Thanks for the link [and links associated]. It looks as though firemen didn't bother wearing their respirators when they should have done, though most of them used respirators at least some of the time, which was presumably when they thought they were in a particularly stinky situation.
<During the first 2 weeks at the WTC site, 19% of study firefighters reported not using a respirator; 50% reported using a respirator but only rarely. Prevalence ratios (PRs) for skin, eye, respiratory, and NT symptoms showed a dose-response pattern between exposure groups based on time of arrival at the WTC site, with PRs between 2.6 and 11.4 with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) excluding 1.0 for all but skin symptoms. For those spending > 7 days at the site, the PR for respiratory symptoms was 1.32 (95% CI, 1.13 to 1.55), compared with those who were exposed for < 7 days. Mean spirometry results before and after exposure were within normal limits. The change in spirometry findings (after exposure - before exposure) showed near-equal reductions for FVC and FEV(1). These reductions were greater than the annual reductions measured in a referent population of incumbent FDNY firefighters prior to September 11 (p <or= 0.05). There was a 60% increased risk of a decline of >or= 450 mL in FEV(1) in those arriving during the first 48 h compared to the referent (p <or= 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The symptoms and pulmonary function changes following exposure at the WTC demonstrate the need for improvements in respirators and their use, as well as long-term medical monitoring of rescue workers. >
It looks like mass-hysteria and perhaps a pecuniary motive - "Woe is me, my lungs are damaged, I need financial compensation". Those who don't complain won't get money. So, of course everyone complains to ensure they get in on the gravy-train.
Perhaps firemen need some education = when it's kind of smokey, you should protect your lungs, and maybe eyes. Seems like quite basic training for a job like that in that where there's fire there's smoke.
Mqurice |
