Turnout gear sold in Massachusetts and Connecticut must be free of toxic ‘forever chemicals’ by 2027 and 2028. Similar bill in California is defeated.
I am extremely suspect that they were able to remove the bias for cancer from turnout gear. These guys daily job normalizes breathing in of cancer giving dust. They disproportionately smoke because it lessens the effect of having to work in a burned out area.
I hope they have a good non-cancer giving candidate to replace the PFAs. As long as the new garments underperform the old garments they will find ways to get a hold of the old garments.
Smoking generally exacerbates the harmful effects of smoke exposure. The combination of tobacco smoke and smoke from fires can compound respiratory and cardiovascular issues, making firefighters more vulnerable to diseases.
Yes, but that’s counter to the point of why they do it.
It’s like a desensitizing thing. It doesn’t actually make things easier, just tricks your mind into it.
They do it because of stress.
For career fire departments, smoking ciggarettes doesn’t seem more pervasive than other places. Many departments haven’t allowed smoking while on duty for quite a long time, and we work 24 to 48 hours per shift.
As to the pfas and cancer, you’re right about a lot of what we end up breathing in and smoke we get on our skin from firefighting, but you don’t actually need that study done to already know that pfa’s cause cancer. That’s been covered by other studies outside of firefighting equipment to know that pfas are cancer causing. Further, it’s been proving that pfas can be absorbed through the skin, and finally, it’s been proven that firefighters have had higher levels of pfas in their bloodstream.
So it’s not that firefighters have more cancer and they’re just claiming it’s because of the pfas. It’s that they know pfas cause cancer and that our bunker gear is leeching pfas into our body’s.
Yeah. The article uses “linked to” to describe that the chemicals may cause cancer. That’s weasel worded and needs to be quantitative. The argument that some departments have started using PFAS-free gear and that proves the chemicals aren’t needed is specious as well. You need to quantify the deaths and injuries from gear with and without PFAS.
Counting ladies around the lunch table whose husbands have prostate cancer is not good science.
Unless these chemicals are extremely likely to cause cancer, it is probably the least cancerous thing on our gear. It’s usually covered in soot and all kinds of nasty shit. We make a huge effort to keep them out of the cab of the truck, wash them everytime they get used, and we don’t just hang out in them because of the carcinogens that get on them from use. Also, a firefighter smoking is not as common as it used to be. Far less than most other fields. Our job requires us to be in great cardiovascular condition and the few smokers get chastised for it. The culture has drifted away from being a smoke eater, we take tons of preventative measures to keep the cancer out of our bodies, but we know it’s still likely going to happen.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_substances
I guess Teflon is a PFAS. The list of things that use PFASs was very long, I wonder why they went after fire fighting gear early? I couldn’t find any information on an effective alternative. To get the same thermal protection with less effective chemicals would it need to be heavier?
Edit: I guess the firefighters union is lobbying for getting rid of them, so I’d hope there’d be other effective options available. https://www.iaff.org/pfas/
The Guardian - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The Guardian:
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this sourceSearch topics on Ground.News
