me wrong, we have made a lot of changes. But we haven't solved America's fire problem yet. Proof can be found in the notion that the single-family dwelling still is the most dangerous occupancy from the standpoint of fire. Our fire codes have made huge inroads in reducing fire problems in commercial and industrial occupancies. Our training system has evolved into one that cranks out certified firefighters at a rapid rate. We have added skill sets to the fire service that never existed before, e.g., paramedicine, hazmat response and homeland security training.
But is America still burning?
One of the most touching photographs in the original America Burning is what I call the "silhouette on the sheet," which is found on page 15. I wonder how many people are still seeing silhouettes on the sheets like that one in single-family dwellings.
Don't tell me they don't occur, because there are newspaper headlines almost every single day indicating that multiple people have died at the scene of single-family dwelling fires. Moreover, it is not uncommon for multiple deaths to occur in the case of a dwelling fire, as opposed to a singular death in other types of events. And, if the picture on page 15 doesn't inspire you to action, go to page 122.
For how many years into the future will we continue to have silhouettes on the sheets? Another question concerns whether we have reached the lowest possible acceptable level of loss in the country to satisfy the economics of modern fire protection. In other words, is 1,000 people a year a reasonable loss figure and should we concede that this is a problem for which there is no solution? Should we just declare that we are the winners and that those people are collateral damage?
If we deal with the American fire problem as if it were strictly nothing more than an economic formula, there are those who will make the argument that continuing to place smoke detectors and sprinkler systems into homes is just not cost-effective. But there are myriad counter-arguments to that stance. For instance, what if that silhouette on the sheet back in the 1970s had been treated as if it were truly a national tragedy and some politician had drawn a line in the sand by stating that this situation is unconscionable and needs to be eliminated?
Let's go back and look at the statistics of what the United States looked like in the 1970s. The nation's population was 203,211,926. The average annual household income was about $8,700. The price to construct an ordinary single-family dwelling averaged about $26,500. According to the 2000 census, the population increased by more than a third, to 281,421,906. The average annual income is now about $42,400, and it now costs an average of $305,900 to build a new home. In 1970, a new home cost about three times more than the median household income. Today it costs eight times more. And the housing industry blames us for rising costs? What is the real reason that Johnny can't buy a house?
It is not hard to visualize that if the United States had done something about the single-family fire problem in the 1970s, a much larger percentage of the population today would be more adequately protected. Interestingly, the people who fight with us the most on this topic are the people who build those homes that have significantly escalated in cost over the past three decades, despite the fact that average income has jumped by a quantum leap over the same time period.
One of the arguments that you will hear at political hearings is that new houses don't catch fire. Well, every house was new once. How soon do they get old? My answer to that is that they are old the minute they are occupied. The real problem is not how old a house is, it's the behavior of the people who live there. I can draw some conclusions from the fire records that I have reviewed over the last forty years. Poor people die in fires a lot more than rich people do. People who engage in behaviors such as drinking and smoking at the same time die at a higher rate than others. If you put a small baby and an elderly person into a brand new house, give a pack of cigarettes to grandma and plant a fifth of whiskey on the dining room table, there is a high degree of possibility that something bad is going to happen in that house — even if it still has the new-carpet smell. And children, who often are fascinated by fire, live in both new and old homes.
The silhouettes on the sheets are the real story. The arguments that are being made today about new houses being more fire-safe are suspect, at the very least. If we could solve the fire problem simply by making houses nicer with each succeeding generation, then we could eliminate the majority of the fire service merely through construction technology.
Now let's talk about that new construction technology. To build bigger and more spacious homes, architects had to overcome the challenge presented by long spans. Guess what came along with that? Engineered wood products. If you get a wide span that is unprotected, unsupported and sprinkler-free, that is a place where firefighters are putting their lives in their hands when they go inside that building.
So, those of you who haven't read America Burning or seen the silhouette on the sheet ought to go back and do that to gain perspective on just how serious America's fire problem really is. In the 30 years that have ensued since the report was first published, we have lost enough people to populate a small suburban city. We have racked up such an enormous cost in terms of property and life-insurance losses that the number of zeros seems almost obscene. Those of you who have had a fire-service career and have never seen the silhouette on the sheet might still think that the fire department exists for the physical aspect of firefighting. But that silhouette on the sheet is a haunting reminder that fire protection is not always entirely about heroics. It also is about courage of conviction.
Because people in single-family dwellings die in relatively small numbers, they don't raise the level of public ire that is caused by a tragic bus, train or airplane crash. Yet the numbers continue to accumulate year in and year out. If we allow 20 people to die in each of the nation's 50 states each year, then we will have killed another 1,000 of our citizens. If we allow that number to go up to 50 per state, the total casualty list jumps to 2,500. If we allow it to rise to 100 victims per state, the total tally becomes 5,000. And so on. You tell me — where do we want to draw the line?
The current battle is shaping up regarding the next, and quite possibly the final, step in addressing this issue on a national level — the adoption of fire-sprinkler technology into the residential environment. The battle pretty much already has been won regarding apartment houses and now we are waiting for the final shoe to drop. If we continue to sustain the idea that individual states are going to be opted in or out of this process because of the political maneuvering of special-interest groups, then I will make a prediction for you: In about 25 years we will begin to see another trend.
Those parts of this country that have embraced modern fire-protection philosophy and technology will have a lower level of loss of life than those that haven't. You can mark this column in any way you want, put it in a file folder and open it up in the year 2035 and see whether this prediction comes true. There will be some states in which the fire death per 1,000 will remain high and there will be other states in which the fire death per 1,000 will decline.
It is unlikely that you and I will be around to witness that phenomenon. At least I know I won't be. It doesn't take long to add 25 years to my age and realize that I would have to be a statistical anomaly to bear witness to my own projection. But there are some of you out there who are entering your fire-service career or are at an early stage. You then may be around to tell the world whether we were able to eliminate the silhouette on the sheet. I wish your state the best of luck.
With more than 40 years in the fire service, Ronny J. Coleman has served as fire chief in Fullerton and San Clemente, Calif., and was the fire marshal of the state of California from 1992 to 1999. He is a certified fire chief and a master instructor in the California Fire Service Training and Education System. A Fellow of the Institution of Fire Engineers, he has an associate's degree in fire science, a bachelor's degree in political science and a master's degree in vocational education.
Related Stories
For More Info
Read an additional outlook on the issue of housing costs from Mercyman53's Weblog.
Subscribe
Subscribe
Subscribe
Subscribe
Subscribe
Subscribe
