Firefighting "grenade"

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Phil Jose on June 12, 2009 at 10:22pm

Seen this a couple of times before. Not interested in it for my muncipal fire department. Perhaps if I was riding in the "Fire SUV" in the rural area having one of these might not be a bad idea.

Generally speaking anything that has an explosive charge is a bad idea for firefighters. That being said I would evaluate this based on SCIENTIFIC evidence. If it can be demonstrated to work effectively, and safely I'd consider it. (IF I were in the "Fire SUV" in the boonies) For the city I want warm bodies, good training, and plenty of both.

Permalink Reply by Dave LeBlanc on June 13, 2009 at 5:45am

Phil Jose said:

For the city I want warm bodies, good training, and plenty of both.

Well Put!

Permalink Reply by Tony Tricarico on June 13, 2009 at 9:20pm

This is a great device when used properly. My fear is it will fester the opinon of the "outside" firefighters and safety mongers, not just being safe but I mean the guys that prefere we do not go in, it will fester their drive to keep us out of dwelling fires.
First throw in this device and THEN let the firefighters in.
With the way technology is going today it will not be long before fighting your way down a hallway will be a thing of the past.

Permalink Reply by Joe Pantaleo on June 14, 2009 at 1:05pm

In 100% agreement with you brothers. I believe it probaly has it's place. Maybe on a ship, to throw in a burning compartmentalized fire with no one in there, or maybe a volunteer dept. where an engine co. shows up w/ 2 FF's and has to wait 15 min. for more crews to arrive.

I agree with Tony, and see this as an other "excuse" to not attempt an aggressive interior attack. I also see mayors and city managers thinking that this will easier allow them to make cuts. Why do we need all these FF's? This company is trying to sell this to the cops. They state that every police car should have one, since they usualy arrive 1st. They state this will make a safer enviroment for the POLICE to make a rescue. THEN the FD can show up and overhaul. We work so hard to try to justify the manpower and equiptment that we KNOW we need, and I fear this could hurt us. WE know that this couldn't work in every fire. WE know that you would still have to go in, and search, and ventillate, an overhaul, and stretch lines, etc. But now try to explain that to the Mayor who's been looking for ways to cut manning and close houses.

They also state this disrupts the thermal layering, bringing high heat to the floor level. They say to deploy as far from victims as possible. WHAT? Do we always know right where they are? Or if there are any? Wouldn't that be nice?? They then say to remove victims from aerosol ASAP and follow the exposure guidelines. There are also other poss. hazards of this listed on the site.

Thank you brothers for your input, and I look forward to more!

Permalink Reply by Michael Bricault on June 25, 2009 at 1:15pm

-I am still amazed how the world we live in is really a cyclical journey. This looks to me to be a reordering, updated version of the old carbon tetrachloride hand grenade that was carried at the end of the 19th century in glass containers.
-I am in firm agreement with the other respondents in that this is an interesting idea but not very practical to todays fire service.

Permalink Reply by Ian Bruzenak on July 6, 2009 at 10:29pm

Ummmm No.. Did the crew get pushed out cause of heat???? Ummmm occupants?????

Permalink Reply by Jeff Schwering on July 7, 2009 at 6:05pm

I too am in agreement with the rest of the brothers. Our crews have already had the city hall folks cut members through attrition. Why give them, what they would see as ammunitions to cut more. I can't see a place for this in my little municipality, it's haed enough to get some of my folks to understand how to operate a TIC.

Permalink Reply by Mike Walker on July 7, 2009 at 9:15pm

Poor victims, they could have lived but we suffocated them and the fire.......

Permalink Reply by M on August 4, 2009 at 5:47pm

I have to say I'm afraid we are overlooking this as a "tool" not as an end all be all. This could be a fantastic tool that we could "hang on our belts" and could save time and property. You are correct to think that your mayor or city manager would look at this and say how they don't need as many firemen. But, its not a replcement, think of it as a grenade, it just buys time and reduces damage from the big picture. Are we that afraid of change and technology that we are willing to not look for the next best thing? Not saying this is it, but...I'm no dinosaur. Now, do cops need to have these? Only if they're planning on giving firemen and medics guns. Looking at these rooms you know that it was too hot for people to survive, but a quick knockdown in this room may give you time and access to save the kid in the closet of the bedroom next door. I also agree that we need more scientific proof that this thing will be a benevolent asset to the fire service. I can atleast see it as advantageous in knocking down a fire you don't want much run off from. Or perhaps in a house when its 7 degrees below in MN. No one whants to be flowing water then. Just things to think about. One last thought. Does this gimmic react to any chemicals?

Permalink Reply by Ian Bruzenak on August 10, 2009 at 6:06pm

I have watched videos and I was wondering which video that the fire was too hot for occupants to be viable???? In all the videos I have seen the fires were small in a corner...and the room was clear, a Can fire at best.... or the one in the house it seemed as though the fire was in the open attic space the way it was pushing from the eves. The entrance is clear of fire almost all the way up. There was some fire from a window but look how high the window is... Its Suspect to me at best.