It's a story we want to believe. For brave firefighters, risking their lives on the frontline every day, finally receiving gear at no cost containing none of those horrible PFAS chemicals. The East Providence Fire Department in Rhode Island is charting a new course. As a tremendous first step in that direction, they’ve proudly invested $658,000 in 170 sets of non-PFAS turnout gear. Milliken & Company and Fire-Dex, the heroes on horseback, delivering hope and a safer future.

Before we celebrate with champagne and self congratulatory articles, let’s pose a few uncomfortable questions. Are we really committed to keeping our firefighters healthier? Or are we foolishly letting fear and political pressure stuff the corporate bottom line, jeopardizing our first responders?

Is This a Rush to Judgement?

PFAS are bad, non-PFAS is good. Rhode Island’s H.B. 5019, which would ban PFAS in turnout gear by 2027, adds to that fire. Simple narratives often mask complex realities.

Milliken Assure™, the “breakthrough” non-PFAS moisture barrier, is now being touted as the hero. Intended to go into national use starting October 2024, it’s long-term, real-world application has hardly been field-tested. We’re not discussing gear that’s meant to keep folks safe during a natural disaster. Couldn’t we ask for at least several years of consistent, robust, third-party testing before we start pronouncing winners? UL certification and compliance with NFPA 1971-2018 standards are key. These provisions don’t guarantee durability over the long haul or disclose potential unintended violations.

Consider this unexpected connection: the rush to replace lead pipes in aging infrastructure. Lead is no doubt dangerous. Even replacements such as copper can, under certain conditions, leach other metals into the water supply. Are we just exchanging one known devil for an unknown one with these PFAS alternatives?

I'm not saying PFAS are safe. The increasing line of evidence connecting them to health issues is nothing short of alarming. Let's not allow that concern to blind us to the possibility that we're being sold a solution that hasn't been properly vetted. Is there a good resource to point to on independent, long-term studies? I would like them to do performance and safety comparisons between PFAS gear and non-PFAS alternatives in actual firefighting scenarios.

Follow the Money, Find the Truth

Milliken & Company and Fire-Dex are businesses. They exist to make a profit. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's crucial to understand their incentives. The worldwide market for firefighter protective gear is already huge, and the transition away from PFAS is a huge opportunity.

Are Milliken and Fire-Dex really committed to firefighter safety? Or if they’re just responding to market pressure and looking to cash in on the PFAS panic? It’s a fair question, and one worth examining closely. Even though their partnership is framed as a sort of feel-good, do-good benevolent collaboration, it’s really a business deal.

What about the long-term costs? East Providence’s $658,000 investment money is the tip of the iceberg. Once all the departments have transitioned to non-PFAS gear, will prices remain high? Will we see a flood of negative impacts, such as increased costs that weigh down new, strained municipal budgets? What if the non-PFAS gear doesn’t hold up as long as its PFAS replacement and thus needs to be replaced more often? This sort of shortsightedness can result in much greater costs down the line.

We need transparency. What we really need is independent analysis of the cost-effectiveness of these alternatives. We need to demand those serious questions that no one is asking.

What About the Alternatives?

Milliken Assure™ is promoted as the first non-PFAS, non-halogenated flame-resistant moisture barrier. What is it made of? What are the long-term environmental harms of manufacturing it and disposing of it? What specific data is available on its performance against extreme conditions firefighters encounter? When I’m referring to extreme heat, chemical exposure, repeated washing…

First, we need to demand full disclosure in the form of Material Safety Data Sheets, or MSDS, of the chemical composition of these alternatives. We require independent scientists to do rigorous analyses on their safety and effectiveness. It is very important that these scientists not be connected to either Milliken or Fire-Dex. We need to understand the potential trade-offs.

This isn't about being anti-science or anti-environment. It's about demanding due diligence. It’s about doing right by the very people who go out every day and put their lives on the line to protect us. Most importantly, it’s about making sure that we’re not trading away their long-term health for short-term political favors and corporate profits.

So the next time you see a headline trumpeting how cities are transitioning away from PFAS firefighter gear, don’t forget East Providence. Remember the $658,000 investment. And remember to ask: are we truly protecting our firefighters, or are we simply lining someone else's pockets? Your tax dollars are funding this, so hold them accountable and demand better answers.

That answer, I’m afraid, might be one we don’t like to hear.