By Treven Pyles on May 18th, 2026 in PFAS/AFFF
For decades, firefighting research focused almost exclusively on men. A comprehensive study reveals a shocking demographic bias: female firefighters were either entirely excluded from research or represented less than 10% of the study cohorts. Because women were ignored for decades, the health risks specific to them were never properly tracked.
Women firefighters were exposed to the same toxic environments as their male colleagues, used the same AFFF containing PFAS chemicals, and worked the same fire scenes. But scientific research often left them out of studies of exposure levels, cancer risks, and health outcomes.
A 2025 review identifies a massive bias: women represent less than 10% of the data cohorts in firefighter exposure studies. This means the safety levels for AFFF were never designed with the female body or reproductive health in mind. The studies were designed for men, but the foam was used by everyone.
According to Rachel Morello-Frosch, a professor of public health and of environmental science, policy, and management at UC Berkeley, "This is the first study, to our knowledge, that's been done on women firefighters. The idea of characterizing women's workplace exposures is something that few people are paying any attention to, and here, we are using the newest available technologies to start to do that."
Women were present in the profession but absent from the science. They fought the same fires, applied the same foam, and absorbed the same chemicals. Yet researchers developing exposure guidelines and cancer risk assessments based their conclusions on studies of male firefighters.
The result of this exclusion is diagnostic delays, cancers that go unrecognized as occupational, protective standards that fall short, and toxicology data that tells only part of the story. A doctor evaluating a female firefighter with cancer symptoms may not connect it to her job because the medical literature was built around male firefighters. AFFF safety standards were developed the same way, based on male physiology with no consideration for how women's bodies might process or respond to PFAS differently.
PPE standards were developed with the male firefighter in mind in the past. Turnout gear was sized, fitted, and covered based on male body measurements. Exposure assumptions focused on male physiology, including metabolism rates, body fat distribution, and hormone levels. Occupational cancer research often excluded women entirely. PFAS biomonitoring studies that measured chemical levels in firefighters' blood arrived much later and still underrepresent women.
San Francisco became the location for groundbreaking research on female firefighters because it has more women firefighters than any other urban fire department in the country. Women make up approximately 15% of the San Francisco fire force, compared to about 5% nationwide. This higher representation is due, in part, to 1980s litigation and a consent decree that encouraged the department to hire more women and people of color.
Having this many female firefighters in one place gave researchers the opportunity to collect meaningful data on AFFF exposure in women for the first time. The findings showed that women face distinct exposure patterns and health risks that years of male-focused research had completely missed.
If you're a female firefighter with a cancer diagnosis, the science is finally catching up to the reality that women have always faced the same toxic exposures as men but were never included in the research that should have protected them. This historical exclusion does not mean female firefighters were not exposed or are not at risk. It means the risk was never properly documented or addressed.
Recent research is beginning to fill these gaps, but decades of missed data cannot be recovered. Female firefighters who used AFFF during the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s absorbed PFAS chemicals while researchers were studying only their male colleagues. The cancers developing now in female firefighters reflect exposures that occurred during years when the profession treated women's occupational health as an afterthought.
The fact that women were excluded from early PFAS research strengthens legal claims for female firefighters who developed cancer. It demonstrates that manufacturers never adequately tested how their products affected women. Safety claims were based on incomplete science that ignored half the population using AFFF.
Female firefighters who developed breast cancer, thyroid cancer, kidney cancer, or other PFAS-related cancers have the same right to compensation as male firefighters. The absence of historical research on women does not eliminate liability for manufacturers who sold products that harmed female firefighters.
ELG Law has represented firefighters exposed to AFFF for over 35 years. If you are a female firefighter who used AFFF during your career and have been diagnosed with cancer, you may qualify for compensation. The fact that early research excluded women does not disqualify your claim. Contact us for a free case evaluation to determine whether your cancer diagnosis and exposure support an AFFF claim.