By Shant Karnikian
When the Palisades and Altadena fires ravaged Los Angeles last January, the news was flooded with heartbreaking stories of families who lost everything.
But there were also moving, inspiring stories of bravery and heroism – firefighters who helped residents make harrowing last-second escapes from their homes then went back in to fight the flames.
And there are disturbing accounts of firefighters dropping to their knees with dizziness, vomiting, coughing up black phlegm, and being immediately struck with migraines as they battled the blazes.
Whether working for government agencies like the Forest Service or private firefighting companies, wildfire crews work in brutal, life-threatening conditions; they work grueling hours, sometimes for multiple days without a break. As climate change lengthens and intensifies the fire season, many now fight fire year-round.
They save lives but may be sacrificing their own without even realizing it.
In their 40s, 30s, and 20s, they’re becoming gravely ill, and even dying from aggressive brain and lung cancers, acute leukemias, and lymphomas. They suffer heart damage, long-term respiratory problems such as wheezing and coughing, and such difficulty breathing that it severely limits daily activities like playing with their kids. They have damaged vocal cords and dangerous blood clots. Exposure to heavy metals puts them at an elevated long-term risk for dementia, Alzheimer’s, and diseases that affect the muscular system.
The immediate hazards of firefighting are obvious: burns, collapsing structures, falling trees, extreme heat, entrapment, and sharp tools. But new research and reporting are uncovering hidden dangers faced by wildfire fighters.
Some threats come from the fire and smoke themselves–– others from inequities within the system that leave some crews more vulnerable than others.
Unmasking Smoke Dangers
The New York Times followed a firefighting crew as they fought the Green Fire in Northern California. Although the air often appeared clear, the Times team, using a device to monitor the deadliest particulates in the air (PM2.5), found that levels were never safe and, in fact, stayed far above the hazardous level for hours (up to almost 4 times).
Even remote forest fires expose firefighters to toxins, but fires burning at an urban-wildland interface, like the Palisades and Altadena fires, also expose them to additional toxins from burning homes, vehicles, plastics, electronics, and household chemicals.
Internationally, in countries with severe wildfire seasons, it has become standard for fire crews to wear respirator masks, which, in lab tests, have been shown to filter up to 99 percent of toxic particles.
Not so in the U.S.
“[Year] after year,” the Times reports, “the Forest Service sends crews into smoke with nothing to prevent them from inhaling its poisons. The agency has fought against equipping firefighters with masks. It issues safety handbooks that make no mention of the long-term hazards of smoke exposure. And its workers are not allowed to wear masks on the front line, even if they want to.”
Masks and respirators are controversial on the frontline, as they can be hot and cumbersome, and may present challenges in real-world firefighting conditions. There’s also a “tough it out” ethos among firefighters. It’s common to wear only a bandana over the face for protection. Still, as they or their peers become sick, many firefighters say they were not adequately warned of the inherent dangers of the job and wish they’d had access to more protective equipment.
Although the World Health Organization has said that firefighting can cause cancer, many owners of firefighting companies remain skeptical about the threat.
“Internal records, studies, and interviews with current and former agency officials reveal another motivation: Embracing masks would mean admitting how dangerous wildfire smoke really is,” the Times said. That could make it harder to recruit teams. Owners fear losing contracts and worry that increased regulation could lead to higher expenses.
Public vs. Private fire crews – same risk, different reward
According to a recent New York Times report, there are about 40,000 wildland firefighters in the U.S. Roughly two-thirds are employed by state or federal agencies. The other 14,000 wildfire fighters work for private companies.
Amidst longer, more extreme fire seasons driven by climate change, the government contracts private crews to fill out its ranks. Contracting began primarily in the 1990s, following sharp cutbacks. The National Wildfire Suppression Assn. estimates indicate that there are currently 250 private-sector fire response companies under federal contract. “Reliance on these contract crews has more than doubled since 2019,” the Times reported.
Government and contracted crews work together under the same command, facing the same merciless heat and immediate danger, over the same long, arduous hours, breathing the same heavy, contaminated smoke.
But, as the Times reported, when they get sick, they don’t all have the same level of support and opportunity.
When government firefighters fall ill, particularly with certain cancers, it’s presumed, by law, to be job-related, automatically granting them workers’ compensation benefits.
“But the laws that cover government workers do not extend to contractors. To get benefits …contract firefighters must prove that smoke exposure caused their cancer — an all but impossible task.”
Compounding the problem, most contract wildfire fighters have no health insurance. Some are forced to continue their dangerous work during illness; others are left destitute after spending all their earnings on costly treatments such as chemotherapy.
Joel Eisiminger, a 25-year-old wildfire fighter who began – passionately – on the job while still in his teens, has acute myeloid leukemia. Facing financial ruin, he approached his employer about workman’s comp and was told, “There’s no way that you can prove this is work-related.”