Tragedy invites reflection, and the death of 19 firefighters is an awful thing. Firefighting is still one of the safest professions one can pursue, unlike farming or fishing or construction, where people put their lives on the line so we can eat and live.
I've made several posts on this blog about volunteer firefighting, and I came across some statistics that show volunteers are safer at firefighting than paid firefighters. I can only offer anecdotal evidence, based on conversations with volunteer firefighters, but the facts are 70% of the firefighters in USA are volunteer, and they experience less than 50% of the deaths. Less than 30% of the firefighters are paid and they experience nearly 50% as well. People might argue that city firefighting in inherently more dangerous than country firefighting, but that ignores the fact there are city volunteer firefighting crews, and note that 19 who just died were fighting fires in the country. That argument won't wash.
People will say "if you disagree with paid municipal fire fighters, you want houses to burn down." Perhaps if we step back from social conditioning, and look at the facts, we can have safer communities, fewer fires and deaths, at a lower cost. That is what I would like to see. It appears that paid firefighting may not be a good idea (and it has been around only about 100 years, so time to review it.) Study how come volunteer firefighting is safer, just as effective if not more so, and at a lower cost. Then debate it. Let's just not accept the death of 19 firefighters and continue on as before.
Also, the largest forest fire in the history of the Colorado was started by a USForest Service Fire Fighter and the worst serial arsonist in the history of the USA was a city fire marshall. Insurance investigators were on to him almost instantly, but since we rely on the State to investigate its own, the arson and death went on a decade. Such should be added to the downside of paid firefighters accounts.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
I've made several posts on this blog about volunteer firefighting, and I came across some statistics that show volunteers are safer at firefighting than paid firefighters. I can only offer anecdotal evidence, based on conversations with volunteer firefighters, but the facts are 70% of the firefighters in USA are volunteer, and they experience less than 50% of the deaths. Less than 30% of the firefighters are paid and they experience nearly 50% as well. People might argue that city firefighting in inherently more dangerous than country firefighting, but that ignores the fact there are city volunteer firefighting crews, and note that 19 who just died were fighting fires in the country. That argument won't wash.
People will say "if you disagree with paid municipal fire fighters, you want houses to burn down." Perhaps if we step back from social conditioning, and look at the facts, we can have safer communities, fewer fires and deaths, at a lower cost. That is what I would like to see. It appears that paid firefighting may not be a good idea (and it has been around only about 100 years, so time to review it.) Study how come volunteer firefighting is safer, just as effective if not more so, and at a lower cost. Then debate it. Let's just not accept the death of 19 firefighters and continue on as before.
Also, the largest forest fire in the history of the Colorado was started by a USForest Service Fire Fighter and the worst serial arsonist in the history of the USA was a city fire marshall. Insurance investigators were on to him almost instantly, but since we rely on the State to investigate its own, the arson and death went on a decade. Such should be added to the downside of paid firefighters accounts.
Feel free to forward this by email to three of your friends.
0 comments:
Post a Comment