Add a Comment

Comment by lutan1 on October 27, 2009 at 3:14am

I don't get the question. My brain hurts...

Are you talking about aggressive in their tactics while fighting the fire?

Comment by greg on October 25, 2009 at 6:24pm

I would also say that it really depended on the type of dept. involved , the year and what city or township. I imagine that the answer is going to be varied a whole bunch and that it will be impossible to get an answer nailed down on this one. Great ? though. Im still looking this one up.!
G.K

Comment by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on October 25, 2009 at 4:32pm

Getting aggressive on fires?
I would say that happened sometime after October 8, 1871.
If cities the size of Chicago can almost burn to the ground, then getting aggressive to stop that isn't a bad thing.
TCSS.
Art

Comment by Vic Silverfish on October 25, 2009 at 1:46am

I think we've always been agressive about water supply. The original fire hydrants were removeable breaches in water mains (fire plugs, if you will) that could be opened and used for drafting. I think Boston was the first US city to implement them.

Talking to some of the older blokes, I think the truely agressive approach to fire fighting came about with the advent of better PPE. Now we can put ourselves right into the heat and smoke, we can pull victems out of the bad stuff who would otherwise be dead, and we can save buildings that a few decades ago, would have been written off. Putting ourselves in danger this way means we need to also be aggressive about water supply, equipment maintenance, ventilation, back-up, etc, etc, etc.



On a relat

Comment by greg on October 23, 2009 at 10:06pm

I thought about this for some time. My 2 cents worth. I would say that it began when people was purchasing fire protection emblems and placing them on the dwellings to show that they had sighned up for fire protection . No emblem and you had no dwelling, If you had the emblem then you recieved the services and of course they would need to prove that having such emblems was worth the expense, What better way to do so than give an all out effort. The fire departments would also have to be able to have plenty of water in order to fight the fires and to be able to do there jobs. Insurance companies vested alot of money into the fire departments and the subscription service in order to turn a dime, and of course they expected performance and also provided means for the dept. to do so. Some subscription services still exsist in my area and they are top notch fire depts. they provide good services even if you dont subscribe . Things have really changed over the years... G.K.