Cancer hell of Grenfell heroes: Up to a dozen firefighters who battled tower block inferno that killed 72 are now ill with several with rare terminal tumours caused by inhaling pollutants – amid fears more are yet to be diagnosed

29 comments

  3. What actually causes this? Are the respirators they have just not that good, or is it literally impossible to block all pollutants?

  4. Nearly 6 years since and no one seems to be actually accountable for what will likely be over 100 deaths all told, plus thousands of others who have had their lives ruined.

  5. Also bare in mind more Police officers where in the ruins than LFB, there’s probs the same amount of PCs getting cancers as well.

  6. this is honestly why i cringe when i see another post-modern type building being built with 30 different weird materials and clad in plastic even if its fire-resistant, as much as fire resistant a material can be. If just one of them gets set on fire, collapses, gets blown up somehow, everyone within a mile radius is gonna get a massive carcinogenic surprise down their throats

  8. Mmmmmm asbestos

    It’s time every fucking building in the U.K. is required to have material samples done and keep a register of brands/materials/codes used.

    This will protect tenants, workers, construction etc from all the asbestos that lurks in homes, water pipes, ceiling textures etc across the country that people have no idea is harmful.

    In South Africa all commercial buildings now need a visible asbestos warning on the outside of the building if it has ACM.

    All the asbestos found in talcum and makeup products. All the concrete dust pedestrians breathe in from government workers cutting up roads and pavements.

    Enough is enough.

    Cowboy trades and construction also now need jail time for work done not taken out with a asbestos and material risk assessment

  9. I hope they half arsed look into it for a couple of years, then finally report back to tell us that no one is at fault especially not billion dollar corporations or their CEOs. That would be perfect.

  10. That is slightly surprising, given that it is well known how toxic house fires are with all the plastic being used.

    I thought all the fire fighters had independent air supply when they went in? This really should not happen with modern health and safety standards.

  13. Given this is the Daily Mail, how distorted is this headline?

    Because it sounds like firefighters generally never get cancer, but Grenfell specifically meant a high percentage of those attending did.

    Surely the real scandal here is nothing to do with Grenfell, and the reality is this is not uncommon for any firefighters? It’s been several years since the disaster, how many had served for a long time and been exposed to all sorts in that time?

    If that is the case, surely firefighters in general should be better protected, rather than focusing simply on Grenfell.

  14. Okay, I am not an oncologist, but a quick look at that article raises quite a few questions for me. Especially given the source, and its famous [Oncological Ontology Project](https://dailymailoncology-blog.tumblr.com/) which seeks to classify all inanimate objects into two types: those that cause cancer, and those that cure it.

    First, this is very quick for carcinogenesis. We have known about the carginogeninc effects of cigarette smoke and asbestos, for two examples, for a very long time. Both of those take, generally, decades to exert their nasty effects, not five years.

    Secondly, although the article claims that many firefighters ran out of oxygen and spent large ammounts of time in contaminated gear, at least they *had* high-quality PPE, and firefighters are the experts in decontamination. If the stuff they were exposed to is that “virulent”, then I would presume that the survivors of the fire, who had absolutely zero PPE, would have had far worse exposure, and therefore would be expected to have huge cancer rates.

    Thirdly, the article says “about a dozen” firefighters have had cancer diagnoses, and that experts “fear” that twenty or more may ultimately become victims. 12 is slightly under 1% of the 1300 firefighters that the article states attended the fire. To know how significant these 12 are, we would need to know what proportion of such a population would *normally* be expected to develop cancer in a five year period. I have little idea what that figure is, but 1% would certainly not surprise me, given that it used to be the case that about one in three of us could expect to get cancer at some point. I say *used to be* because I don’t know the current figures – we have got better at preventing some cancers, but lifestyle factors like obesity, which is rising, are also risk factors.

    Please don’t think that I am trying to belittle those who have got cancer, nor belittle the bravery of firefighters, whose boots Sunak, Braverman, Raab, Barclay and co are not worthy to unbuckle. But cancer is a horrible thing whatever the cause, and given the issues I have listed off the top of my head, it will take more than a story from a tabloid rag with major history on the subject to convince me.

  15. Note that there no causative link to the Grenfell disaster has been proven here. It’s completely possible for it to be the cause, but the “up to a dozen” out of the 250-odd firefighters who attended the scene (the Daily Mail article states 1300, this seems to be for all emergency services personnel including post-fire work, not just firefighters) probably have other incidents in common, so proving it will likely be impossible.

    It’s reasonably well established that firefighters have a higher incidence of cancers, particularly lung cancers than the general population. It’s not hard to see how a career spent around toxic smoke and other chemical hazards would contribute to that. One figure I can find from the FBU states 4.1%, which would put the “expected” number of cancer diagnoses among Grenfell firefighters at around 10, but that’s a lifetime (or at least lifetime of FBU membership) figure, so “up to a dozen” (11 or 12?) particularly serious cancers in a little over 5 years is concerning.

    Obviously more work needs to be done to protect firefighters and others in hazardous occupations from dangerous chemical exposure.

  16. I’ll never forget that footage one of the firefighters took of the building from distance when they didn’t know if it even was a finished building with people living in it and then the penny drops “there are kids in there”

    A job I couldn’t do. Completely brave and heros. So sad that trying their best to save people is slowly costing them their lives

  20. Shocking & the government tried to blame
    The deaths of the people inside the tower on the fire service also said the people living in the flats didn’t use common sense…

  21. Doubtful. Grenfell wasn’t that long ago, cancer takes longer than that. Also while nasty stuff like asbestos may have been in the building I doubt they were facing anything they don’t usually face in a building on fire, what was so special about this one?

  22. This wont just effect firefighters, it would be anybody nearby or down wind who inhaled smoke for a period. Firefighters are just monitored a little more closely than the public.

  25. It’s not just Grenfell, firefighters in general are more susceptible to cancer because of the stuff they inhale whilst fighting fires.

  28. Given the staggering levels of corruption there are in this country, I don’t think anyone seriously thinks a single person will ever be criminally prosecuted for what happened at Grenfell. There is no justice at all.

  29. Man, that disaster is like the diarrhea that you think is finished so you start wiping but you get another sudden movement and it’s off to the watery brown races again.

Leave a Reply