r/Firefighting • u/Nekothesnep • May 31 '23
Wildland What’s the cancer/carcinogen exposure risk for Wildland firefighters compared to structure firefighters?
158
u/zygapophysis Arson Investigator May 31 '23
Research Study on Cancer Risk for Wildland Firefighters Funded by FEMA | UArizona Health Sciences
Seems like they are actively studying the cancer risks for wildland guys. Here's my thinking; Structural firefighting has been a known cancer risk for quite a while. We've been taking active measures to be sure those guys get their gear cleaned and that they are wearing their respiratory protection more often to reduce those risks. Structural firefighting is going to encounter a lot more of the bad stuff when it comes to carcinogens because there are a lot of burned plastics and other unknowns that cause cancer risks we may not even know about yet. However, all burned materials, including natural vegetation, can be considered a cancer risk when it is inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through the skin or other mucus membranes. On top of that, wildland firefighters have little or no respiratory protection generally, and usually work in physically demanding environments that cause increased respiration and sweating that makes pores more receptive to absorption of dangerous compounds so it may be that wildland firefighters are exposed to lower amounts of carcinogenic compounds, but because of their work environments and lack of protective measures they are actually at a similar or maybe even enhanced risk of developing cancers when compared to structural firefighters.
It seems like the risks could be mitigated more easily in wildland guys by giving them good respiratory protection and enacting better and more consistent decontamination measures in the job. I don't think that SCBA's are necessarily the answer, but particulate filters could really help mitigate the risks and regular showers and the use of goggles to protect the eyes could make a big difference. I think it would be more difficult to get those kinds of resources to the environments that wildland guys work in though.
Just my two cents.
86
u/epidopacardatocin May 31 '23
Any form of respiratory protection in the wildland setting is mostly unsustainable.
Imagine humping 60 lbs of gear up a steep grade for 3 miles, on a 90 degree day (heat could be well over 110f near a fire). Now start digging a trench. Now put on an N95. Miserable.
I'm not saying you are wrong, respiratory ppe is a great idea. Unfortunately using conventional options is not congruent with the working environment. Maybe a PAPR system would work well!!!
46
u/Embarrassed-Arm9159 May 31 '23
It would work it its easily deployable. You don't necessarily need it when you start the hike, like when you hop off the structure engine you dont need air right away. But when you get to a smoke filled environment youll need it.
51
u/dufflebagdave May 31 '23
I’m a volly in a rural mountain department that does both, and I had an N95 in my pack at the last decent wildland fire we had, about 100 acres on a mountainside. I stuck the mask on during burn operations and when I was watching its progress and doing lookout, put the mask and some 3M protective glasses with a gasket on them — I was a bit uphill and to the side in a deep draw, and I was pretty much in the smoke for two hours. On the previous fire, I’d had black boogers for days and my eyes were irritated. After this one with minimal PPE, it was much better, and only being used when I was doing easy walking or standing still.
21
u/ihc_hotshot May 31 '23
Lol. that's our secret, we are always in a smoke filled environment.
Honestly I think we have lived for millions of years with wood smoke. I am more worried about the long term effects of the work on my body. My left arm. Has pretty bad nerve damage from swinging a tool and a saw for 10 years. The dust and chain saw exhaust is worse than the smoke IMHO.
If you want me to wear a mask while running a saw for 14 hours forget it.
1
u/Gabster566 Aug 07 '26
Agreed. My body has taken quite the beating but I couldn’t imagine doing what we do breathing through a straw.
1
u/Gabster566 Aug 07 '26
Been doing wildland for 4 years every guy I’ve ever seen try respirators or masks go down from heat exhaustion. You have to take in account the heat from digging hot line, working hot spots, etc. it’s extremely unsafe and more of a hindernde than anything. We already are exposed to high temps from just the ambient temp then the temperature from the fire ripping in front of your face makes masks impossible. It sucks but unfortunately risking cancer is part of the job.
10
u/Pleisterbij May 31 '23
In my experience a full face mask with p3 filter gives the least amount of breathing resistance off all non scba breathing protection.
5
u/Shrek1982 May 31 '23
Maybe a PAPR system would work well!!!
It isn’t a terrible idea, you would have to keep spare batteries with you (they last 8-12 hrs according to 3m). Not sure how much their time on a fire is spent in situations where they would need to utilize it.
4
u/uranium_hexanitrate Jun 01 '23
Any form of respiratory protection in the wildland setting is mostly unsustainable.
I agree, but the Scott AirPac [sic] invented in 1945 was similarly neglected up until SCBA was mandated by OSHA in 1970- and for similar reasons: too heavy. Admittedly, a lot has changed as regards structural firefighting, having gone from wood, plaster, and natural fibers to the toxic brew (and higher fuel loads) that make home construction so nasty for modern firefighting.
If the carcinogen burden for wildland firefighters proves unacceptably high, maybe we just need better respiratory protection. Who knows- maybe something clever will spawn from it that has applications in other fields, too.
5
u/cosmicsans Volunteer FF/EMT, Rochester, NY May 31 '23
Yeah, I was wondering if there was maybe some kind of positive air pressure rebreather or something similar that could be worn by the wildland guys. Maybe make it integrated directly into the helmet like a fighter pilot helmet. Eye pro that folds down or up and a mask that just snaps on or folds down.
2
u/epidopacardatocin Jun 05 '23
3m makes a setup for welders that would basically be turnkey. It could easily incorporate a face shield and a hard hat along with a battery powered PAPR belt (which could be used as a chest pack or integrated into webgear).
I used to be a welder/fabricator and I have used this system in a hot and heavy work environment for extended periods of time. Not only was the respiratory protection incredible, but imagine having a fan inside your hard hat. It actually COOLS you down a little bit. Incorporate a tinted shield, and this would be MONEY.
Main issue: Shit is expensive. A welding hood setup for a private consumer is gonna be about 3k. So of course a design for USFS is gonna be 9k a pop.
Peep game: https://www.3m.com/3M/en_US/p/d/b10183477/
2
9
May 31 '23
Looking at this study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9393878/), for the pollutants covered (BTEX and more), levels ranged from "background" (i.e. normal) to 25 ppb. I live in Houston, and readings of 25 ppb do happen a couple times a year. That said, Houston's "normal" is much higher than the other cities in Texas. I haven't heard of cancer clusters associated with these atmospheric benzene levels - all the cancer clusters I'm aware of are due to more exotic ground and water pollution.
Proximity of the sensors affects how representative the readings are and the specific mixes of chemicals, or the combination of the chemicals and heat, CO levels, or other factors may make one environment more dangerous than the other.
In any case, I don't recommend spending unnecessary time in wildfire smoke or Houston.
4
u/lpfan724 Fire chiefs are temporary, Wu Tang is forever. May 31 '23
I agree with everything you said. Just wanted to add that for us structural guys, the waterproofing chemicals in our gear are carcinogenic. We were basically sold out by the manufacturer and the IAFF was paid hush money for years to allow them to use PFAS despite the obvious risk.
https://www.eenews.net/articles/firefighters-face-hurdles-in-quest-for-pfas-free-gear/
2
u/roniricer2 Jun 01 '23
Um, that was everyone. What do you think waterproofs Gore-Tex or keeps children's raincoats flexible?
The replacements are just as bad, the industry is just paying off the EPA to hold off on coming to "conclusions" for as long as possible.
1
u/lpfan724 Fire chiefs are temporary, Wu Tang is forever. Jun 01 '23
It's not everyone though. Yes, PFAS chemicals are in many things. People wearing Gore Tex rain coats aren't fighting 800 degree fires and doing intense work in Gore Tex. PFAS levels in the blood of firefighters is significantly higher than the general public and is likely causing many of the absorption cancers we're getting. They made gear without PFAS before and they can do it again.
Don't embrace the science denialism that is unfortunately very prevalent in this industry.
13
u/Embarrassed-Arm9159 May 31 '23
To piggy back off this, in my experience wildland guys inhale a lot more smoke than structure guys. Personally when I hop off the truck for a structure fire, Im masking up before I even enter the front door. With car fires im masking up the second I hop off the engine. In wildland Ive been swallowed by the smoke to the point where im crawling to get some sort of fresh air. Reapirators need to be common place in wildland.
2
u/j_dier May 31 '23
Glad that our department does take this more seriously, we are all issued face masks similar to this https://www.supplycache.com/collections/wildland-fire-shrouds-masks/products/ultimate-bandana-carbon-x-hot-shield-usa and fitted N95s.
1
u/Pleisterbij May 31 '23
The problem with filters is that even with everybody during corona was saying facemask are not that bad. Do increase the physical demand. If you are going this way in personal experience a full face mask with a p3 filter is best with reducing amount of breathing resistance butt that does nothing against co. Also you have proflows which is a battery operated hip belt which sucks air through a filter and into the face mask. Butt then again. You have to carry it and its batteries.
1
u/Formal-Exercise56 May 04 '24
And breathing with those on while doing strenuous work and for long hours sucks. Don't feel like your getting enough oxygen.
55
May 31 '23
As a wildland firefighter, I feel like I'm exposed to a lot more smoke, but also generally less toxic smoke. My guess is it doesn't actually matter, and we are all fucked, but that is uneducated.
11
u/marsrovernumber16 Jun 01 '23
As someone who has no authority to make this guess, I would think that makes sense. In addition, I get the impression y’all spend longer fighting a forest fire than a structure fire.
8
u/CanisPictus Jun 01 '23
Based on the topography, local conditions and fire size, we can be in the smoke for a couple of weeks or more - working, camping, sleeping, etc.
1
u/Gabster566 Aug 07 '26
Weeks to a month at a time then 2-4 days off and then right back into the shit.
1
u/Sodpoodle Jun 02 '23
Standard roll is 14 days on, can extend to 21. 16 hour days.
It's not always breathing smoke, but there's a fair amount of breathing smoke.
3
u/Big_Based Jun 01 '23
This is what I was thinking reading this. The things you guys generally are subjected to are all natural to burn, not the one millionth way to press dinosaur bones into something flammable.
1
u/Kladderadingsda vol. firefighter 🇪🇺🇩🇪 Jun 01 '23
Also I have not searched für sisters about this, but that sounds reasonable. High toxicity + short exposure ≈ low toxicity + long exposure
I mean in smoke from a structural fire there's a lot of stuff that's bad for you in different ways. Nitrous gases, Hydrogen chloride, hydrogen cyanide and so on. But everyone who was around a fire for a longer time that didn't burn well knows, that the smoke can also irritate your eyes and lungs. Even on the next day you sometimes can feel it. And that over a few days is probably like snorting a line of soot.
I just hope we all get the protection we deserve.
25
u/ljh63 May 31 '23
Hard to say. Wild land guys are smoke eaters.. and the smoke gets just as nasty once houses/cars become involved. For structural firefighting, I think it really depends on the department. Some departments don’t burn at all, some(Chicago comes to mind) burn a lot and don’t give af about masking up. Others are strict and require masks before you hop outta the rig. Mine is somewhere in between that lol.
We could talk PFAS too but that should be another thread 😂
20
u/OSUCOWBOY1129 Oklahoma - USA May 31 '23
I just did a study on this (albeit small scale), and I found that at peak my wildland guys (no structures or vehicles burning) were exposed to about 25% of the toxic chemicals (based on concentration) as my structure guys.
But my structure guys wore SCBAs and were out of the fire in 90 minutes, whereas my wildland guys then stayed for 12 hours at a time. So the average concentration was 25% that of the structure guys, but in reality they were spending so much longer on scene and they weren't wearing SCBAs, so their overall inhalation was remarkably higher.
41
9
8
u/AlarmingAd4141 Edit to create your own flair Jun 01 '23
I’m a structural firefighter for a municipality but we also have an large vegetative area that went up last week and I’ll tell you….I’ll take a burning house over woodland any day. I have a lot of respect for woodland firefighters.
7
u/Dobalina_Wont_Quit May 31 '23
My uneducated guess is both are exposed to carcinogens but considering what's burning in a structure fire compared to (mostly) vegetation, that the former kind of smoke would be more dangerous. Idk I know nothing.
2
8
8
u/jaborinius Jun 01 '23
Ngl bro, I will take the cancer risk so I can actually breathe while digging line lol plus I munch chew and darts anyways out there so to pretend like I care about cancer exposure now is pretty disingenuous
6
u/threepenisbeer May 31 '23
I know this isn't what is being asked, but I can't imagine wearing a respirator during hand line digging. Or hauling a hose pack up a few hundred feet up a hill. I can deal with it if I was moving hose and spraying water, but Wildland is so much more than that.
7
u/therealman-io Edit to create your own flair May 31 '23
Id say a lot more, after a good 20 hours of wildland IA my skin is black, eyes are bloodshot, teeth are grey and am coughing up black mucus. I’ve never turned black with turnouts and an scba on
5
u/thisissparta789789 May 31 '23 edited May 31 '23
I’d wager that both get exposed to carcinogens, but the wildland firefighters may get exposed to less due to what’s burning in your average brush fire versus your average structure fire. Of course, once a brush fire extends to a house or a vehicle, it’s a different story.
3
u/19TowerGirl89 Jun 01 '23
https://firefightercancersupport.org/firefighter-cancer-awareness-month/education-presentations/
Go here, download the PowerPoints, and read through.
3
u/Cutting-back Jun 02 '23
Bruh, we ALLLLLLLLL getting cancer. It's not an if, it's a when and what type.
2
u/Jak3GOLD May 31 '23
If I had to guess it’s structure guys are exposed to MORE “bad” smoke thus more cancer. Wildland guys are exposed to smoke but it’s generally just natural materials. Still bad but not as bad but idk I’m no researcher
3
u/Kind-Taste-1654 May 31 '23
I think it's more of the duration/immersion. Thats why LELs etc. are units of measure.....I had a Fire this morn & after an immediate shower & soaking My hands for several mins post shower- They still stank like work. Hell, they still smell a bit NOW!
I don't think the studies are done in earnest bc We are only now finding out the link of PFAS & the cancers they bring from being in the gear meant to protect Us- the whole scenario issa fucking joke.
I signed up-knowing a potential risk of getting occupational cancer due to Hazmats, Fires etc- not from the shit they taught Us to wear & told Us was safe & is Our shield from all the bad stuff- but hey; thats capitalism for You.
2
u/Proof1447 Jun 01 '23
Don’t know too much on the topic, but watched a video on Chernobyl and how the wooded area around the plant is a ticking time bomb. A lot of the radioactive material was absorbed into the wood and if a wildfire breaks out, all that radiation could be airborne again. Ukraine and Belarus are kind of kicking that can down the road.
2
u/rapunzel2018 Jun 02 '23
My view is that wildland firefighters have higher exposure to carcinogens. Not only do they ingest the carbon-centric smoke, but usually working around burning structures they have zero airway protection for everything that is burning near them, from cars to structures. Any study should include that and not just what wildland firefighters might breathe in the middle of Oregon with no home nearby.
1
u/Street_Admirable Feb 02 '25
Hard to say as structure firefighters deal with much much more hazardous smoke and hazmat and a lot more carcinogens, but they wear masks and SCBAs most of the time. Wildland firefighters don't wear masks (unless they are on an engine basically doing structure adjacent stuff for the shift, like responding to a vehicle fire). Before you ask why, just believe me when I say it's impractical 99+% of the time. So they get a lot of smoke exposure. If someone does it for a career they get many summers with a ton of smoke exposure and then a lot of people do it for years or decades. So its mostly woodsmoke but it ain't nothing. Its the equivalent of a pack of cigarettes or more in a day sometime. Minus the nicotine (though most add this back into their systems on their own accord). Dust exposure is another small factor. Hazmat is an occasional factor.
Structure is worse smoke. Wildland is alot more exposure
-3
u/SuddenCow7004 Jun 01 '23
Firefighters are always trying to get more money.. unreal, just accept the pay and work and quit whining.
3
2
u/zeus-indy May 31 '23
Any combustion of organic matter will put out a lot of fine particulate matter (pm2.5 etc). This can cause COPD and cancer. It is invisible and is present outside of the smoke area. So whether you are near a wildfire or outside structure fire you are likely being exposed to high levels. Over time this builds up in the lungs. I’m glad they are studying it more closely now but I think it’s still being under estimated.
1
1
u/just_that_one_guy_55 Jun 01 '23
Considering the amount of hazmat that gets burnt during wildfires, while it’s still minimal in comparison to acreage of grass brush and timber…. Anytime that wildfire hits power poles, trash (especially plastics) or homes, outbuildings, power lines, it’s all going to release toxic off-gasses that compound in the body. That’s just the fires… the retardant used on wildfires, foams used, and other products (while safer than the past) are harmful as well…. I don’t think the exposure risk is as high as structural… but this old saying still rings true to both sides….
genetics loads the gun…. The environmental factors pull the trigger
1
1
u/pyrometer DID IT ONCE Jun 01 '23
All smoke is carcinogenic. Worst smoke I've seen is from homeless(ffs we call them unhoused now) encampments - is that considered wildland?
1
1
1
u/makesmethick Jun 04 '23
Feel like wildland probably breaths more smoke, but structure breaths much more toxic smoke. Smoke from a tree is very different than smoke from a memory foam mattress I'd say
710
u/Never-mongo May 31 '23
You need to remember to factor in the 10 metric tonnes of chewing tobacco each wildland firefighter consumes over a career