Firefighter cancer risk study necessary

THERE has been suspicion for many years that our courageous firefighters are at greater risk of contracting cancer than the general population.
International studies have certainly pointed to an increased incidence.

Now, a landmark study in Australia will examine the health and job records of firefighters across several states going back 30 years.

It will cover career and volunteer firefighters. The three-year study by the Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council and Melbourne's Monash University should provide an overdue assessment of the situation.

In 2009, Monash University undertook research in Queensland following a cluster of cancers at the Atherton fire station. The study found rates of cancer in the profession were no higher than in the state's general population.

The firefighters' union urged caution on the findings, stressing the "relatively small sample size of Queensland firefighters over a relatively short period of time".

The Queensland study was the impetus for the new research. It recommended that a national study of cancer incidence and mortality would provide a clearer picture, as well as identifying which types of fires posed the greatest risk.

Deborah Glass, from the Monash Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health, who led the Queensland research, will spearhead the national study.

The most substantive overseas research was done at the University of Cincinnati in 2006. It found firefighters were twice as likely to develop testicular cancer and had higher rates of 10 other types of the disease. The research showed an increased risk of 50 per cent for multiple myeloma and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and 28 per cent for prostate cancer.

It attributed the higher risk to exposure to toxic substances released when certain materials burn.

United Firefighters Union WA secretary Graeme Geer fears the dangers are growing because of the increasing use of new plastics and other man-made construction materials in society.

WA's Fire and Emergency Services Authority maintains that research on cancer incidence in firefighters is inconclusive. It also says overseas research is not applicable to WA because safety practices vary around the world.

Mr Geer disagrees. "Firefighters are very worried about it," he said. "They're concerned that it seems to be on a monthly basis they hear of another firey suffering cancer.

"Firefighters are the fittest group of people to start with, so the rate of cancer should be even lower than it is in the general population."

The union is campaigning for laws that would automatically recognise cancers contracted by firefighters as being work related. This would mean firefighters wouldn't have to fight long legal battles while battling illness.

WA's Cancer Council also believes the risks are real. "It seems there is some kind of additional risk associated with working in the firefighting game," spokesman Terry Slevin said.

FESA supports the national study. Depending on the results, there could be changes to best practice standards, equipment and personal protective clothing, a spokesman said.

The Sunday Times welcomes the study. Firefighting is a dangerous occupation without there being added health risks. Our crews need peace of mind or, if the research confirms suspicions, better protection and compensation.

Board overload

IS it any wonder we're called the Wait Awhile state? With hundreds of government boards and committees adding to the already bloated bureaucracy, decision-making appears more arduous than competing in The Amazing Race.

In June 2009, Premier Colin Barnett promised to halve the number of boards and committees, which then were 1276. Of these, 518 had paid members.

Two years on, we have 656 boards and committees with paid members an increase of 138.

Labor's Mark McGowan pointed out that this was in addition to the creation of six new government departments and commissions.

He has asked Mr Barnett to reveal the cost of sitting fees paid to those board and committee members. It's a fair question.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 11:33am:


It's not precedence unless anyone else trying to get it as well can demonstrate a job-related cancer risk, which is what firefighters have done.

This already occurs for some positions. For example, if you worked in an asbestos mine and you contract mesothelioma, then it's not up to you to prove that it was caused by your employment, it is assumed.

Same goes for this legislation. It has been shown that firefighters have almost double the risk of certain cancers to that of the general population, so this proposed legislation changes swaps the burden of proof from the sick firefighter across to the employer.

If you don't think that's reasonable, what would be your alternative? How would one prove that a particular case of cancer is work-related. Should samples of the smoke from every fire attended during a career be presented as evidence?