Originally Posted by opso
I don't deny that the jobs are both emotionally or psychologically demanding and your example deals with that aspect, not the hazardous nature of the job. But the hazard levels aren't the same, or else there would be as many firefighter fatalities as there are military ones... Either firemen are just naturally incredibly lucky (at which point, why don't they win the lottery every week?) or else they face fewer and/or lower grade hazards that are more easily countered than those facing servicemen.
Or have a strong union that promotes Health & Safety in the workplace,
i absolutely accept that everybody`s views are different on Hazard`s/ risk etc, but pause for thought, i am currently reading a book titled "tail end charlies" by john nicholl,(and a fine read if i may say thus far) in it he describes how the crew of bombers had an exit of just 22 inches within which 5 of the crew had to squeeze through in order to escape the burning fuselage, and i quote " almost criminally too small" by an aviation specialist (page 148).....picture the scene in todays climate (firefighters`s wouldnt go near the plane, as a dynamic risk assessment would take place and it would be deemed too high a risk).the military however would be told to get on with it or face a beasting (or worse...).
In summary
Firefighters have a Health & Safety policy in place as a result of fatalities in the workplace and lessons being learnt as a result.
The Military claim they have a Health & Safety policy in the workplace UNTIL they go to war then it is an acceptable risk.
SOME in the higher chain of command want to advance their careers BEFORE the lives of their staff, in the fire service it would stand less chance of happening because the firefighters are able to air their concerns back to the OIC
oh almost forgot, i must say that the RAF boys & Girls i went on the lash with one evening whilst on strike were absolutely bloody marvellous.
BTW looking at this post it seems to have detracted from the original point.....sorry