1. ## Time at Risk

This is a very interesting article that examines the dangers of firefighting as compared to that of other occupations. I have never seen it normalized this way and it truly does put some things in perspective.

http://www.laurelvfd.org/Firefighting_paper.htm

2. interesting way to look at it. It does make since to look at fatalities that way.

3. It's an interesting argument. I read it and took some time to digest it. There are a few issues with this article to say the least.

1. It makes the assumption that firefighters work 5 1/2 hours per day.
2. It ignores other dangers to include training.
3. They use an extremely small sample size (2 fire stations)

The real question that is asked is what are my chances of getting hurt on the job. As we can see from other threads, people can get hurt in and around the firehouse (treadmill thread). The paper has no introduction and no conclusion, yet uses references.

To determine the most dangerous job one has to calculate what are the odds of getting hurt or killed in a 1 hour period. That is, for every hour that I am paid to work, what are the chances of getting hurt. Obviously, sleeping in the bunk room is part of the job, as has been discussed on other threads. Therefore, this time cannot be dismissed. Using this logic one could argue that the only time a logger is at risk is when he is cutting down the tree.

I would say nice, but no cigar.

4. Originally Posted by ScareCrow57
To determine the most dangerous job one has to calculate what are the odds of getting hurt or killed in a 1 hour period. That is, for every hour that I am paid to work, what are the chances of getting hurt.

Says who? You?

5. Originally Posted by ScareCrow57
I would say nice, but no cigar.
So do your own study, and see how much anyone listens.

Hear the crickets?

Says who? You?
Says anyone with the capability to use logic and reason. Discounting 3/4 of the work you do gives a false number.

7. Originally Posted by sfd1992
So do your own study, and see how much anyone listens.

Hear the crickets?
Don't have too, they have already been done.

8. Originally Posted by ScareCrow57
To determine the most dangerous job one has to calculate what are the odds of getting hurt or killed in a 1 hour period. That is, for every hour that I am paid to work, what are the chances of getting hurt. Obviously, sleeping in the bunk room is part of the job, as has been discussed on other threads. Therefore, this time cannot be dismissed. Using this logic one could argue that the only time a logger is at risk is when he is cutting down the tree.

I would say nice, but no cigar.
I would say you're still trying to impress people with a skill set you lack entirely. If you don't believe there is a danger while sleeping or sitting in the firehouse you'd be wrong. I'm told there were studies done that show the destructive physiological effects of being on duty. Elevated BP and pulse rate being two of them. Given that firefighters have a much higher incidence of cancer rates than the normal population also shows there is a higher probability of injury during periods of non-activity.

Your nonsensical ramblings are almost as funny as the time you tried to prove Delaware was a more significant economic power than CA.

Run along junior. The adults are talking.

9. ## He Did It Again.........

Dr. Burt Clark is a Firefighter, Officer, and Educator. He is also a real decent guy, and a colleague here in Prince Georges County. Dr. Clark has a knack for getting a discussion going, then maintaining interest in a subject. And he's done it again! Keep 'em thinking Burt!....

10. I find it is a good way to look at our job because as said before, you will not find many profession where they are "on the clock" in the ready position. Much like fighter pilots during the cold war (and possibly now) we're poised for action at a moments notice. Although this is part of our job, the main focus of our job is what we do when that alarm comes in, so it makes since to look at fatality rates per time engaged in that focus.

Yes, I do agree a larger sample size would be nice, but it is an excellent blurb to get discussion going.

11. Originally Posted by scfire86
I would say you're still trying to impress people with a skill set you lack entirely. If you don't believe there is a danger while sleeping or sitting in the firehouse you'd be wrong. I'm told there were studies done that show the destructive physiological effects of being on duty. Elevated BP and pulse rate being two of them. Given that firefighters have a much higher incidence of cancer rates than the normal population also shows there is a higher probability of injury during periods of non-activity.

Your nonsensical ramblings are almost as funny as the time you tried to prove Delaware was a more significant economic power than CA.

Run along junior. The adults are talking.
Obviously, you are still willing to show your lack of reading comprehension. I'm not the one who made those statements. The guys that wrote the article made those comments. So maybe you should let them know how badly you feel their study is.

12. Originally Posted by nameless
I find it is a good way to look at our job because as said before, you will not find many profession where they are "on the clock" in the ready position. Much like fighter pilots during the cold war (and possibly now) we're poised for action at a moments notice. Although this is part of our job, the main focus of our job is what we do when that alarm comes in, so it makes since to look at fatality rates per time engaged in that focus.

Yes, I do agree a larger sample size would be nice, but it is an excellent blurb to get discussion going.
So if I read this right you also believe that the non-emergency time should be used. Discounting part of the job, just because it is less dangerous, gives a false value. Fishing is one of the most dangerous jobs; should we only count the time when the fisherman are actually fishing?

13. Originally Posted by ScareCrow57
So if I read this right you also believe that the non-emergency time should be used. Discounting part of the job, just because it is less dangerous, gives a false value. Fishing is one of the most dangerous jobs; should we only count the time when the fisherman are actually fishing?

If the vast majority of injuries/deaths occur while engaged in fishing yes? But if an equal number of people are dying during transit to and from the fishing grounds no.

Its hard to compare our job to another, like I said we are paid for what we might do, we are paid to be available to respond. That is why there is no one who will consistently beat the fire dept. to someone's front door. To count all that time gives a misleading sense that firefighting is safer than it is. But if we want to see just how dangerous fire suppression is, it makes since to go by hours spent suppressing fire or to a lesser extent on emergency responses.

14. Originally Posted by nameless
If the vast majority of injuries/deaths occur while engaged in fishing yes? But if an equal number of people are dying during transit to and from the fishing grounds no.

Its hard to compare our job to another, like I said we are paid for what we might do, we are paid to be available to respond. That is why there is no one who will consistently beat the fire dept. to someone's front door. To count all that time gives a misleading sense that firefighting is safer than it is. But if we want to see just how dangerous fire suppression is, it makes since to go by hours spent suppressing fire or to a lesser extent on emergency responses.
So you would discount LODDs caused in training, from vehicle crashes that occur in non-emergency mode, and for Heart Attacks that occur after the call is over.

There are two questions here:
1. How dangerous is the job of a fire fighter?
2. How dangerous is fire fighting?

"Its hard to compare our job to another, like I said we are paid for what we might do, we are paid to be available to respond."

Based on this response, you believe that your entire time spent on the job should be counted.

The job of being a fire fighter and the task of fire fighting are 2 distinct things.

15. its clear what I am interested in having counted, i've clearly said it, don't put words in my mouth.

16. Originally Posted by nameless
its clear what I am interested in having counted, i've clearly said it, don't put words in my mouth.
Nameless, don't waste your time. I'm only engaging him and moonbat on another thread for sport.

17. Well the idea is to identify the most dangerous job. Now when I talk about my job I talk about the entire thing, not just 1/3 of what I do. If you think discounting 2/3 of your day is acceptable then go for it, it just lacks objectivity.

Please pay no attention to the SC man. He is fun to toy with and is clearly argumentative. As far as using logic and common sense he has none. Need proof, examine his first post in this thread where he actually takes the words from the article and calls hem mine, then argues why it is wrong. Which mean he was actually agreeing with me.

This is a very interesting article that examines the dangers of firefighting as compared to that of other occupations. I have never seen it normalized this way and it truly does put some things in perspective.

http://www.laurelvfd.org/Firefighting_paper.htm
That was a good article. Thanks for sharing.

19. Originally Posted by ScareCrow57
Well the idea is to identify the most dangerous job. Now when I talk about my job I talk about the entire thing, not just 1/3 of what I do. If you think discounting 2/3 of your day is acceptable then go for it, it just lacks objectivity.
It's not about "discounting 2/3 of your day". This isn't something that can simply be "averaged" out. For example, let's say the risk index each hour (on a scale of 10) during 1/3 of the day is 8 and during the other 2/3 of the day it's a 1. Does the "average" risk factor of 3.33 really reflect the actual "danger" of the job? Does the fact that a large part of the day is "low risk" activity make the other part of the day less dangerous? I'll give you a hint, the answer isn't yes.

20. Originally Posted by ScareCrow57
Please pay no attention to the SC man. He is fun to toy with and is clearly argumentative.
This coming from someone who continues to make claims of insight into fiscal policy while having BK over a credit card.

Keep 'em coming ScareBoy.

21. Originally Posted by FireMedic049
It's not about "discounting 2/3 of your day". This isn't something that can simply be "averaged" out. For example, let's say the risk index each hour (on a scale of 10) during 1/3 of the day is 8 and during the other 2/3 of the day it's a 1. Does the "average" risk factor of 3.33 really reflect the actual "danger" of the job? Does the fact that a large part of the day is "low risk" activity make the other part of the day less dangerous? I'll give you a hint, the answer isn't yes.

This is what I was attempting to say, but worded perfectly.

22. I read the report. Didn't understand a ****ing word.

23. Originally Posted by FireMedic049
It's not about "discounting 2/3 of your day". This isn't something that can simply be "averaged" out. For example, let's say the risk index each hour (on a scale of 10) during 1/3 of the day is 8 and during the other 2/3 of the day it's a 1. Does the "average" risk factor of 3.33 really reflect the actual "danger" of the job? Does the fact that a large part of the day is "low risk" activity make the other part of the day less dangerous? I'll give you a hint, the answer isn't yes.
However, you are looking at total risk, not peak risk. If peak risk is the concern then you need to apply that same metric across the board. So the only time a fisherman is at risk would be when they are fishing on rough seas in the arctic. Loggers are only at risk when falling trees. So yes, the amount of time that you are exposed to that risk does matter.

And if one was to do a formal risk analysis the formula is to take the Single Loss Expectancy (SLE) and multiply it by the Annualized Rate of Occurrence (ARO) to get the Annualized Loss Expectancy (ALE). SLE is defined as the Asset Value times the Exposure factor. While this formula isn't an exact fit, ot is easy to see that one must take into account the amount of exposure to the risk in order to quantify the results.

24. Originally Posted by ScareCrow57
However, you are looking at total risk, not peak risk. If peak risk is the concern then you need to apply that same metric across the board. So the only time a fisherman is at risk would be when they are fishing on rough seas in the arctic. Loggers are only at risk when falling trees. So yes, the amount of time that you are exposed to that risk does matter.

I think you may be a bit off here. I was kind of talking about both "total" and "peak" risk in my explanation. Additionally, if I'm remembering correctly, the article mentioned that the "time at risk" for firefighters included traveling to and from calls, not just when engaged in a firefighting activity. So to be "equal" that would mean that the fisherman's "time at risk" would include their travel time to and from the fishing spots.

I also never said that the amount of time one is exposed to risk doesn't matter. I was simply explaining that the time spent at "reduced" risk doesn't lessen the risk during the periods of "high" risk.

And if one was to do a formal risk analysis the formula is to take the Single Loss Expectancy (SLE) and multiply it by the Annualized Rate of Occurrence (ARO) to get the Annualized Loss Expectancy (ALE). SLE is defined as the Asset Value times the Exposure factor. While this formula isn't an exact fit, ot is easy to see that one must take into account the amount of exposure to the risk in order to quantify the results.
No offense, but this stuff sounds like something you just made up.

25. Originally Posted by FireMedic049
I think you may be a bit off here. I was kind of talking about both "total" and "peak" risk in my explanation. Additionally, if I'm remembering correctly, the article mentioned that the "time at risk" for firefighters included traveling to and from calls, not just when engaged in a firefighting activity. So to be "equal" that would mean that the fisherman's "time at risk" would include their travel time to and from the fishing spots.

I also never said that the amount of time one is exposed to risk doesn't matter. I was simply explaining that the time spent at "reduced" risk doesn't lessen the risk during the periods of "high" risk.
Yes the article mentions only the time at risk as being the time on the call. This discounts training deaths, heart attacks that happen after the call, and a host of other deaths. According to the USFA in 2007 there were 76 deaths associated with Emergency response. This includes the Charleston 9. However, I think the level of danger should include more than just deaths, it just also include injuries.

No offense, but this stuff sounds like something you just made up.
Fair enough Look Here It gives the entire description of the terms used.

Determining which jobs are the most dangerous is less than a trivial task. How do you define dangerous would be the first question.

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts