Backdraft/Smoke Explosion Video

[MikeDV]

MemphisE34a - I'm trying to figure out what you're talking about, and what your defending/attacking. Are you against the use of safety equipment, or a proponent of only using it when convenient, or when you're not in a hurry, or what? While I'll be interested to hear your "argument", your comments are dangerous, and as a bonus, ignorant. It's folks with your attitude that keep our injury/death rate up in the emergency incident category. Unless, of course, you're against seat belts as well - then we can move you into the responding category of inuries/deaths as well.

Pretty sure there's quite a few of us that make you "sick to your stomach", but I could be wrong.

I guess you're right, this is personal. It's a personal RESPONSIBILITY to act as safely as possible in the dangerous atmosphere we all work in - no matter how urgent the situation presents itself. It's our collective responsibility to promote safe practices as 100% of the time. It's ridiculous to suggest that you can serve an unproctected victim while being unprotected yourself. Sure, it happens - real hero stuff - but the odds catch up to you eventually. Are you gambling (risk management roulette), or responding as a well-trained and equipped profession ALL of the time.

Second post - thanks for the welcome. Now please remove head from sand, and the 1950's.

[ChiefKN]

MemphisE34a - I'm trying to figure out what you're talking about, and what your defending/attacking. Are you against the use of safety equipment, or a proponent of only using it when convenient, or when you're not in a hurry, or what? While I'll be interested to hear your "argument", your comments are dangerous, and as a bonus, ignorant. It's folks with your attitude that keep our injury/death rate up in the emergency incident category. Unless, of course, you're against seat belts as well - then we can move you into the responding category of inuries/deaths as well.

Pretty sure there's quite a few of us that make you "sick to your stomach", but I could be wrong.

I guess you're right, this is personal. It's a personal RESPONSIBILITY to act as safely as possible in the dangerous atmosphere we all work in - no matter how urgent the situation presents itself. It's our collective responsibility to promote safe practices as 100% of the time. It's ridiculous to suggest that you can serve an unproctected victim while being unprotected yourself. Sure, it happens - real hero stuff - but the odds catch up to you eventually. Are you gambling (risk management roulette), or responding as a well-trained and equipped profession ALL of the time.

Second post - thanks for the welcome. Now please remove head from sand, and the 1950's.

He was referencing your use of the word,"known".

Do you only search for known victims?

.

[MikeDV]

As usual, statements in print, especially on forums like this one, are without inflection,and lose some meaning. However, being "sick to my stomach" is pretty clear, and very insulting.

Your question "Do you only seach for known victims?" - the answer is no. We search every fire involved structure while in the offensvie strategy, whether there are known victims in advance, or not. That of course is our primary mission. My emphasis on the word "known" was meant to illustrate that PPE is used in ALL cases. Just because we are led to believe (because of some added, unsubstantiated information) that there are victims does not mean we can short circuit the means we have to protect ourselves beacuse the "urgency" factor is now higher. Every time we go to a structure fire, it is an urgent situation. Every time we we respond, we should be doing everything we can at full speed, with all due diligence and professionalism. This includes using to best advantage every single tool we own, including the ones for our own protection. The clairvoyant ability to know in advance which protective gear is necessary leads to complacency and risk taking. It's minor, so I can leave the gloves off, or the eye protection at the truck; I've done it lots of times before and never got hurt. Or, it's so dangerous and I have to move so quickly, I can take a few shortcuts. Either end of the specturm is a potential for injury or worse.

The reason we search every time, is because there is only one way to know - to open up, look with human eyes, and then decide if the risk we have thus far managed with our safety practices is worth any further exposure, or if the next thing that happens overpowers our equipment with no life safety payoff.

We should always think there is someone to be helped until we prove otherwise for ourselves.

All that being said, to imply that the use of PPE 100% of the time in any way is less aggressive, bad for potential victims, or some kind of "BS cliche" (everyone goes home - a BS cliche?) is - as I stated - dangerous and ignorant.