LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Sprinklers do not replace personnel
As I read the article regarding Clemson University’s adoption of a mandatory sprinkler policy (News in Brief, June 1993), I noticed a drastic contradiction of terms. The article relates that (Clemson) fire officials believe that, by mandating the installation of sprinkler systems on all new structures. they will be able to reduce the size of the fire department and increase firefighter safety.
1 do not believe there is any technology available that can take the place of personnel. 1 am sure when the fire sprinkler system was introduced more than 100 years ago, people thought the fire service would be virtually eliminated. As we all know, this is far from the case.
The NFPA apparently has turned its back on firefighter safety, with its lack of concern toward adopting a minimum staffing clause. There are a lot of new products and innovations on the market today, but if they are not approached with the right attitude, more harm than good may result from them.
The increased use of Class A foams, positive-pressure ventilation, and other products on the horizon could have two major negative effects on the fire service if approached with reduced staffing levels as a goal. One, they may not receive the acceptance they deserve, by virtue of firefighters not wanting to use a new product that ultimately would result in fewer persons in their company; and two—and more importantly—a firefighter will be injured or killed in the name of “cost-effectiveness.”
Clemson fire officials should be commended for their diligence in pursuing the fire sprinkler system policy since 1986—just please do not sell it at the cost of the safety of your department.
Dominick Landolfi
Firefighter
Melbourne (FL) Fire Department
FEMA’s bunker mentality
Your statement in the July issue of Fire Engineering regarding the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) ”… and its paranoid obsession with nuclear-attack preparedness” rang true for me.
As a radiological officer and an instructor III, one of my duties is to teach the courses in the Radiological Protection Training Series. FEMA and the Emergency Management Institute (EMI) have begun to restructure the courses in this program to make them more applicable to the needs of the emergency services in dealing with peacetime nuclear situations. The latest program FEMA and EMI revised, the radiological officers course, will never see the light of day. It has been shelved. So I and other instructors are left with the old RO course, teaching students about the effects of nuclear weapons, fallout dosage calculations, and fallout shelters and their upgrading to protect people from the dangers of fallout.
FEMA doesn’t need a major reorganization to put the EMI back on its track of revising and updating the Radiological Protection Training Series to meet the needs of today’s emergency services relative to radiological incidents. FEMA needs to abandon its ’50s paranoid obsession with nuclear-attack preparedness.
Training for radiological emergency response presents somewhat of a dilemma. On one hand, the number of accidents involving radioactive materials has been small. On the other hand, when these incidents have occurred, fear and a lack of understanding of the concepts of nuclear science have led to inappropriate responses.
I hope FEMA and the EMI will get back on track and continue to develop and upgrade the Radiological Protection Training Program and continue efforts at developing and implementing new and more effective methods of making this material available to the emergency response community.
It is my hope that someday when I ask my class, “What is the first thing that comes into your mind when I say the words ‘atomic’ and/or ‘nuclear’?” I won’t get the answer, “Mushroom clouds.”
Anthony M. Gaglierd
Radiological Officer/Instructor III
West Mifflin, Pennsylvania
Protect the evidence, and protect yourself
Whether at a disaster scene or a crime scene, emergency response personnel often are involved in collecting and preserving evidence. This is a necessary part of the investigative process and is vital to any courtroom litigation that may ensue.
But emergency response personnel also must know that safeguards are necessary to minimize or eliminate any exposure to bacteria or the AIDS virus. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is actively involved in developing guidelines to help emergency response teams protect evidence while protecting themselves against contamination or exposure to health hazards.
The FBI now recommends that anyone examining human evidence wear the following protective gear: moisture-repellent painters’ coveralls, goggles, a face mask, a hat, paper shoe covers, and surgical gloves. These items should be worn at all times at the disaster/crime scene or during the examination of physical evidence from a disaster/crime scene.
The FBI states that the AIDS virus can live in a dried bloodstain at room temperature for up to 15 days. Agencies submitting evidence to the FBI Laboratory for examination must comply with stringent procedures. Although your agency may not be submitting evidence to the FBI Lab, the procedures can be valuable in evaluating your own organization’s guidelines for handling physical evidence.
If evidence is known to have been contaminated by the AIDS virus, the FBI requires the law enforcement agency to notify the FBI to obtain permission to send the evidence for examination and analysis. The FBI requires a letter from both the prosecuting attorney and the defense attorney, authorizing the FBI to conduct the examination under certain guidelines. All the evidence related to the case will be autoclaved. Any body parts submitted to the FBI for analysis must be tested for the AIDS virus. If the body parts are too badly decomposed for the AIDS test, the parts must be placed in a 70-percent alcohol solution before being submitted to the FBI.
Now that the FBI Laboratory accepts physical evidence for deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) analysis and testing in certain types of cases, guidelines also have been established for such submissions. Body fluid-stained evidence submitted for serological or DNA analysis must be air-dried completely before packaging. Blood samples from suspect and victim are to be collected by medical personnel in two vacutainer tubes, one containing EDTA for DNA analysis and the other containing no preservative for serological analysis. The blood samples must be submitted without delay; in the event a delay is unavoidable, the evidence should be kept frozen. Inquiries regarding the collection/preservation/submission of evidence for DNA analysis should be directed to the FBI Laboratory’s DNA Analysis Unit, (202) 324-5436.
The FBI currently is conducting research to determine a method of using gamma-ray bombardment of evidence specimens to kill the AIDS virus without killing the proteins and accelerants that allow development of latent fingerprints on the specimen. It is only one of the current projects underway to devise ways to protect evidence while still protecting those who must work with that evidence.
Dr. Stephenie Slahor
Palm Springs, California
