20 cases of cancer in firefighters linked to Grenfell tower rescue

[jaicobain]

Almost 6 years on and people are still suffering the consequences of this disgusting negligence, those poor, poor firefighters and their families. How many more cases in London will occur do to the toxic materials released into the air?

And yet still no justice, it makes me so angry.

So to be clear; you are ‘calling her (or him) out’ for using the current story to express her anger about the treatment of firefighters at Grenfell… the fire fighters, some of whom, she is possibly anc occupational therapist for…

Am I understanding this right? You are ‘calling them out’ on this?

Anyway… I’ve said my piece here. Hope that the OP sees the changes related to building safety that she’s after… Hope I’ve offered food for thought related to using others to grandstand on. And hope I’ve shared a sliver of day to day life of Firefighters and their families.

I do not see a problem for the facts being recognised, highlighted if not fully appreciated by someone not in the clique. I applaud the OP for starting the conversation on the failures of fire prevention measures in social housing, the failure of government to properly fund the rectification of such failures, and the effects it had on the fire service and other responders to the incident so many years later. It's all relevant, and a conversation that should be ENCOURAGED and INFORMED.
I do not appreciate the militant hardnose belittling types who give FFs and their kind a bad rep. If OP had posted a 'Grenfell victims still suffering the consequences of the fire' I bet you would have been just as soap-box about how they weren't considering the Firefighters as victims. There's no winning with you, and it's the firefighters who you are 'defending', who you are making sound like a bunch of ungrateful martyrs.

risks faced during both events were significantly INCREASED for these workers who already had risky jobs

not sure that is proven, actually. Covid or Grenfell responders.

Sigh…. @pandapants8 you seem to have missed the point of really all of my posts… especially this one… Do keep up if you would.

You've said your piece ..... yet you're still hanging around haunting the thread like a bad smell .....

Your point thus far has been if someone won't consider an entire subject from your reference point with your background knowledge, then they aren't allowed to discuss it and how dare they should they try, as they will never understand. I agree with your points, as this topic is wider than many people appreciate, and it isn't just one incident, one pandemic, one event, but a career of systemic failures that will cause this and many others damages, however I wholeheartedly disapprove of the way you have represented the fire service family you claim to be a part of. If you have knowledge the OP and others do not, share, educate and encourage a better understanding so they will shout the cause from the rooftops, as they'll do a far better job at it than you have done. Isn't Mumsnet fun!

So, 1300 FF attended Grenfell and, over 5 years, 20 have developed cancer? Is this incidence is as high among other ff?

I can see why it would be frustrating if ff have endured this level of risk the whole time but the only reason it has made the news now and that the conversation about the poor health surveillance in the occupation is carrying serious column inches is because it is carried by the tragic events at the Grenfell Disaster.

Does cancer develop that quickly? Genuine question. I was under the impression that it took much longer, more like 20 to 30 years.

Therefore it could be true that 20 of the 1300 fire fighters who attended Grenfell have since been diagnosed with cancer but that doesnt necessarily mean it was caused by being there.

The other question to answer is whether 20 is a lot and are fire fighters more likely to develop cancer than other professions. After all, cancer is unfortunately a very common disease that nearly half of the population will suffer from.

And i wouldnt be surprised if the rate of cancer in fire fighters is actually lower than the general population, due to them generally being fitter and better lifestyle.

Qyestions that cannot be answered without a proper statistical analysis.

I’ll admit this is something I’ve never thought about before

I think the bone of contention is that research in this area seems broadly neglected, although some studies have shown a higher incidence of particular types of cancer in firefighters not enough work has been done to categorise the scale of risk.

Nothing to do with the thousands of other fires they’ve attended during their career , it was Grenfell and that’s it 😂

I think it is unbelievable crass to have a comparative ranking of 9/11 and Grenfell.

It would be hard to prove that the attendance of one firefighting incident at GrenfallTowers was the sole factors in the sad cases of cancer amongst the fire fighters.
Over their careers and during their daily operations they are exposed environments with toxic fumes, Breathing Apparatus will reduced this in building entries but at other times fighting fire in more open spaces this equipment is often not used.
I hope they receive appropriate medical care and support but I highly doubt Grenfall can be proved as the only attributable source.

@saleorbouy *grenfell not grenfall

Does cancer develop that quickly? Genuine question.

Well it can develop in the time between smear tests so assume so?

Firefighters do a terribly risky job. But I think most people think of the risk differently. Anyone who had a loved one rushing into that building (or any burning building) must have been praying they came out alive. The call home at shift change must have been dreaded and anticipated with hearts in mouths (the station call if a FF won't be home at the normal time) hoping it's just the usual call, not the dreaded call.

What I think lots of people don't think about is the long term health effects of things like cancer. And to have that bought into sharp focus makes people see the other side of the riskiness.

FF have a shorter life expectancy just because of the alarm going off. The adrenaline it releases each time it goes off takes seconds off their lives. It can go off 10 times in a shift (or none).

If Grenfell makes more people realise these hidden risks and fight for better conditions for FF I'm up for it. Grenfell has highlighted lots of issues, nothing wrong with this one having its moment in the light.

Years ago, FF were sent into fires wearing all black. Heavy uniforms, no breathing apparatus, no torches, no radios. Eventually we realised this was madness and was costing lives. So, with better understanding and advances in technology, this changed. Grenfell may be the catalyst for change to the ways in which FF fight fires, or buildings are built, or people are housed are the only good things that can come out of such a hideous tragedy.

From watching a lot of the public enquiry into Grenfell, a huge number of firefighters who were there never entered the building nor were actively engaged in the fire fighting. When you actually delve into the figures, probably only a few dozen entered the building during the height of the fire and they were wearing breathing apparatus. The vast majority of those attending were in supporting roles or were just there in readiness in case they were needed. You can compare pictures online - the difference in "groups" is clear, there are groups of FF who've clearly been in the building as their uniforms are grimy etc., but by far the bigger groups are those who didn't get used, their uniforms, oxygen cylinders etc are clean! (If the latter group has higher incidence of cancer, perhaps they'd been told to wait too close to the fire!).

So, the figures need breaking down into what each of those 20 FF actually did at Grenfell. DId they all enter the building trying to rescue people? Were they all working very close, i.e. manning ground gets or aerial ladders? Were they just breathing in the smoky atmosphere by simply being close to the fire ( and if so, did a proportion of police, council workers, people living locally, paramedics, etc who were also in close proximity also get cancer due to breathing in the same contaminated air). Was it the FF who'd been in the building and were "dirty" with contaminates, who perhaps should have been told to return to home stations, remove their dirty uniforms and wash/shower, rather than be hanging around continuing to breath in contaminates from their dirty uniforms? Of FF who weren't actually used in active fire fighting, but were waiting around for too long, too close to the fire, breathing in contaminates without their Breating apparatus on.

I hope that some proper analysis of the figures takes place, including other people, (workers and residents) who were close the fire at the time, exactly what the affected FF did whilst at the fire, everyone's history of other potential exposure to carcinogenics, etc.

That's not the same question. When did the event thar caused the changes that set off the development of cancer occur, not when did it become detectable.

I agree that formal health surveillance of fire fighters is required like it is for other risky occupations (work with asbestos, lead, radiation etc).

Just because you ‘married into the fire service’ () doesn’t give you the right to shut down OP. She is entitled to her opinion about one of the most devastating fire tragedies this century.

I thought you were leaving?

The op is talking about the fire fighters .....
Which were all white.

How exactly does one 'marry into' the Fire Service anyway? My friend's husband is a bank manager - has she married into the Nat West?

Horrifying, and how many residents are affected, or will be over the next 20 years? The enquiry has been heart breaking. Cheating, lying and contempt for people. What does this say about our society?

😂

It’s this weird thing on MN where women take credit for their husband’s job.