Revelations that two Boston firefighters had intoxicants in their systems when they died in a fire last month raise three troubling questions:

• First, how widespread is this problem, not just in Boston but in other departments across the U.S.?

• Second, did fellow firefighters cover up for these men, knowing that they had drug and alcohol problems?

• Finally, would this problem have ever come to light had it not been for the insistence of Boston newspapers and TV stations?

The Boston Globe reported Wednesday that firefighter Paul Cahill had a 0.27 percent blood-alcohol level when he died in a fire at a Chinese restaurant in Roxbury. Meanwhile, firefighter Warren Payne had traces of cocaine in his system when he died in the same blaze.

Mayor Thomas Menino on Thursday launched a review of the Boston Fire Department, revealing that 10 percent of the entire force has been ordered into substance treatment programs in the last three years.

That’s a remarkably high number, and it should give cities across the country reason to examine their own departments for problems.

There are drug and alcohol problems in every walk of life, but they are of particular concern in firefighting, not just because of the obvious risk involved in climbing ladders and running into burning buildings, but because of the multi-day shifts firefighters must work.

In the typical work week of five eight-hour shifts, a drug or alcohol habit, while unhealthy and even dangerous, can be restricted to nonworking hours. However, when firefighters are on call for days at a time, it is more difficult to compartmentalize and hide an addiction or dependency.

It is also nearly impossible to believe that other firefighters were not aware that Cahill had three times as much alcohol in his blood as the legal limit for driving in Massachusetts.

That Cahill was able to function at all with that high a blood-alcohol level indicates a high toleration for alcohol, which usually indicates years of abuse. His alcohol problem had to have been apparent long before the fire that claimed his life.

There may be a code of loyalty among police and firefighters but, at least in this case, it may have had deadly results.

Finally, it is troubling that state law in Massachusetts apparently forbids the release of autopsy results in such cases. The firefighters’ union even went to court to prevent a local TV station from broadcasting the autopsy information.

An injunction was imposed by a lower court, but quickly lifted by an appeals court.

The Boston Globe and Boston Herald, in addition to WHDH-TV, eventually ran stories on the autopsies based upon unnamed sources who they said had seen the autopsy results.

Concealing such information is clearly not in the best public interest. The public has a right to know when the people they pay to protect them are drunk or using illegal drugs.