Talk:Firefighting

Firefighting Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firefighting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to firefighting on Wikipedia! If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.FirefightingWikipedia:WikiProject FirefightingTemplate:WikiProject FirefightingFirefighting articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Disaster management High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 20 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cjc383DREXEL.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mareli73096.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

It would be nice if we could get a picture that isn't blurred. -- Kjkolb 05:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have some that are probably more appropriate, I will submit a new one this weekend.--JBx 06:33, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject

I'm considering starting a wikiproject: Firefighting. Basically, I want to increase the number of fire/EMS articles on wikipedia, and organize the information included in them. Wikipedia currently doesn't even have a "fire science," or "fire behavior" page, and this page has very little on the history of firefighting. Furthermore, I think an article on firefighting culture/traditions could be interesting.

Anyone down? Shaggorama 07:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the resarch that showed that unlike thought before its best to spray water on a fire even if there are people trapped inside it - i heared that firefighters not long ago didnt extinguish the fire until they rescued all victims in fear the water will cause steam to create - but now it was shown in a resarch that the water actually increase the chances of survival - so it seems to be like its worth a mini topic in the main page - its important all firefighters will know this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.29.22.192 (talk) 23:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Foam

A brief mentioning or introduction should be mentioned on the use of foam in firefighting. FiftyOneWicked 15:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Before the fire brigade arrives

This section contains uncited how-to advice on dealing with fire. Until we have cited it from a credible source, I do not believe this belongs in wikipedia. Desertsky85451 15:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'I Agree with both Desertsky and the tag. It's a how-to and not encylopedic. I feel these section should either be removed or an external source found (e.g. a fire-safety website). --Rehnn83 Talk 12:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If really necessary, http://www.firesafety.gov/ could be added to external links OrangeDog 17:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appendix : Calculation of the amount of water required to suppress a fire in a closed volume

I would like to see where the numbers come from, and the images seem to cut off part of the Vw, making it hard to read. (the numbers I am referring to are 3571, 1723 and 0.286. Is there a formula or table missing?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.73.133.1 (talk) 10:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

x alarm fire

Where is there a discussion of "one alarm fire", "two alarm fire", etc.? I really expected to find it here or in List of basic firefighting topics as well as the topical navigation box. Perhaps it's called something else? —EncMstr 21:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fire computation

Shouldn't FSPro (Fire Spread Probability) be mentioned as a computing program. This program is for wildfires (calculates risk based on vegetation and tree matter (eg fallen down pine needles)

The following simulator could be used to calculate urban firefighting (dough at present it seems more of a evacuation training rather than showing the areas at risk) see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7867861.stm

History?

Fascinating and detailed article, but a bit on the technical side. A little bit on the history of firefighting would benefit the article considerably. I'd work on it, but I have actual homework to do.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 02:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

Is this item just about firefighting in the UK as that is where the focus seems to line in the first few sections. --MadManTed (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the fire

"Spraying water on the ceiling with a short pulse of a diffused spray (e.g., cone with an opening angle of 60°) to test the heat of the smoke: "

I've always been taught that a diffused spray will only fill up the room with all kinds of hot steam and be detrimental to visibility and survival of anyone in the room (water->steam expansion rate is very high), and to opt for a straighter stream using a "penciling" technique. Anybody else learned this way? Caduon (talk) 07:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Battling a potential BLEVE

Under the list of cases when the use of water is undesirable: "in case of a pressurised fuel tank, it is necessary to avoid heat shocks that may damage the tank: the resulting decompression may produce a BLEVE;" - What is meant by "heat shocks"? To my understanding, BLEVEs occur when the boiling flammable liquids contained w/in a container evaporate from the immense heat, and heat from flames outside degrade the strength of the container until it is breached and explosion of pressurized gases within occurs...the desired method of attack, therefore, would be to maintain high flow streams of water from monitors at the surface of the container in order to keep it cool to keep its structural integrity. Clearly, this is not always possible, depending on the size of the fire and the available resources. Any thoughts on this? Caduon (talk) 07:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree, I have not heard of "heat shocks" either. I was taught (from what I remember) is that cooling the tank is the desired defensive technique. When talking about a BLEVE I would think that heat of the tank would have less to do with the structural integrity than the internal pressure. I am not saying that heat doesn't play a role, I am just adding my thoughts to why you WOULD add water and not worry much about "heat shocks". That is why it is called a BLEVE and not HCSIE (Heat Caused Structural Integrity Explosion) <--I just made that up Huey2323 (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

History

Perhaps the WW2 Auxiliary Fire Service can be mentioned here? ^[1] Also mention the Jowett pump, a sort of trailer. 91.182.16.171 (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.wwiifire.co.uk/History.htm

volunteers

The article states that firefighting requires professionals, while indeed many firefighters are professionals, most smaller towns and cities in Canada and possibly other countries cannot pay a full-time firefighting staff and rely on a corps of volunteers who they train. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WasBrendanDoyle (talk • contribs) 13:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steam powered apparatuses?

The article discusses steam powered apparatuses, but that's an awfully unspecific term. Perhaps someone could clarify what sort of apparatuses were used? --AstroEngiSci (talk) 18:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Firefighting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071123185444/http://www.nbc4.com/money/9208480/detail.html to http://www.nbc4.com/money/9208480/detail.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

'Calculating the amount of water required to suppress a fire in a closed volume'

What has this got to do with fighting real fires? Under what circumstances do firefighters make such calculations? I'd hazard a guess that the answer is 'no circumstances'. Not only does this appear to be original research (it cites no source), but it is about as relevant to the actual topic of the article as the apocryphal 'spherical cow' in jokes about how scientists over-simplify problems. It should be deleted as the irrelevance it clearly is. 86.131.45.168 (talk) 01:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody has commented, I'm going to remove this section. I suggest that anyone wishing to replace it (a) finds a source which verifies the calculations, (b) finds a source which states that firefighters use such calculations when fighting fires, and then (c) cites both in the article. 2A00:23C1:8250:6F01:F921:5D08:F6B8:142C (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Scot and "Did Insurance Fire Brigades let uninsured buildings burn?"

Youtuber Tom Scot has published a video that retracts an earlier video that repeated the statement that Fire brigades in the UK let uninsured buildings burn. He also paid a researcher to investigate this claim (see here for his report). It includes sources that are useful for this article. But it remains to be seen whether the report by the researcher is suitable as a source for wikipedia (It depends on whether he is a subject matter expert). 2A02:1810:BCA9:3A00:E1E3:34:3BF6:F855 (talk) 17:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive detail, Remove?

The section "Reconnaissance and "reading" the fire" has excessive detail (And it has no citations, I have a feeling that is was copy pasted from a firefighting website or something like that). I was thinking of removing it, Your thoughts? (or maybe just shorten it) 50tr5 (talk) 23:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.wwiifire.co.uk/History.htm

[1]