The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Is the cancer risk still twice as bad for firefighter's?
A New York Post article, dated November 11, 2006, quoted research that studied 110,000 firefighters worldwide that found they face up to twice the risk of dying from certain types of cancer. University of Cincinnati researchers revealed that firefighters developed (10) ten of those deadly diseases more frequently that any other type of worker.
The most virulent was testicular cancer, which the study found was twice as likely to affect firemen. Firefighters also faced a 53% greater chance of contracting multiple myeloma, a deadly cancer that attacks bone marrow. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and prostrate cancer had also occurred at a significantly higher rates in firemen that in an other workers. The study was published in 2006 by the Journal of Occupation and Environmental Medicine.
The analysis, which included members from the FDNY was prompted by research on 9/11 cancer risks. "Firefighters are exposed to numerous cancer-causing substances," stated head researcher Grace LeMasters. "I think obviously they have not got enough protection from that exposure." LeMasters, with the universities Department of Environmental Health, said protective gear for fireifighters was not designed to safeguard firefighters from toxic chemicals.
"We feel that the protective gear that protects firefighters from acute exposure, such as heat and carbon monoxide, doesn't protect them from teh chemical residues that cause cancer," she said.
When firefighters are sweaty on the job, she said, "the pores in their skin are open and are more likely to absorb chemical residue." LeMasters suggested a lightweight uniform be designed that would not allow chemical resides to penetrate the skin.
"We need some sort of advanced material that will allow firefighters that will not allow firefighters to get hot, but also protect them from these chemicals." she said.
"We do have protective gear for soldiers and NASA astronauts, and I think if we make it a priority we can protect these firefighters, even though firefighters are public servants and risk their lives."
This study comes to no surprise to firefighters because it is an unbelievably dangerous job. Firefighters commenting on this article stated that the belief that improved firefighting equipment could protect firefighters is naive.
Do you agree?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
Mike;
Do you have any links to the quoted research?
It's important to know which age groups were diagnosed with which cancers; most cancers take many years to develop, some are a result of environmental exposures, some are genetic and some are a combination of both (genetic predisposition combined with environmental factors (exposure)).
From here
Absolute risk
Absolute risk refers to the actual numeric chance or probability of developing cancer during a specified time period — for example, within the year, within the next five years, by age 50, by age 70, or during the course of a lifetime.
One type of absolute risk is lifetime risk, which is the probability that an individual will develop cancer during the course of a lifetime. For instance, an American man's absolute risk of developing prostate cancer in his lifetime is about 16 percent. Put another way, about 16 out of every 100 men will develop prostate cancer at some time in their lives. And 84 out of every 100 men won't develop prostate cancer.
Relative risk
Relative risk gives you a comparison or ratio rather than an absolute value. It shows the strength of the relationship between a risk factor and a particular type of cancer by comparing the number of cancers in a group of people who have a particular exposure trait with the number of cancers in a group of people who don't have that trait.
For instance, relative risk might compare the lung cancer risk for people who smoke with the lung cancer risk in a similar group of people who don't smoke. You might hear relative risk being expressed like this: The risk of lung cancer for men who smoke is 23 times higher than the risk for men who don't smoke. So the relative risk of lung cancer for men who smoke is 23.
Relative risk is also given as a percentage. For example, the risk of lung cancer for men who smoke is 2,300 percent higher than it is for men who don't smoke.
A relative risk of 100 percent means your risk is twice as high as that of someone without that risk factor. A 200 percent relative risk means that you are three times as likely to develop that condition.
Risk seems greater when put in terms of relative risk. A 100 percent increase in risk may seem enormous, but if the risk began as 1 in 100 people, the risk is increased to 2 in 100.
So from your quoted article, firefighters have a 102% increase in risk of developing aggressive testicular cancer, or double the risk of non-firefighters. The question is: What is the rate of this particular cancer in non-firefighters? If this cancer is found in 1 out of 100 males in the general population (1%) then a firefighter has double the risk, 2 out of 100 (2%) firefighters would have this cancer.
Not to diminish the risk of exposure to firefighters to carcinogens during the course of their shift/year/career but it needs to be kept in mind that simply being exposed to a carcinogen does NOT mean that a person will get cancer. One can, with far greater certainty say that exposure to a certain level of radiation will cause certain cancers, but that is because exposure to radiation affects the body in ways different than exposure to other carcinogens.
Another thing to consider: firefighters are subject to rather thorough, annual physicals. Knowing that firefighters are exposed to carcinogens may mean that more extensive blood tests are performed and, as a result, cancers are discovered more frequently in firefighters than in the general male population. It may mean that firefighters get cancer more often; it may mean that it is only diagnosed more often in firefighters.
It's great to remind everyone that we need to take certain precautions (wearing SCBA until the environment is declared safe; washing PPE as frequently as practical) but everyone also needs to understand that exposure does NOT mean cancer, there are, as I pointed out above, other factors that come into play.
This also speaks to the recent point of the Zadroga Bill (9/11 Responders Health Act) that does NOT include cancer: the reason being is that cancer is very hard to pin down to any specific exposure or incident. In any population there may be many different types of cancers and is consistent with expected rates. Cancer clusters are when members of a family, neighborhood or co-workers are diagnosed with the same or related cancers. Cancer clusters are a result of a discreet population's exposure to a common carcinogen resulting in the same or related cancers. 9/11 responders have been diagnosed with a broad range of cancers which suggests that it is not a cluster. Further studies will narrow down whether or not 9/11 responder cancers are related to exposure at ground zero.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Schlags (Captain Busy) Retd on
-
Another data set, from another study, all basically saying the same thing... People often times question, why did they get cancer, and from what. The same type of questions are now being asked for our children that are affected by ASD or the Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Children in California now number 1 out of every 110 children affected. It's not just the USA, Korea's stats are 1 out of every 35... Very distressing stats that validate the obvious. Chemical exposure equals something bad happening to you and / or your children. Period.
Without disputing any of your stated data, one thing remains a given. Exposure to chemicals damages the human body. It doesn't matter whether you inhale it, eat it, absorb it into your skin or get punctured. Depending on your genetic makeup, and we are all very different, these chemical insults may react in a deleterious way, sometimes producing cancer in very short amounts of time. More commonly, cancers are caused from long term exposures.
This article correctly identified the need for firefighters to minimize exposure. Unfortunately, this is not occurring, at least for USA firefighters.
-
Permalink Reply by Mark L Gundert on
-
My ex-engineer is has non-hodgkin-lymphoma. He has been retired from the FD for 13 years when he was diagnosed. Since then, his cancer spread and he needed Chemo-therapy. For now he is clear but, he did not get help from Workman's Compensation. He will have to pay a 5k per year deductable for the rest of his life to continue getting monitored for a possible relapse.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
I recently returned from NYC where the IAFF Health and Wellness conference was being hosted. So the timing of this article to be posted here is interesting.
I did attend a couple classes where exposures and cancers were discussed and the classes were conducted by those who were involved in the research, etc. While there were many graphs and data as well as links, right now I'm still winding down before digging through the material.
However, what stuck out and what is important for other people to note is the types of cancers FF's are getting.....what is lacking in the list?? Anyone else realize lung cancer isn't on the list?
It is ironic to note that lung cancer really is not that widespread in firefighters as one may think. This does show a testament to SCBA's, but also should tell firefighters to look elsewhere as to exposures.
Another factor that sticks out and is important to understand is the importance of cleaning PPE AND rigs, etc. Now I understand the attitude that one wants to look "crusty" with dirty gear, but there should be cleaning and maintainence done. What we don't readily know, nor is there really data out there is how long contaminants remain on gear, etc. However, along the same lines, the report mentions that sweating gives a good route of contaminants to get into the body. So what does this mean? Ever hang up gear after a call or shift, and looking to wash it at a later time and then get another call or training where you put the same gear on? Although it may have dried it is possible the contaminats from before can still affect a FF, especially if they are sweating. Also, don't ignore the liner and flaps of your helmet.
Another aspect that may not be readily considered is the rig. How many of us really do a thorough cleaning INSIDE the rig, especially the seats, seatbelts, etc? Something to think about, you put on the bunker gear to respond to that fire, alarm, or MVA. Now consider the non-emergency or EMS calls where you are NOT wearing bunkers, but instead station uniform. You most likely are sitting in a seat, belted with a belt that received contaminates from your and other FF's bunker gear. While there hasn't been any studies linking this to be fact, is it possible? Does one need the facts to look at what they can do to prevent exposures? Truthfully, is there ANYONE who wants to be number in such a study?
Quite simply, it is some simple things we can do to limit our chances of getting cancer. Yes, it can still happen and you can't prevent everything, but why not consider doing the simple things? Clean the gear, clean the rig, wear your PPE, wear your SCBA.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
