1. #76
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default Re: Bump

    Originally posted by pete892
    Me thinks that maybe the higher ups at duPont put the clamps on Desmond. Probably the corporate lawyers got wind of this thread.

    Stay safe,

    Pete
    Probably not. Ol' Des probably did some research and found out how wrong he was.

  2. #77
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Calling Des!

  3. #78
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Flanders, NJ
    Posts
    13,537

    Default

    Hello?

  4. #79
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Sitting in my chair, listening to the scanner while the young kids respond
    Posts
    375

    Exclamation Last chance!

    Desmond: Last chance for a reply.

    I think George has been proved correct.

    Stay safe,

    Pete
    Pete Sinclair
    Hartford, MI
    IACOJ (Retired Division)

  5. #80
    Forum Member
    nmfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Maryland (DC Suburb)
    Posts
    5,738

    Default

    Expect to see some upcoming news with this device sometime after march. Extensive real world testing is quite likely to be published for review and hopefully acceptance by OSHA.
    Even the burger-flippers at McDonald's probably have some McWackers.

  6. #81
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    CONNECTICUT
    Posts
    59

    Default

    I am late comer to this topic, so forgive me. Last month Dupont went to Washington DC, for a hearing with Federal OSHA, was told it was a positive meeting, thats all I know about that. Training and prevention are cornerstones of the fire fighting culture, unfortunately way too many of us are still dying each year, what is the answer? Lastly, I am confused, perhaps I was reading it incorrectly and I am sure I will be jumped on if I did, but where is the scientific facts that every structure fire you respond to you are dealing exclusively with an oxygen deficient atmosphere? Also, in one of the very first replies someone mentions SAR ( supplied air respirator), I do believe OSHA, NIOSH and the NFPA standards do say that SAR are acceptable in an IDLH environment, maybe that was a typo, not sure. What a great country, we are all allowed to have our own opinions and speak them freely, the unfortunate part about that is, when people disagree they tend to get a bit condescending and rude, not the dynamic that was intended under "free speech", be safe brothers



    Skip

  7. #82
    Forum Member
    nmfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Maryland (DC Suburb)
    Posts
    5,738

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Skippy361
    Lastly, I am confused, perhaps I was reading it incorrectly and I am sure I will be jumped on if I did, but where is the scientific facts that every structure fire you respond to you are dealing exclusively with an oxygen deficient atmosphere?
    The ones I'm aware of that were conducted for this very purpose (EvacPRO) showed that the oxygen remained above 19.5% almost all the time. The times it dipped below that was in the fire room when the fire was at it's peak and it was for a matter of seconds.

    And for what it's worth, you have run out of SCBA anyway. You have no air at all. You aren't oxygen deficiant, you are oxygen NOTHING. You are already about to die. Using this device can't hardly make that worse. There is a VERY favorable chance that there will be sufficiant oxygen when you don this device. That means you have a very favorable chance of not dying for another 15 minutes.

    If you are unlucky enough to encounter a spat of oxygen deficiant air, the keyword is DEFFICIANT. That means less than 19.5%. It will start having adverse effects but you can still breathe. You don't drop dead at 19.4%. Unless the oxygen is reduced down to the single digits, you still have time.

    The alternative to all of the above is:
    A) Leave your empty SCBA on, suffocate, and die now.
    B) Remove your empty SCBA, inhale toxic smoke, suffer permanent respitory damage, and probably still die if it is that bad.

    Naysayers, you do that math.
    Even the burger-flippers at McDonald's probably have some McWackers.

  8. #83
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nmfire
    Naysayers, you do that math.

    George. Calling George. Nayyyyy.

  9. #84
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nmfire
    The ones I'm aware of that were conducted for this very purpose (EvacPRO) showed that the oxygen remained above 19.5% almost all the time. The times it dipped below that was in the fire room when the fire was at it's peak and it was for a matter of seconds.

    And for what it's worth, you have run out of SCBA anyway. You have no air at all. You aren't oxygen deficiant, you are oxygen NOTHING. You are already about to die. Using this device can't hardly make that worse. There is a VERY favorable chance that there will be sufficiant oxygen when you don this device. That means you have a very favorable chance of not dying for another 15 minutes.

    If you are unlucky enough to encounter a spat of oxygen deficiant air, the keyword is DEFFICIANT. That means less than 19.5%. It will start having adverse effects but you can still breathe. You don't drop dead at 19.4%. Unless the oxygen is reduced down to the single digits, you still have time.

    The alternative to all of the above is:
    A) Leave your empty SCBA on, suffocate, and die now.
    B) Remove your empty SCBA, inhale toxic smoke, suffer permanent respitory damage, and probably still die if it is that bad.

    Naysayers, you do that math.
    While I agree with you to a certian extent, I believe what some of the other felluhs were trying to say was along the lines of heat. George made a point that 500-600 degree air rushing down your esophogus and hitting the very very fragile lining of your lungs will do irreversible respiratory damage. But, however, on the other hand, this is, in fact, your last chance. If I'm low and I start suckin on that respirator and all of a sudden the thing locks my mask to my face and I'm not pulling any air out of it and all of a sudden I look around and am in the middle of ****ville and i'm the only tenant, F OSHA, F NIOSH, F NFPA, F P-OSHA. I'm going to put on whatever might give me a chance at life. Would I have to do some thinking before that? Sure. Pulling back the cuff of my glove should reveal whether or not I'll be able to breathe that air. Will it be uncomfortable? Probably. But if it means me getting home to see the mrs. and junior, hell, fine by me. A lot of variables when discussing when and where the appropriate use of this item would be. But there aren't many variables when talking about the accepted usage as far as the respiratory protection plans go, its a no no.

  10. #85
    Border Patrol

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Where the Buckeyes meet the Wolverines
    Posts
    162

    Default Same company, similar product

    Emergency Smoke Hoods Recalled
    April 20, 2006, 11:06 PM EDT
    WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with the firm named below, announced a voluntary recall of the following consumer product. Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

    Name of Product: EVAC-U8™ and EVAC+™ Emergency Escape Smoke Hoods

    Units: About 290,000 units

    Manufacturer: Brookdale International Systems Inc., of Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

    Hazard: The emergency escape smoke hoods could fail to work properly, exposing the user to harmful carbon monoxide which could seriously compromise their ability to escape the fire threat.

    Incidents/Injuries: None.

    Description and Models: These smoke hoods are one-time use respiratory devices that assist users with breathing while escaping a fire. They include a transparent plastic hood that covers the user’s head, and a canister that filters out toxic gases. “EVAC+™” or “EVAC-U8™” is printed on the canister.

    Sold at: Web sites, safety products retailers, catalogs, and travel stores from September 2000 through March 2006 for about $75 for the “EVAC-U8™” and about $150 for the “EVAC+™.”

    Manufactured In: Canada

    Remedy: Consumers should stop using the smoke hood devices immediately and contact Brookdale for a prorated refund.

    Consumer Contact: For more information, contact the firm’s recall hotline at (866) 823-4416 between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday, or visit the firm’s Web site at www.evacsafety.com
    "The quality of a person's life is in direct proportion to their commitment to excellence, regardless of their chosen field of endeavor." - Vince Lombardi

  11. #86
    Border Patrol

    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Where the Buckeyes meet the Wolverines
    Posts
    162

    Default Oops....same Product!!

    http://www.evacsafety.com/recall/scba.html

    Recall / Refund Instructions: SCBA Products
    A recall program is in effect for the following SCBA emergency escape respirators.

    EVACpro™ for Dräger Emergency Escape Respirator

    EVACpro™ for Scott Emergency Escape Respirator

    Survivair SmokeEater™ Air-Purifying Escape Canister
    Last edited by Capt790; 04-26-2006 at 06:51 PM. Reason: Found more info
    "The quality of a person's life is in direct proportion to their commitment to excellence, regardless of their chosen field of endeavor." - Vince Lombardi

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Log in

Click here to log in or register