Researchers compare smoke emissions from prescribed and wild fires

DC-10 drop North Park Fire
A DC-10 comes out of the smoke dropping retardant on the North Park Fire in Southern California, October 12, 2018. Screen grab from @ABC7Leticia video.

Four researchers, in a study funded by the U.S. Forest Service, evaluated data collected in 25 previous studies to compare exposure to particulate matter (PM2.5) created by prescribed fires and wildfires. The authors were Kathleen Navarro, Don Schweizer, John Balmes, and Ricardo Cisneros. Titled, A Review of Community Smoke Exposure from Wildfire Compared to Prescribed Fire in the United States, it is published under Open Access guidelines.

Below are excerpts from the study — the abstract and conclusions. And, information about a March 21 webinar featuring Ms. Navarro about the health effects of vegetation smoke.

Abstract

Prescribed fire, intentionally ignited low-intensity fires, and managed wildfires — wildfires that are allowed to burn for land management benefit-could be used as a land management tool to create forests that are resilient to wildland fire. This could lead to fewer large catastrophic wildfires in the future. However, we must consider the public health impacts of the smoke that is emitted from wildland and prescribed fire.

The objective of this synthesis is to examine the differences in ambient community-level exposures to particulate matter (PM2.5) from smoke in the United States in relation to two smoke exposure scenarios-wildfire fire and prescribed fire. A systematic search was conducted to identify scientific papers to be included in this review. TheWeb of Science Core Collection and PubMed, for scientific papers, and Google Scholar were used to identify any grey literature or reports to be included in this review. Sixteen studies that examined particulate matter exposure from smoke were identified for this synthesis — nine wildland fire studies and seven prescribed fire studies. PM2.5 concentrations from wildfire smoke were found to be significantly lower than reported PM2.5 concentrations from prescribed fire smoke.

Wildfire studies focused on assessing air quality impacts to communities that were nearby fires and urban centers that were far from wildfires. However, the prescribed fire studies used air monitoring methods that focused on characterizing exposures and emissions directly from, and next to, the burns.

This review highlights a need for a better understanding of wildfire smoke impact over the landscape. It is essential for properly assessing population exposure to smoke from different fire types.

Conclusions

Destructive wildfires have higher rates of biomass consumption and have greater potential to expose more people to smoke than prescribed fires. Naturally ignited fires that are allowed to self-regulate can provide the best scenario for ecosystem health and long-term air quality. Generally, prescribed fire smoke is much more localized, and the smoke plumes tend to stay within the canopy, which absorbs some of the pollutants, reducing smoke exposure. Land managers want to utilize prescribed fire as a land management tool to restore fire-adapted landscapes. Thus, additional work is needed to understand the differences in exposures and public health impacts of smoke of prescribedfire compared to wildfire. One way to do this would be for managers to collaborate with air quality departments (internal to agency or external) to monitor PM2.5 concentrations in communities near a prescribed fire.

Consistent monitoring strategies for all wildland fires, whether prescribed or naturally occurring, are needed to allow the most robust comparative analysis. Currently, prescribed fire monitoring is often focused on capturing the area of highest impact or characterizing fire emissions, while wildfire monitoring often relies on urban monitors supplemented by temporary monitoring of communities of concern. A better understanding of smoke impact over the landscape and related impacts is essential for properly assessing population exposure to smoke from different fire types.

(end of excerpt)

In a webinar March 21 at 11 a.m. CDT, Ms. Navarro will describe information from a different smoke study. She will present on a recent Joint Fire Science Program study estimating the lifetime risk of lung cancer and cardiovascular disease from exposure to particulate matter (PM) from smoke. This analysis combined measured PM exposures on wildfires, estimated wildland firefighter breathing rates, and an exposure disease relationship for PM to estimate mortality of lung cancer and cardiovascular disease mortality from lifetime exposure to PM.

NBC News: cancer among firefighters

smoke firefighter health cancer wildfire

Above: Firefighter working on a smoky wildfire at Buffalo Gap, South Dakota, March 3, 2016.

(Originally published at 10 p.m. MDT October 23, 2017)

This report by NBC News about the rising rates of cancer among firefighters exclusively shows the structural side of the job. Obviously they are exposed to different toxins than their wildland brothers, so it is unknown how much the data crosses over. One of the big differences between the two disciplines is that for structure and vehicle fires a breathing apparatus (BA) is always available. Firefighters on wildland fires NEVER have access to BAs, which only last for minutes, while they can be exposed to smoke for most of their shifts which on large fires are typically up to 16 hours. And wildland firefighters rarely have the opportunity to, as the video recommends, change clothes and shower within an hour after exposure.

In 2010 we began calling for the wildland fire agencies to conduct a study led by medical doctors and epidemiologists to evaluate the short and long term effects of smoke on firefighters. The federal agencies that should take the lead on this are the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service. State agencies with significant numbers of wildland firefighters need to also be involved.

It is possible that the agencies that employ firefighters do not want to expose the facts about the dangers of smoke. It could cost them money to change their practices, provide a safer workplace, and cover the costs of presumptive illnesses.

Various bills have been introduced in Congress that would establish a cancer registry for firefighters, but to our knowledge none have passed.

Here is an excerpt from an article we wrote March 17, 2017:

“On Wednesday [March 15, 2017] a Montana legislative committee voted down a bill that would have provided benefits for firefighters who developed a lung disease on the job. Republican Mark Noland of Bigfork said firefighters “know what they’re doing”, and:

That is their profession, that is what they chose, and we do not want to, you know, slight them in any way, shape or form, but it is something they’re going into with their eyes wide open.

That is asinine, ridiculous, reprehensible, and irresponsible.

Rep. Mark Noland
Rep. Mark Noland of Bigfork, MT.

He is assuming that when firefighters began their careers they knew there was a good chance they would damage their lungs. If that is common knowledge now, or was 20 years ago when the firefighter signed up, why haven’t the employers already established coverage for presumptive diseases? There is a great deal we do not know about the effects of breathing contaminated air on structure, vehicle, and wildland fires.

Many agencies and government bodies have already established a list of presumptive diseases that will enable health coverage for firefighters. For example the British Columbia government recognizes at least nine “presumptive cancers” among firefighters, including leukemia, testicular cancer, lung cancer, brain cancer, bladder cancer, ureter cancer, colorectal cancer, and non-Hodgkins’s lymphoma.

The Montana legislation would have only covered one of these nine illnesses.

When a person enlists in the military and they come home injured or permanently disabled, should we ignore them, saying they knew what they were getting into? Their “eyes were wide open”? How is treating firefighters injured on the job different? One could argue that they are both defending and protecting our homeland; one of them actually IN our homeland while the other may have been on the other side of the world.” [Update October 23, 2017: for example in an African country, Niger, many Americans have never heard of].

Colorado bill could improve health coverage for firefighters

EMTThe state of Colorado already has a law that establishes a list of presumptive illnesses for firefighters, covering cancer of the brain, skin, digestive system, hematological system, and genitourinary system.

New legislation introduced on March 10, SB 17-214 would allow an employer to participate in a voluntary firefighter cancer benefits program as a multiple employer health trust to provide benefits to firefighters by paying contributions into the established trust. It would establish a schedule of minimum payments, or award levels, ranging from Level Zero ($100 to $2,000) up to Level Ten ($225,000). The diseases covered would be the same five as in the existing law (above).

Full time firefighters with 5 years of service would be covered as well as volunteers with 10 years.

It is sponsored by three Democrats and one Republican. No action has been taken on the bill since it was introduced nine days ago, and it is possible that the provisions could change if and when it passes.
Thanks and a tip of the hat go out to Bean.
Typos or errors, report them HERE.

Editorial: Montana legislature fails to pass firefighter health bill

The following editorial was written by Dick Mangan.

****

As someone who has been involved in wildland fire since the mid-1960s, and who is currently on the Missoula Rural Fire Board of Trustees, I’m really disgusted with the Republicans on the House Business and Labor Committee who voted to “table” the vote on SB 72 which would give Workers Comp coverage to firefighters who develop job-related cancer. For those of you unfamiliar with legislative terms, to “table” a Bill can be translated into “I don’t have the intestinal fortitude (Guts) to actually vote up or down on this issue, so I’ll vote to do nothing”.

Several of these Legislators offered meaningless “feel good” comments about firefighters, like Rep. Steve Gunderson of Libby who said “I take my hat off to firefighters” and Bigfork Rep Mark Noland who called firefighters “courageous….. so grateful for your service.” But then Noland went on to say “but they do know. They do enter this with their eyes open. This is what they chose.”

So, soldiers and police officers die in the line of duty, and that’s OK too? They know the risks, and make the choice, just like firefighters. Maybe we should extend that logic to State Legislators: JFK, RFK, George Wallace, Ronald Reagan and Gabby Giffords were politicians killed and/or wounded doing their jobs. So, if a Montana legislator should suffer a similar fate, should we just tell them and their families that “they entered with their eyes open”?

I must pause this blast to give credit to Republican Senator Pat Connell of Hamilton who introduced the Bill in the Senate (where it passed) and to Rep Sue Vinton of Billings, the only Republican House member to vote in its favor.

Firefighters, structural and wildland, volunteer and paid, frequently put their lives on the line to protect lives and property. Too bad some of our State Legislators can’t walk a mile in their fire boots.

****

Dick Mangan retired from the U.S. Forest Service Technology & Development Center in Missoula, Montana in 2000 with more than 30 years wildfire experience. He is a past President of the International Association of Wildland Fire.