The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
NFPA 1977 & Silk Screening Emblems on Tee Shirts... Uh oh...
NFPA 1977 is where the language is found that discusses silk screening tee shirts. I don't have access to these codes and am hoping that one of you out there in FFN land might have access to this data. What I was able to found in a draft NFPA 1975 was the following DRAFT language...
NFPA 1975 DRAFT
3.3.7* Emblems. Shields, heraldry, or printing that designates a governmental entity or a specific organization; rank, title, position, or other professional status that is painted, screened, embroidered, sewn, glued, bonded, or otherwise attached in a permanent manner to station/work uniform garments.
A.3.3.7 Emblems. Emblems or patches used on station/work uniforms are not included in the test requirements of this standard. Users are cautioned that emblems or patches with thick adhesive backings could melt and contribute to burn injury. In particular, users are cautioned about using large emblems or patches on station/work uniforms because these items are not tested for heat or flame resistance.
Executive Summary: As many as 15 years ago, an accident investigation report was published after a burn over had occurred to CALFIRE firefighters. The burned firefighters had the word CALFIRE branded on their back, or so the story goes. The explanation that I was told about focused on the requirements to use a dye instead of a plastic or paint, i.e.. something that would support combustion, possibly melt and spread. Only 100% cotton is recommended for undergarments, or is it. Common sense tells me that the plastic or paint acts as a heat sink, even through the nomex. Certainly there must be "NFPA 1977 Approved Stenciling Inks"...
Conclusion: Regardless, if you are wearing a cool tee shirt when you are on duty that has anything other than intumescent dye (non-flame supporting), then you have the chance of receiving burns, even from radiant heat. This is another example of where keep it simple applies for the fire service.
Happy Holidays!
Mike
"It's all about being able to go home the next morning..."
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Tony P on
-
I missed this bit... Who would have thought it possible that the radiant heat at a wildfire could do this? Well, one of the stats I throw at new recruits during the Wildfire Behaviour module is that in 1973 (yes, ancient history) a fire scientist here measured the heat at a big fire. His equipment was 100 metres ((a little over 100 yards) away. The measurement? >530 degrees C. That's >986 degrees F. Wildfires can get just a little bit warm. Yes this was a really intense fire, but who can say what the next one will bring? I know that I don't want to be anywhere NEAR that close to a big one!
-
-
(I've added a bit too an earlier post as well)
And that is what I've seen in photos and been told by others. And it will kill people. As I've said before, we wear cotton to wildfires. We don't have those individual shelters that people on your west coast talk about. We get the hell out if it looks like it's going to turn pear-shaped. It's only trees, let them burn!
A Canadian I was working with here during our 06/06 season told me what his old Volly Chief told him years ago. He was told to roll up his sleeves when fighting wildfire - if his arms were getting too hot, then MOVE. That's another thing we hammer nto our recruits, if it gets too hot for YOU, then move. We have a rule of thumb that says to get no closer to fire than four times the height of the flames. As it says under one of my photos, we were told the flames were 30 metres and the fire was crowning so I just drove off in the other direction - as did every other vehicle we had on that hill.
-
Permalink Reply by Dave on
-
Typical NFPA bs!! One reported incident 15 plus years ago and they spend how much money coming up with this?? THis is the problem i with the NFPA, to many foolish standards!!
-
-
This is funny. We're all jumping in and posting comments onto comments all through the thread! Makes it interesting trying to catch everything that's said! (And yes, I'm a prime culprit :) )
-
Permalink Reply by D.C. Sterbenz on
-
I think if you are worried about the screen printing getting hot on your shirt through your gear for instance you probably are already addressing a larger problem like getting out. This is NFPA going overboard, I am on the uniform committee on my department and I am up to speed on all the NFPA code, to follow it to the letter would bankrupt any fulltime fire dept. If we went 100% cotton we would be replacing uniform garments constantly due to fading and wearing out. I do however believe in the blended garments.
We tested the garments that were treated with the fireproofing material that they spray on the garments at the factory and it was found that after a few washes the fireproofing material had been nearly completly washed away. Like I said we came to the conclusion that we would do what we could to an extent to protect our brothers and sisters but it was agreed on by all parties that if we were burning up duty uniforms under our PPE we had a much larger problem at hand.
-
-
We are not the biggest dept around, but we have 1500 members getting 4 tee shirts a year. Plus what ever else they may have to order for new hire's. I think the embroidered shirts might be too much cash!! Cheap bastards!! =)
-
-
DC... Are you telling me that you do not issue your female ff's nomex bra's like the ones I have read that some depts are looking for on this site. All because you feel that if you get to that point it aint gonna make a difference?? If you where a female I would marrya right now!! =) you just restored some faith in me that there are poeple out there that can still do this job!!!
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
Dave,
Actually, most NFPA standards aren't B.S., nor is the meat of the 1975 standard.
I'll be the first to admit that some parts of some NFPA standards are not exactly user-friendly or designed for easy universal compliance. Most NFPA standards are designed to make things safer for both firefighters and the public, and most do just exactly that for departments that comply with them.
NFPA 1500 and NFPA 1403, are good example.s NFPA 1500 has done a lot to improve firefighter safety and health in practical ways. NFPA 1403 compliance goes a long way to reduce live fire training accidents and deaths. I'm a training officer, and 1403 is of particular importance to me. I have some old-school fire instructors who like to stoke the fires big and hot - to make them more "realistic", yanno. Unfortunately, realistic fires burn and kill firefighters, and burning and killing firefighters isn't one of the objectives in any fire training program objectives I can find. And...I've been a firefighter since 1975, so I understand old-school firefighting pretty well.
So...perfect... nope, the NFPA is not. Better than nothing...way. B.S. - mostly not.
I'm applying for membership in a NFPA committee - there are end-user slots available in almost any NFPA committee you can think of, and more end-user involvement in the process equals standards with minimal B.S. and standards that we can - literally - live with.
Ben
-
-
Cotton fabrics work just fine if there is not a heavy or impervious layer worn over them. Cotton does a fine job of wicking body heat and moisture away from the body, especially in hot climates.
If it's cold, the cotton keeps wicking body heat away and that gets you hypothermic very quickly.
If it's hot and your cotton inner layer is sweat-soaked and you wear turnout gear over it, you're going to be at a higher risk for steam burns, because all you need to do is add heat inside the gear. Wet heat also interferes with the body's evaporative cooling mechanism.
Nomex station wear is heavier than cotton and doens't have a significantly different cooling method than cotton. It does provide a little extra layer of protection from radiant or convected heat.
And Hazmat gear??? I learned the following in Hazmat 101 - "Don't fight fire in rubber suits."
-
Permalink Reply by Engineco913 on
-
Haz mat suits would 100% shrink wrap to you and then melt to you if worn in a fire situation. Even "flash protection" is a very brief exposure limit before your getting scrubbed by a brush in the ER. Way off the mark there.
-
-
you wouldn't have to worry about Under Armor much. You wear it in a fire it will be embedded in your skin. Being a nylon product under a SMALL amount of heat it begins to deteriorate and melt. Not a good choice for firefighting of any kind
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
