You’re reading my newsletter, Terra Nullius, on the weird and interesting intricacies of the countries and places that make up our world. It currently goes out to over 1,000 people every week. You can subscribe by clicking below: Why do fire departments exist? It’s a relatively simple question you might assume: something catches fire, and the firefighters come and put it out within minutes of you dialling 999/112/911/111/
Interestingly even 50 years ago in UK it was always wise to ask for Fire emergency as the Crewe’s were always trained in first aid & resuscitation and much speedier to the scene.
It makes a great deal of sense to integrate the emergency services more closely.
Very interesting. Also when you said “Not many professions have managed to put themselves out of business in the way fire departments have through their advocacy for fire safe,” it made me wonder whether the medical industry could do the same for health safety!
FYI, the fire unions realized this and in most cases wanted the medical work. There are some, like the one in New Haven who have the best of all worlds -- the fire units respond to every medical call in case they are needed to gain entry to the patient, but have no actual medical responsiblities. This meant that, unlike in San Francisco where combining the Public Heath run ambulance service into the fire department created major disruptions in pay and promotion schedules, the fire department can remain pristine while gaining the additional justification for their existence.
Forgotten in this? This is the single most expensive way to provide medical transport. In areas where the fire service does not provide EMS, paramedics are paid less than nurses and EMTs about as much as a nurses aide. Firefighter Paramedics make more than nurses, get better benefits, and work fewer hours. Additionally, their training greater than their non-firefighter counterparts (who don't have to fight fires). Many of the "medical calls" in US cities also have little to do with medical care, at least in terms of trauma. They are transport-only tasks.
Agree with Naro that you have the wrong end of the stick on this one. Fire dpts should not be looked to for providing medical care. It's reasonable that they have medics on the team, as fires are dangerous, but let specialized teams handle the medical only calls. If you'd like them publicly funded, perhaps the easiest way would be to add it into the services the fire department provides, but make sure you don't end up where we are in the US, with ladder trucks with a full complement of firefighters rolling to medical calls regularly.
Careful what you wish for! Firefighters in the US are enormous drains on public coffers...they get hefty lifelong pensions with very early retirement. Fire stations are overbuilt, and they drive around enormous fire trucks to then provide first aid that could be done by a regular ambulance and paramedics who are paid a normal wage.
As well as medical emergencies, a fire engine might provide useful services during a riot? They already attend road accidents to clean roads from fluids/extract people from damaged vehicles. Due to the requirements for handling large fires they have sophisticated Command and Control capability, so are able to address large incidents of all types. Perhaps they should just brand themselves as 'International Rescue'?
There's a lot of firefighting knowledge missing from this analysis. 1) Fighting fire is a very manpower intensive task, so getting the right amount of resources on-scene in a short time requires all those stations and firefighters, even if there are less fires. Imagine if we said we don't need as many hydrants because there are less fires. Less firefighters and firehouse would reduce the capacity to fight every individual fire. 2) Buildings are burning faster. Lightweight construction and synthetic interior materials means a fire must be controlled very rapidly, or conditions will place firefighters in unacceptable danger of collapse. 3) Fire spreads. In densely build areas, fires must be controlled very rapidly, regardless of their frequency, or else adjoining buildings burn as well. This requires an early aggressive attack by a large number of firefighters.
Interestingly even 50 years ago in UK it was always wise to ask for Fire emergency as the Crewe’s were always trained in first aid & resuscitation and much speedier to the scene.
It makes a great deal of sense to integrate the emergency services more closely.
Very interesting. Also when you said “Not many professions have managed to put themselves out of business in the way fire departments have through their advocacy for fire safe,” it made me wonder whether the medical industry could do the same for health safety!
FYI, the fire unions realized this and in most cases wanted the medical work. There are some, like the one in New Haven who have the best of all worlds -- the fire units respond to every medical call in case they are needed to gain entry to the patient, but have no actual medical responsiblities. This meant that, unlike in San Francisco where combining the Public Heath run ambulance service into the fire department created major disruptions in pay and promotion schedules, the fire department can remain pristine while gaining the additional justification for their existence.
Forgotten in this? This is the single most expensive way to provide medical transport. In areas where the fire service does not provide EMS, paramedics are paid less than nurses and EMTs about as much as a nurses aide. Firefighter Paramedics make more than nurses, get better benefits, and work fewer hours. Additionally, their training greater than their non-firefighter counterparts (who don't have to fight fires). Many of the "medical calls" in US cities also have little to do with medical care, at least in terms of trauma. They are transport-only tasks.
Trust me. Having fire departments do ambulance work is insane.
The reason, in the USA, is pensions.
Firemen get great pensions from their municipal governments.
EMTs do not.
We should focus on shrinking the number of fire stations, equipment, and firefighters.
Agree with Naro that you have the wrong end of the stick on this one. Fire dpts should not be looked to for providing medical care. It's reasonable that they have medics on the team, as fires are dangerous, but let specialized teams handle the medical only calls. If you'd like them publicly funded, perhaps the easiest way would be to add it into the services the fire department provides, but make sure you don't end up where we are in the US, with ladder trucks with a full complement of firefighters rolling to medical calls regularly.
Careful what you wish for! Firefighters in the US are enormous drains on public coffers...they get hefty lifelong pensions with very early retirement. Fire stations are overbuilt, and they drive around enormous fire trucks to then provide first aid that could be done by a regular ambulance and paramedics who are paid a normal wage.
As well as medical emergencies, a fire engine might provide useful services during a riot? They already attend road accidents to clean roads from fluids/extract people from damaged vehicles. Due to the requirements for handling large fires they have sophisticated Command and Control capability, so are able to address large incidents of all types. Perhaps they should just brand themselves as 'International Rescue'?
There was an effort to use data and modeling to downscale fire departments in NYC a few decades back. It had horrific results: https://www.amazon.com/Fires-Computer-Intentions-City-Determined/dp/1594485062
There's a lot of firefighting knowledge missing from this analysis. 1) Fighting fire is a very manpower intensive task, so getting the right amount of resources on-scene in a short time requires all those stations and firefighters, even if there are less fires. Imagine if we said we don't need as many hydrants because there are less fires. Less firefighters and firehouse would reduce the capacity to fight every individual fire. 2) Buildings are burning faster. Lightweight construction and synthetic interior materials means a fire must be controlled very rapidly, or conditions will place firefighters in unacceptable danger of collapse. 3) Fire spreads. In densely build areas, fires must be controlled very rapidly, regardless of their frequency, or else adjoining buildings burn as well. This requires an early aggressive attack by a large number of firefighters.
What's your source for the claim that the fire risk in the UK is projected to drop even with the increased risk from climate change?