Heart Attacks and Trauma Killed Firefighters in 2008

[misterteddy]

A timely New Year's message to keep yourself fit, and wear your seatbelt to calls


"Last year, 114 firefighters died on duty in the United States.

Preliminary reports gathered by the U.S. Fire Administration show that's four fewer than during 2007.

Trauma and heart attacks continue to be the leading causes of deaths of firefighters, statistics show.

The number of on-duty deaths may change over the next few months as further investigation is conducted. Traditionally, each state fire marshal's office is contacted to make sure no firefighter fatalities were overlooked.

Of those who died in 2008, 56 were volunteers and 30 were career firefighters. Twenty six personnel died while battling wildfires.

Records show there were five incidents in which multiple firefighters died.

Nineteen personnel were killed while responding to incidents.

The USFA keeps track of firefighters killed on duty across the country. More information is available at USFA Fire Fatalities"

courtesy of Firehouse.com News

[Baxter]

I know statistics are interesting; Yes it was a nice read but so what.

We are not part of america even though I think some of the pollies do think we are at times. I was left wondering am I now meant to go off and compare that lovely tit bit of information to something that I dig up in the www land of oz. In my normal paid job I read interesting statistics and facts that have no relationship to my world of work or anything that relates to me. I just wish those who did up these interesting conversation points would provide some more meaning to them than just numbers.

Mr Teddy this is not a go at you as your not the only one that has posted these types of gee whiz bang statistics that have been dug up from goodness knows where. If your going dig these things up dig them up for a reason and tell us why

[misterteddy]

Yes it was a nice read but so what.

If your going dig these things up dig them up for a reason and tell us why

umm....i thought it was fairly clear why I posted it

A timely New Year's message to keep yourself fit, and wear your seatbelt to calls

as for where and why and how we post all manner of fire related information....well...in case it has slipped past the editorial pages of the Mallee Chronicle, theres a big wide world out there that occasionally us big headed know it all firefighters can actually learn something from. Yes...I know we dont live in America......but i don't live in China and i like the No 7 special with fried rice at my local All U Can Eat Cat Emporium too....maybe just accept the info as my (obviously) clumsy, but (hopefully) salient reminder about being safe

oh.....and i was even a good boy and referenced it, oh well.....back to the tractor ploughing competitions

[6739264]

I know statistics are interesting; Yes it was a nice read but so what.

I don't think I'll bother posting much more than you are an idiot and need a lesson in reading comprehension and critical thinking.

We can learn lessons from other firefighters all over the world. Although we all know that combustion is totally different in the US and hence we should ignore anything from that part of the world...

[Baxter]

Again I can't see the argument only a a bit of name calling and as the saying goes stick and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me. As I said before nice read and a as a safety message so what. By the way numbers lets have close look at what was said using that silly thing you called critical thinking.

"A timely New Year's message to keep yourself fit, and wear your seatbelt to calls

"Last year, 114 firefighters died on duty in the United States.

Preliminary reports gathered by the U.S. Fire Administration show that's four fewer than during 2007.

Trauma and heart attacks continue to be the leading causes of deaths of firefighters, statistics show."

OK fire fighter died of heat attacks and trauma. What do they define as trauma? How does this relate to seatbelts. Is the reference to seatbelts found some else?

I didn't see a comparison between Australian numbers and American number either.

How much of an impact as a safety message do you want that quotes to be. 1 second 10 second, a minute, an hour, a day, a week or what. If you want a safety message turn on your TV and wait for the quit smoking adds. The safety message is blatant to all and has a an impact.

To get a message across in not rocket science and using terms such as critical thinking which I reckon the average teacher would struggle in assessing the concept. If the title and the contents aren't in agreement then doesn't that mean I understand what has been written and able comment on it.

By the way I can reference as well. One that comes to mind Chamala and Mortiss 1990 "Working Together for Landcare" Aust. Acad. Press has a chapter on getting your message out to people. I'm sorry but a quote should not be the summation of your argument it needs to be crafted so that it has some meaning. The reader should not be left hanging waiting for something to happen. There are plenty of books on communication in libraries both between people and in getting your message out to people. Hang where in the land of the great wide W then you can just google it. Just remember that if we go down the great wide W path that you will be learning from both anecdotal evidence and factual evidence. Then again simple country folk like myself out in the sticks is only telling you guys how to suck eggs.

[jaff]

Malleefire.............aren't all books in libraries about communication?
Sorta next step along from rockart and more portable

[firey666]

Come on guys, The Basic message is keep fit and stay safe, Take all the BS out of your posting and that is what we get.

As one of you said combustion is the same in all parts of the world, Some understand it and Some don't, The danger is still there, Extra stresses on the body, heightened chances of Heart attack or other injuries.

As for wearing seatbelts look at the dash or visor in your truck, read the safety briefs, We are required to wear seatbelts by law and still some don't. Friendly reminder don't hurt.

Now you can have a go at me.

[misterteddy]

aaaahhh Mallee.....you're a funny fella. I bring to the forum some information about firefighting safety in 2008; you raise an 18yr old Tree Huggers guide to communicating.......and I'm the villain.Interesting concept. Having much more of an appreciation now of what our paid staff have to contend with, I shall retire gracefully from this discussion

Nineteen personnel were killed while responding to incidents.

well, almost.....thats the obviously obscure info about seatbelts you were looking for. A bit of research will show you that the US has a huge issue with responders (of all services) wearing seatbelts to calls. Funnily enough....CFS has been having the same issues - but i guess when u drive on the other side of the road it doesnt directly correlate.

Well it was almost gracefully dammit......

[jaff]

Tedsters  scores     7.2    7.9     8.3    6.0    9.1   7.8    7.5    8.1

Drop the highest and lowest, gives us a mean score of...................   7.8    ....
not quite gracefull, but puts you in third place overall, with two rounds to go!

[Baxter]

Sorry Jaff not into point scoring.

Mr Teddy an 18 year old book as you point does not mean the content is irrelevant as the content is as relevant today as it was when it was printed. Just out of interest I was looking at some farming information today and one of the sources of information was dated 1924. Before you can dismiss this date it relates to how we apply seed treatments to seed. As you pointed out the book as you called it was a tree huggers guide. If you researched into the management of emergency services volunteers both the tree huggers guide have some thing in common that is they both were generated by social movement research. From what we know of landcare groups and how they function has given the researchers a starting point on how to research the social paradigm of an emergency service. The work that has been done by the CRC for Bushfire Research has some wonderful papers that are available for reading on this topic.

No one has painted you into what you see yourself as the villain, Mr Teddy but has taken your information on a journey about communication.

As I posted before that if extrapolating an argument from a sentence could be perceived as misleading by adding an insight that only the author could see. As  statement such as "Nineteen personnel were killed while responding to incidents" does not provide any detail as how they died and we both know from our respective services that it is still possible for people to die while still wearing a seatbelt from other contributing factors. When providing a factual account the statement needs to be supported by clear statements and the necessary information to support the argument put forward.

With a book with the simple title of Communication: A foundation course (Tyler, Kossen and  Ryan 1999) communication involves a three components the sender, the reciever and the channel. Tyler, Kossen and Ryan (1999) defined the channel as the means that we give feedback that we actual understood what has been said which can be in the form of either paraphasing it back or other non verbal cues or through asking clarifying questions. I remember reading on a wall in another station just because you are talking does not mean you are communicating. In this virtual world the same can be applied but we have the added benefit of reflecting before posting.

[6739264]

I honestly don't know what to say...

This thread has blown my mind.

[misterteddy]

I honestly don't know what to say...

This thread has blown my mind.

i'm with you numbers....my only consolation is that i had one to start with