Search

Background Increased mortality from cancers and other diseases has been reported in USA, Canadian, and Nordic firefighters. However, UK firefighters are understudied. Aims To determine whether UK firefighters suffer increased mortality from cancers and other diseases when compared with the general population. Methods Mortality from cancer and other diseases in Scottish male firefighters between 2000 and 2020 was compared with the general Scottish male population and expressed as standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) (with 95% confidence intervals, CI). Results Significant overall excess cancer mortality was found for Scottish firefighters compared with the general population (SMR 1.61, CI 1.42-1.81). Scottish firefighters were nearly three times more likely to die of malignant neoplasms (unspecified sites) (SMR 2.71, CI 1.71-4.00). Excess cancer mortality was also found for several site-specific cancers, including prostate (SMR 3.80, CI 2.56-5.29), myeloid leukaemia (SMR 3.17, CI 1.44-5.58), oesophagus (SMR 2.42, CI 1.69-3.29) and urinary system (kidney and bladder) (SMR 1.94, CI 1.16-2.91). Mortality from neoplasms of unknown behaviour was over six times greater in Scottish firefighters (SMR 6.37, CI 2.29-12.49). Additionally, significantly higher mortality was found for: acute ischaemic heart diseases (SMR 5.27, CI 1.90-10.33), stroke (SMR 2.69, CI 1.46-4.28), interstitial pulmonary diseases (SMR 3.04, CI 1.45-5.22), renal failure (SMR 3.28, CI 1.18-6.44) and musculoskeletal system diseases (SMR 5.64, CI 1.06-13.83). Conclusions UK firefighters suffer significant excess mortality from cancer and other diseases when compared with the general population. Preventative health monitoring and presumptive legislation are urgently required to protect UK firefighters’ health.

Flame retardants are chemical substances that are intended to mitigate fire safety risks posed by a range of goods including furniture, electronics, and building insulation. There are growing concerns about their effectiveness in ensuring fire safety and the potential harms they pose to human health and the environment. In response to these concerns, on 13 June 2022, a roundtable of experts was convened by the UKRI Six Clean Air Strategic Priorities Fund programme 7. The meeting produced a Consensus Statement that summarises the issues around the use of flame retardants, laying out a series of policy recommendations that should lead to more effective fire safety measures and reduce the human and environmental health risks posed by these potentially toxic chemicals. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.]

Firefighters suffer an increased risk of cancer from exposures to chemicals released from fires. Our earlier research has found that fire toxicants not only remain on firefighters’ PPE, but are also tracked back to fire stations. The UK Firefighter Contamination Survey assesses firefighters’ risk of developing cancer due to occupational exposure to fire toxins. Over 4% of surveyed firefighters were found to have a cancer diagnosis, with the age-specific cancer rate up to 323% higher (35–39 year olds) than that of the general population. Firefighters who had served ≥ 15 years were 1.7 times more likely to develop cancer than those who had served less time. Firefighters were at least twice as likely to be diagnosed with cancer if they noticed soot in their nose/throat (odds ratio (OR) = 2.0, 1.1–3.5), or remained in their PPE for more than four hours after attending a fire incident (OR = 2.3, 1.1–5.2). Also associated with an increased likelihood of cancer was: eating while wearing PPE (OR = 1.8, 1.2–2.7); failing to store clean/dirty PPE separately (OR = 1.3, 1.0–1.7); working in a station that smells of fire (OR = 1.3, 1.0–1.8) or not having designated (separated) clean and dirty areas (OR = 1.4, 1.1–1.7); using an on-site washing machine to launder fire hoods (OR = 1.3, 1.0–1.7); feeling that cleaning is not taken seriously at work (OR = 1.5, 1.2–2.0).

Firefighters’ personal protective equipment (PPE) is a potential source of chronic exposure to toxic contaminants commonly released from fires. These contaminants have also been found in fire stations. However, little research characterises the routes via which fire contaminants travel back to fire stations. The UK Firefighter Contamination Survey provides information on firefighters’ PPE provision, decontamination, and storage practices. All serving UK firefighters were eligible to take part in the survey, which comprised 64 questions. A total of 10,649 responses were included for analysis, accounting for roughly 24% of the UK’s firefighting workforce. Results revealed that most firefighters (84%) de-robe contaminated PPE/workwear after re-entering the appliance cab. There was a significant decreasing tendency to send PPE for cleaning after every incident with increasing seniority of role, length of service, and fire attendance frequency. Around one third of firefighters cleaned PPE after every incident. A number of issues were linked to external professional cleaning services, e.g. shrinkage, fit, turn-around time, and stock of reserve/pooled PPE. PPE storage was found to be a potential source of cross contamination, with almost half of firefighters (45%) indicating clean and dirty PPE is not stored separately. More than half of firefighters (57%) stored fire gloves (an item sent for professional decontamination by only 19% of firefighters, and never cleaned by 20%) within other items of PPE such as helmets, boots and tunic/trouser pockets. The survey’s results can be used to target gaps in decontamination measures within UK Fire and Rescue Services.

Four reduced-height (5 m) BS 8414-1 façade flammability tests were conducted, three having mineral-filled aluminium composite material (ACM-A2) with polyisocyanurate (PIR) and phenolic (PF) foam and stone wool (SW) insulation, the fourth having polyethylene-filled ACM (ACM-PE) with PIR insulation. Each façade was constructed from a commercial façade engineer’s design, and built by practising façade installers. The ACM-PE/PIR façade burnt so ferociously it was extinguished after 13.5 min, for safety. The three ACM-A2 cladding panels lost their structural integrity, and melted away from the test wall, whereupon around 40% of both the combustible PIR and PF insulation burnt and contributed to the fire spread. This demonstrates why all façade products must be non-combustible, not just the outer panels. For the three ACM-A2 tests, while the temperature in front of the cavity was independent of the insulation, the temperatures within it varied greatly, depending on the insulation. The system using PF/A2 allowed fire to break through to the cavity first, as seen by a sharp increase in temperature after 17 min. For PIR/A2, the temperature increased sharply at 22 minutes, as the panel started to fall away from the wall. For SW/A2, no rapid temperature rise was observed.