Talk:Firefighter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fire Portal

Firefighter is part of WikiProject Fire Service, which collaborates on fire service-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Assessment comments

[edit] Spanish Firefighters

"Spanish firefighters are famous for their collaboration with Third World countries. They are led by Jorge de Miguel San Martin, the chief of staff of the Spanish fire department." I would just like to know who wrote this. The thing is that those who help are members of an NGO with staff from all the country and all over the world and that there isn't a Spanish Fire Department.I am going to edit it, I just wanted to say that. I don't .

[edit] Meaning of terms "brigade" and "department"

Hi all! Can somebody pls explain the meanings / differences of "fire brigade" and "fire department" to me as a non-native english speaker. I like to edit the section about the german fire .... (?) and use the appropriate terms avoiding confusion on readers side. thanks --Fortythree 15:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's a difference between countries. In the United States, for instance, it's usually Fire Department. In the United Kingdom it's Fire Brigade or Fire Service. -- Necrothesp 21:56, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, in the United States, "Fire Brigade" usually refers to an Industrial Fire Department (ie, Industrial Fire Brigade). The brigades are employed by high risk industries to provide specialized fire suppresion to a given facility. A good example is a brigade at a large oil refinery. They require high volume pumps (frequently >3000gpm) and monitors on their apparatus, as well as specialized tactics not usually employed by municipal fire departments. Malakhi 22:24, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In Australia, the term "Brigade" usually refers to an individual fire station/unit. Additionally, the word "Service" is used to refer to the entire firefighting service (e.g. "The Service is isuing new turnout coats to all firefighters"). The term "department" is usually used to refer to the Government department responsible for the Fire Service. A single department might be responsible for many services, for example the NSW Department of Emergency Services is repsonsible for both the NSW Rural Fire Service and the NSW Fire Brigades (NSW has two seperate fire services). Jpmanalo 04:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellanea"

"In popular literature, firefighters are usually depicted with Dalmatian dogs" As far as I was aware this is only the case in the US, and thusly only in American literature. Does anyone know if Dalmatians are connected to any other countries fire services? I know there is no relation in the UK. --Myfanwy 18:20, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The statement "Of course when a life is at risk, all attempts are made to save it." is simply not true. To the extent that firefighers' safety is not put at excessive risk, they will do almost anything. But, few will excessively risk their own life unless the potential payoff is very high ... ie. your own life for many other lives. It's true that when lives are at stake, firefighters are willing to accept an increased amount of risk.

What about Firemen as sex icons in Miscellanea? They appear in a lot of calendars directed towards women and gay men. --Dara 19:41, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A few doubts...

The article says: "At least one Roman may have become very rich from this fire, buying properties in advance of the flames and using teams of slaves in attempts to defend his recent acquisitions from being consumed." However it is not very clear why a person would buy property in advance when the property will get devalued in case of a fire and the slave part surely makes no sense to me.

Secondly, why is that firefighting is such a major task in the western world despite high budgets for firefighting there are still much more fires in US or Europe than in many countries like India? Is it because the construction of houses is basically wood and not concrete as in many parts of asia? As far as I know the expenditure and the number of firefighting units where i live is quantitatively and qualitative far smaller than the ones in US. Yet the incidence of fire is minimal which I'm presuming is primarily due to houses constructed mainly out of concrete etc. wildfires too seem pretty rare despite thick jungles. obviously there's something I missing in this. Idleguy 16:32, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

First, the Roman fellow I think said, "hey, your house is going to burn up. I'll buy it from you, since it's no use to you now." Then, when he had bought it cheap, he had his slaves keep it from burning up. Second, yes, the amount of flammables in the US and Europe is pretty large, with paper and plastic materials filling most houses. The construction (wood frame, usually) is also quite flammable. Wildfires are common in the Western US due to very dry periods. DDerby 15:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

OK. Thx for the info on fires in US. I also pretty much had the same idea on the roman part, just wanted to confirm it. Idleguy 16:32, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dues vs Tax Based

I came to the article hoping to find some details on the history of tax-funded versus dues-funded Volunteer Fire Departments, after seeing discussion on an incident where a rural Missouri fire department refused to fight a fire because the property owner wasn't paid up [1] . I have found in searches that the practice of funding by dues has been going on for some time [2], but I was hoping someone could shed more light on its history.

--Robotech_Master 20:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] smoke-beater

I checked Google, and there are very few references to fire fighters being called "smoke beaters." In reading the first sentence, it really looks rather silly with that reference in place. Rklawton 20:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC) The term should be Smoke Eater it goes back to th early 50's and 60's for a firefighter who would go into a fire without respiratory protection. and usually upon emerging from the IDLH atmosphere he would promptly vomit. [ User:Pfd9816 ] 02:30 5 May 2006

[edit] Firefighter Assist and Search Team merger proposed

It makes sense to have a paragraph about RIT/FAST teams in the main article, but that does not mean that the articles have to be merged. I agree with the points that lupinelawyer makes below. Also perhaps an entire page can be made for firefighting techniques/tactics (although i know that many people will point out that RIT/FAST teams dont fight fires). Also, to the writer below, the term FAST team is used as the primary description for firefighter rescue teams in New York, in fact, RIT is rarely used if at all. Another note, this time to Jpmanalo: In the fire service in New York, a designated FAST team is almost always standing by at a structure fire, and if that FAST team has to go in for a downed or lost man, a back-up fast team is almost always activated just in case the initial FAST team needs help or in the event that another firefighter goes down in a seperate incident. Also, i should point out, that the first FAST team is not "called in" as you imply, but is there as early as possible, as a precaution (usually members of a Truck/Rescue Company, or sometimes the entire 2nd due truck, depending on the department). The difference being that it is proactive instead of reactive. To me, at least, the idea that the "Incident Commander" would direct other firefighters away from the duties that they are currently undertaking and send them in for a downed man WITHOUT special training seems ludicrously dangerous and negligent.

The appropriate place for the FAST/ or RIT topic would be as a paragraph of the Firefighter page. More specifically it would be best used as a sub paragraph in the section that discusses the NFPA 2in/2out rule. As a 15 year fire officer in the U.S. I can attest that a RIT is always in place on all structure fire in our career department to comply with the 2in/2out mandate. CWS-Florida, U.S.A.--Big Haole 14:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The Firefighter Assist and Search Team article is very short and I doubt the content on it can be expanded to a length that would merit an entire, seperate article. Since FAST (or Rapid Intervention Teams/ RIT, or Rapid Intervention Crew/ RIC) teams are related to firefighting operations, I propose that the content be merged here. -- backburner001 17:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I think they are fine as separate articles, you have a point about the content not being very exapandible. I guess it would be okay to merge, but see what other people think. -- Nataly a 21:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The term FAST is very specific to American-style firefighting practices. During my eight years as a firefighter, I haven't heard of the phrase "FAST" ever used during firefighting operations. The concept of creating a team to rescue other firefighters is more of a tactical concept that is used when required operationally, rather than a "hard-and-fast" operational procedure that is part of every operational deployment. Most Incident Commanders, if they ever needed to rescue a firefighter in distress (a very rare occurance in Australian firefighting), would direct other firefighters to their rescue, rather than calling in a specialised team. I support the merge of the FAST article into this article as one facet of firefighting operations, perhaps with a note regarding it's use. -- Jpmanalo 04:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Depending on department protocol and personel available; FAST crews may be on standby during firefighting operations. This gives the nozzle and rescue teams inside an added safety net and precaution for the "just incase" possibilities.

I oppose merging the Firefighter Assist and Search Team article with this article, because the FAST is a very specific concept whereas this article is very general. If there was a separate article about the operational aspects of firefighting (i.e. how to fight a fire), then maybe the Firefighter Assist and Search Team article could be merged there instead. 68.50.203.109 07:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Depending on the objectives of the wikies, Search Team involves a huge amount of information, because there are Sub-Aquatic, mountain, urban, etc search teams... so.. if we want a small reference or a detailed manual... there is the dessition. Pedro Torruella, Ptorruella, Caracas Venezuela.

Do not merge. The RIT/FAST function is a separate function from firefighting: immediate rescue of our own, not to say other FFs won't also be directed to help. Those privileged to serve on RIT may have advanced training, equipment and tools. They are NOT fighting the fire when they are assigned to RIT, they are an emergency backup team for missing or injured firefighters. Why not put pitcher and shortstop together in baseball player? They are separate jobs in support of the team. Here, RIT is a separate job, performed by "firefighters", specifically assigned to that task, as part of operational safety, whether or not they are deployed in a specific rescue -- they are on standby. Lupinelawyer 19:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the purpose of and training for RIT/FAST teams differ from that of other fireground activities, but there is still a lot of overlap, is there not? Wouldn't it be better to have a description of RIT teams in the article where readers will already be looking for various aspects related to firefighting? I think the question here is this: are the differences in the function of RIT teams significant enough to merit a completely seperate article? I'm not saying it isn't a possibility. But if it is, I would like to see a major expansion of the Firefighter Assist and Search Team article. -- backburner001 16:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur with those opposing the merger. FAST/RIT is a subset of firefighter and denotes a specific assignment within the fire service, much as chauffer or aerial apparatus operator would be specific assignments. Alan 16:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Communication and command structure

I have added a section on this. A few years ago, when I moved from the town where I served as a volunteer firefigher, the amount of training time devoted to the Incident Command System had increased substantially. Further, there was a great deal of criticism of the communications during the 9/11 disaster, so I belive this area is worth a brief mention. Gerry Ashton 06:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a bit on the communication myself. I thought a bit more credit was deserved towards dispatchers and the public should be somewhat aware of it's structure.K3rn3lkill3r 12:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

IMHO the section could use more on the general structure of fire departments—e.g., in the U.S., fire companies, battalions, and brigades (?). DocWatson42 08:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why Called Only "Firefighters"?

If a firefighter is "a person who is trained and equipped to put out fires, rescue people, pets, aid and assist during natural disasters and, increasingly, provide emergency medical services" why are they just called "firefighters"? If they rescue people and pets from natural diseasters should they be called something like Natural Protection And Rescue (NPA)? It would make more sense since there are a lot more natural disasters such as flood, tornadoes, hurricanes, ect. What do you think? Zachorious 11:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Because the *primary* responsibility of a firefighter is fight fires. The other tasks they complete are generally secondary to their primary role. --Jpmanalo 10:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

In Montgomery County, Maryland I believe the name of the position is "Firefighter/Rescuer." 68.50.203.109 07:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Most firefighters are also paramedics or at least EMTs, but there are still some fire departments that exist seperately from departments that provide emergency medical services. The term "firemedic" has been increasing in use for firefighters who are also paramedics. -- backburner001 22:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Backburner, it is simply not true that "most firefighters are paramedics or at least EMTs". Most firefighters are CFR's or Certified First Responders, but firefighters that are full paramedics are few and far between. Although many are EMTs at a basic level (BLS as opposed to ALS) it would be incorrect to say that "most" are. Take for example one of the largest fire services on earth, the FDNY. With over 11,000 firefighters, there still is the need for a seperate EMS command (which, up until recently, was not even a part of the FDNY). The vast majority of FDNY firefighters are CFR's only. I would have to agree that the term "firemedic" has been increasing in use (my department, too, has begun using the term) but it is often used for firefighters that are only BLS certified, not paramedics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.47.42.215 (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC).

I take it you mean in the USA? In Australia "most Firefighters" are not paramedics, this is an American trend. While they are first aid trained, they do not run the ambulances. Please try not to forget the rest of the world ;) Mazzone 04:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. Yes, I meant in the United States. -- backburner001 17:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

In Central Ohio most full time departments require their firegighter to become paramedics within a set time after their date of hire. There are even departments that will not review an application unless the applicant is a Firefighter/Paramedic--Rsgard 05:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

it does not matter in the least what they do, it matters what they call themselves, in the united states theyre called firefighters and at least in the san francisco bay area where i live all of them also work as rescuers in earthquake and flood situations theyre more fire stations than hospitals/ambulances so fire fighters almost always show up first followed by police then the ambulances all of them have basic paramedic skills and every company has a one or two EMTS one per truck so when they show up he or she (usually she) assesses the situation and provides immidiate care for the medical emergency untill an ambulance arrives. and the whole time theyre still called firefighters. not anything else. teachers and coachs act as male role models but theyre jobs dont change name too dude intructor or masculinity preparer. you cant make stuff like that up although it should be mentioned that its an unmbrella term and that it always means someone whp puts out fires and in a lot of areas it also can deal with other tasks like rescue which is the most common, but its still called the fire dept. not the rescue dept.71.142.88.173 03:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing worldwide lead

This is currently in the lead:

"in German called Berufsfeuerwehr."

Frankly, I couldn't care less. If need be put it and other international factoids in a sub-section, the lead is not the place for it. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

fire fighter fire man what's the difference

Salaries: Propation firefighter start in the range of $20,000 tro$58,000. Top Capatins are paid $25,000 to $95,000. And Chiefs can make as much as $125,000 to $200,000.USD

[edit] Reorganizing and Correcting

This article has become more and more monolithic and disorganized over the last year or so. I would like to see parts of it rolled out into separate articles. For example, separate the processes and tactics of firefighting out. There is already an extensive fire fighting article. I see no need to duplicate that information here. The concept of a firefighter is really rather simple to grasp. There's no reason for this article to ramble on as it does now. Barring criticism, I'll start trimming it down and polishing it.

Yes, I agree the article rambles and touches on far more aspects of firefighting than just being a firefighter. Also, can we get rid of the photo of the improperly prepared firefighter with the hood on wrong? Furthermore, the "two-in, two-out" rule description doesn't match the main article on that topic, and doesn't match the ref OSHA reg. You only need two people outside, regardless of how many are inside, and under OSHA, one of those outside can be assigned to another job, such as incident commander. Can anyone provide a source for this particular version of the rule? Lupinelawyer 07:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The "Fire fighting tasks" section at the beginning of the article mentions "property preservation" and "salvage" among basic fire fighting skills, but these roles are not discussed in the article. There is a "Property" section but its current content is not relevant to those tasks. Does anyone have the expertise to add a section discussing the property preservation and salvage role of firefighters? (71.174.55.22, 17:04, 30 January 2007)

No, actually the Property section does specifically mention limited salvage operations, such as covering uninvolved property with salvage covers (tarps). I will add a few more elements of salvage, and re-arrange the "ventilation" as part of "fire control." Lupinelawyer 18:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, this section seems much more complete and clear now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.174.55.22 (talk) 22:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

I cleaned up a little of what I could. I elaborated more on topics as to make them more filling and to stop the rambling a bit. Communications and Fire control were mostly the ones I touched on the most, but others, such as the history really needs something. If someone is aware of the history and can quote it well, it would be nice to see it filled. K3rn3lkill3r 12:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

I just noticed that the page is vandalized. The last paragraph under "Self-preservation" has been altered, and since I just signed up, I don't know the right way to change it back. Just thought I'd let you know, in case someone feels like fixing it. I'll try to learn how to fix these things myself though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shimanotaka (talk • contribs) 09:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Fixed.Drakonis 16:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cancer Section moved here

The editor that initially added this information [3] just removed the cleanup tag on it [4]. This editor has added similar links to multiple articles, and is editing from an ip located in the same city as the provider of these reports. Given that this information is not blatant spam, I thought it worth moving here in case others think it is salvageable:

Occupational cancer among firefighters is a major occupational health and safety concern. Every year, these lesions produce significant human and financial costs for workers and employers. However, it is difficult to establish a link between the appearance of a cancer and the characteristics of the job. Critical reviews of the epidemiological literature related to cancer risk in firefighters include:

"Risk of Brain Tumours in Firemen"

"Risk of Urinary Bladder Tumours in Firemen"

"Risk of Kidney Tumours in Firemen"

--Ronz 16:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleaning duties

Is 80% of the firefighting job cleaning equipment? Or is that subcontracted out these days? Fire engines, ladders, hoses, and so forth always seem to be in pristine condition and it seems like it's hard work for somebody. -Rolypolyman 14:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Most of the time, it would seem that 80% is spent cleaning equipment, or ensuring the proper future operation of it. It is, from experience, not contracted out - for safety and training reasons. However, some devices like SCBA require certification to properly repair, test, and so forth. Sullivan.t (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See also

The see also section of this article is too long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.80.75 (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Shall we remove all individual fire departments from the article? They seem pretty crufty and tangential to me. Jclemens (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

This article makes references to "Firefighters" and fire fighting. But this is crazy! What's the point in fighting fires? The whole point is to put them out! Change it to Fireman (just like human, policeman etc. ) Btline (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not understanding what you mean. In the US, firefighters put out fires. We don't have any firemen; the term, regardless of historical value, is considered sexist and archaic, as is policeman. Jclemens (talk) 05:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The actual point of fighting fires is not only to extinguish, but to save lives and, when possible, property. All fire will go out, eventually. Sometimes the decision can be made to let the house burn, and do what they call a "defensive" operation - save the exposures, etc. Sullivan.t (talk) 14:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually in the US the MEDIA uses the term "Firefighter" but by and large, in common speech, the word Fireman is used almost exclusively. However since nearly all sources to be found are by the MEDIA, it'll be pretty hard to find 'reliable' sources.--71.97.138.104 (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a real good argument for including a "Misogyny in the U.S. Fire Service" section. If you get around to starting it before I do, feel free. Jclemens (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

[moved from article 02:14, 9 April 2008]

Hi all, great firefighter photos from the contributors but some of them are obviously causing image stacks and conflicts with the articles. -please rectify the problem. Thanks.

Please expand, what images are causing problems? I admit that the article is a bit image heavy but I see no direct errors. -Icewedge (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

-Right, in that case it must be my browser which is at fault. My apologies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.153.2.6 (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.