Within a month of each other last year, four firefighters who fought the notorious 1997 Plastimet chemical fire in Hamilton died. Three suffered massive cardiac arrests, and the other, Larry Power, died of cancer. The fact that he died of an aggressive form of cancer that medical science had almost forgotten (it generally only affected chimney sweeps) prompted many in the industry to openly question how much danger firefighters face from inhaled substances.
Toronto has seen its fair share of high-profile fires in recent years, and we all know that being a firefighter is a risky job. There are obvious dangers from the fire itself, and from buildings collapsing. Recent studies have indicated that fighting fires puts a tremendous strain on cardiac systems not built for such profound amounts of stress to be repeated over and over again. But significant concern is emerging about substances inhaled or even absorbed through the skin of firefighters than can cause long-term health problems, death and even birth defects in future generations. And these problems can also affect people near the fire, especially spectators.
Of course, firefighters and their employers are aware of the noxious gasses that can be produced in even the simplest house or apartment fire. “Even just a simple wood fire produces carbon monoxide—and we all know how dangerous that is these days—carbon dioxide, benzene, formaldehyde, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and particulate like tar bubbles; all of these things are dangerous,” said Andrew Kostiuk, a Toronto Fire Services division commander, co-chair for health and safety for the service and co-chair for the department’s Section 21 advisory committee (which oversees occupational health concerns). “When you add plastic, you bring hydrogen chloride, PVC (which is much like mustard gas, which was used as a weapon in World War One) and hydrogen cyanide, which was used in gas chambers for executions.” And that doesn’t even include the chemical horror show most people keep under their kitchen sinks or in their workshops.
To combat the deadly gasses they face every day, firefighters are equipped with self-contained breathing apparatuses (SCBAs)*, which provide fresh air in very strenuous conditions. Kostiuk maintains that Toronto firefighters have the “best of the best” equipment, and that its use and care are taken very seriously. “There is a great deal of training with and testing of the equipment,” he said. “Users must be tested and registered every year, and each unit has a customized facial fitting, which can be adapted as the user’s face changes.”
If we assume, then, that the firefighter is safe as long as he or she is wearing the SCBA, the problems would appear to arise once it’s taken off. In hot environments and difficult, stressful work conditions, the SCBA can become uncomfortable. Far more troubling, though, are the time limitations of the apparatus. “The gear is generally designed more for a thermal environment than a chemical one, and the biggest limitation is how much air you can carry,” said Rich Duffy, spokesman for the International Association of Fire Fighters in Washington, D.C. “Most are designed for 30 minutes at a rate of 40 litres per minute. You and I are breathing 40 liters per minute right now; in a fire, firefighters breathe at an accelerated rate—those bottles can last just 15 minutes.” That forces firefighters to rotate in and out of fires frequently. “When facing bigger fires, like that one you had in Toronto recently, they can switch to what they call ‘hour bottles,’ which last longer,” Duffy said. But, of course, those bottles are heavier and more cumbersome.
Toronto firefighters are better off than most, Kostiuk said, because they can be rotated out of active firefighting after four hours due to an abundance of firefighters in the city. Smaller communities don’t have that luxury. Duffy agreed. “The chances of being exposed are increased in cities with smaller forces,” he said.
But even on big forces like Toronto’s, the potential for exposure to dangerous gasses and substances is still present after the fire has been extinguished—when firefighters are much less likely to wear their SCBAs. “There’s room for improvement when it comes to safety after the fire is out,” said Kostiuk. “Firefighters doing overhaul—which includes tearing down walls and ceilings to find any small fires—and cause determination may drop their masks because they are heavy and cumbersome, and that’s when firefighters are most tired.”
Taking the SCBA off is not a great idea. Studies, including one conducted by McMaster University, have concluded that dangerous gasses can still come out of even a simple wood fire for 12 to 36 hours after the fire has been extinguished.
Another threat firefighters face is asbestos. Used almost universally in construction for decades due to its fire-retardant and soundproofing qualities, asbestos was later determined to be a significant health risk, and its use was limited or banned, depending on its purpose. “You’re likely to encounter some form of asbestos in any building made before 1972,” said Kostiuk. “But the one factor that works in our favour is that asbestos is only dangerous if it is broken up and inhaled; water dampens it and tends to keep it from becoming airborne.” He noted that asbestos was present at the Queen Street Fire and the Sunrise Gas Explosion, but that none of it was airborne.
Far more dangerous in residential fires are household items like solvents, cleaners, paints and other chemicals commonly kept in residences. When I asked Duffy if it would help firefighters if people could label their dangerous items in much that way they may post a “save my cat” sticker on their door, he sighed.
“People don’t know what’s dangerous because it’s not dangerous until it burns,” he said. “We assume it’s a dangerous situation every time until it’s proven that it isn’t.” While fires at places like chemical storage plants are obviously and predictably dangerous, Duffy said that real problems arise when those dangers are less predictable. “The worst is storage units,” he said. “Who knows what people have in there? Two-hundred units could mean 200 hoarders. Those fires are tough to evaluate.”
But even the most meticulous planning can’t prevent firefighters from being exposed to chemical dangers. Kostiuk noted that at the 1987 Horticultural Technologies pesticide storage fire in Kitchener, half the city’s fire department attended the fire and the other half didn’t. The half that did had significantly inflated cancer, respiratory problem and birth defect rates. Of course, SCBA technology was different back then, but Kostiuk said that firefighters were exposed by eating, drinking and just being in “the hot zone.”
And that exposure is not just limited to the firefighters. Kostiuk noted that many people in the area of the 1997 Plastimet in Hamilton (in which 400 tons of plastic burned for four days) developed symptoms not unlike those of the firefighters who attended. He said he believes part of the problem was that people came out to watch the fire. He pointed out that firefighters do their best to evacuate and cordon off affected areas, but spectators still attend, much to their peril. For them, and others who find themselves close to fires, Kostiuk has some advice. “Avoid inhaling smoke,” he said. “Nothing good can come from it.”
* CORRECTION JANUARY 27: An earlier version of this story incorrectly identified self-contained breathing apparatuses as self-enclosed breathing apparatuses. OpenFile regrets the error.
