Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 48

Thread: Time at Risk

  1. #1
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,372

    Default 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.

    It is worth a read....

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


  2. #2
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,802

    Default

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

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    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. #4
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    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. #5
    Forum Member sfd1992's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wa
    Posts
    396

    Default

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

    Hear the crickets?

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jakesdad View Post
    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. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

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

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

  8. #8
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    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.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  9. #9
    55 Years & Still Rolling hwoods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Glenn Dale Md, Heart of the P.G. County Fire Belt....
    Posts
    10,739

    Thumbs up 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!....
    Never use Force! Get a Bigger Hammer.
    In memory of
    Chief Earle W. Woods, 1912 - 1997
    Asst. Chief John R. Woods Sr. 1937 - 2006

    IACOJ Budget Analyst

    I Refuse to be a Spectator. If I come to the Game, I'm Playing.

    www.gdvfd18.com

  10. #10
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,802

    Default

    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. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    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. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nameless View Post
    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. #13
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,802

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    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. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nameless View Post
    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. #15
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,802

    Default

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

  16. #16
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nameless View Post
    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.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  17. #17
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    8,677

    Default

    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.

  18. #18
    Forum Member BKDRAFT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    1,146

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by jakesdad View Post
    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.

    It is worth a read....

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

  19. #19
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,944

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    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. #20
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    9,986

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ScareCrow57 View Post
    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.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Risk assessment?
    By danwill in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-11-2006, 05:14 PM
  2. Risk Assessments
    By TriTownship600 in forum Fire Politics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-07-2005, 06:53 AM
  3. Risk Assessments
    By ksmith31 in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-22-2005, 04:09 PM
  4. What is Risk?
    By stevejd in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-28-2002, 11:39 AM

Posting Permissions

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