Is There a Way to Force Self-Preparedness?

For all the talk about being ready, one reality remains – even the most passionate advocates for disaster preparation must admit that most of our time isn’t spent dealing with disasters. Life is hectic. Life is expensive. Most of us aren’t neglecting preparation out of ignorance or apathy. We’re prioritizing what seems urgent now, not what might be urgent someday.

So how can we push back against our tendency to get swept up in daily life? One of the best ways may be to get involved. When we take on responsibility for others, we often become more responsible for ourselves.

Fortunately, there are simple ways to start. One standout is the CERT program – Community Emergency Response Training. This national initiative, supported by the Department of Homeland Security and managed by local emergency teams, equips everyday people with the skills to respond to disasters in their communities. The training empowers volunteers to act during emergencies – but it also has a powerful side effect. It helps participants become more prepared in their own homes and lives (Department of Homeland Security, 2018).

CERT members are trained to respond effectively during disasters. They also provide support during community events, offering a sense of ongoing purpose and engagement.

When you stop trying to “go it alone,” you’re far less likely to keep pushing off emergency prep for “when I have time.” CERT is just one example of a no-cost, community-based solution – but the principle holds across the board. Take on a shared responsibility, and you’ll naturally become more prepared yourself when real calamities strike.

To learn more or find a program near you, visit ready.gov/community-emergency-response-team.

References

Department of Homeland Security. (n.d.). Community Emergency Response Team. Retrieved April 18, 2018, from https://www.ready.gov/community-emergency-response-team

Does our search for blame hinder preparedness?

It’s a simple fact of human nature: when something bad happens, we want to know why. That isn’t necessarily a flaw. It might be what makes us human. Animals tend to care about what happened and how, but they don’t ask why. Humans do. That one question may be the reason we’ve advanced to the point of altering the planet on a scale comparable to supervolcanoes and meteor strikes.

It’s unfortunate, though, that our curiosity about why often brings along a companion – who. Who caused this? Who should have done something? Who do we blame? We may be powerful enough to reshape the Earth, yet we are still subject to the same planetary and cosmic forces that drive earthquakes, storms, and droughts.

Take this excerpt from an article on Hurricane Harvey:

Weather and climate don’t cause disasters – vulnerability does.
Perhaps counter-intuitively, this means that the widespread discussion as to whether the Hurricane Harvey disaster was caused by climate change or not becomes a dangerous distraction. (Kelman, 2017)

The opening line points right to “someone is at fault” for Hurricane Harvey. The problem is, WHO is at fault? This article is hardly unique – a google search of “disaster blame” turns up it and thousands more. It’s a bold take, and a familiar one. A quick search for “disaster blame” turns up thousands of articles just like it.

Blame is easy to assign. That doesn’t make it accurate, or fair. Where I live, still safely 100 kilometers from one of the deadliest chemical stockpiles on Earth, we often shake our heads at people caught in disasters. Why did they live there? Why didn’t they move? Why weren’t they ready?

Is that smugness justified? Are people foolish for living in coastal cities that get hit by storms? We say similar things about residents of tornado country. Or those in California, sitting precariously on the edge of the continent.

Do people in the developing world build shanty towns in dangerous zones because they don’t know better? Or is it because global systems – shaped largely by those of us in wealthier nations – leave them no better options?

It becomes a loop of questions with murky answers. None of them help much when disaster actually strikes.

I don’t have a clean answer. Not asking questions would certainly hinder our ability to adapt and learn. I just wonder if we spend too much time asking who failed instead of what failed. In a world full of forces we still don’t fully control, focusing more on the latter might prepare us better for the next blow.

References

Kelman, I., 2017, August 29. “Don’t blame climate change for the Hurricane Harvey disaster – blame society.” The Conversation

On an individual level, fire preparedness is perhaps one of the simpler facets of survival awareness. The do-and-do-not list is fairly binary, and most homes have at least some form of protection – by code if not by intention.

In fact, Dr. Bradley’s Handbook to Practical Disaster Preparedness for the Family does not even devote a dedicated chapter to fire events.

Public spaces, however, are another matter. Procedures are again rather black and white. Exits are marked, extinguishers are usually available, sprinklers abound, and there are even maps in some buildings highlighting the quickest egress. Yours truly produced the various fire maps you’ll find tucked into the corners of hallways across the University of Kentucky’s campus.

Now add drills, classes, seminars, and signage. The question becomes: are we overexposed? Picture the following:

A smoke alarm blares. It’s three in the morning. You’re exhausted. Tomorrow is a big day. It’s cold and probably raining. Your professor couldn’t care less if you were up all night, and the last three alarms were false. Odds are this one is, too. Or maybe a small trash can fire smolders next door – harmless now, but in less than two minutes, the hallway could be impassable. Do you wait, gather up comfortable clothes and your phone before shuffling outside? Or do you just go back to bed? (Caskey, 2017)

Statistics suggest going back to bed is the best choice – until the one time it isn’t. Can anything be done to “pierce the fog,” as it were? Emergency authorities believe so. They’ve borrowed a technique from good storytelling: show, don’t tell.

In September 2010, the UK Fire Marshal’s Office launched the Don’t Be an Ash program and began staging live dorm room burn demonstrations at public events to raise awareness among students and staff. “Flashover” may be a dry term – a specific ignition temperature at which all combustibles in a space ignite at once – but watching it happen changes everything.

So – has it made a difference?

According to the University of Kentucky Campus Fire Log (2018), between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2014, there were 1,913 reported fire incidents on campus. Of those, four resulted in injuries. By comparison, from January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2009, there were 2,116 reported incidents – five with injuries. Running some basic analysis produces the following results:

• Raw incident count dropped by 203 incidents, roughly 9.6%.
• Injuries dropped from 5 to 4 – a small absolute difference, but still a 20% decrease in reported injuries.
• Injury rate per incident dropped from 0.236% to 0.209%. That may seem tiny, but in relative terms, it’s a roughly 11.4% improvement in safety per incident.

While there are of course many unexplored factors affecting incident and injury rates, these results suggest that showing, not just telling, may improve engagement. Still, balance is key. After awareness comes action – and it’s crucial that people know what the right actions are when the alarm goes off.

References

Caskey, D. V. (2017, January 14). Project 2 – Scene Depiction. Retrieved March 29, 2018, from https://www.caskeys.com/dc/project-2-scene-depiction-project/

University of Kentucky. (2018, March 28). Campus Fire Log. Retrieved March 28, 2018, from http://ehs.uky.edu/apps/flashpoint/incident_log.php

That’s not a groundbreaking question – but when the faucet fails, it’s one you’ll be glad you asked yourself.

“Water, water, everywhere and not a drop to drink.” Most of us hear that and picture floating helplessly on a lost ocean raft, or imagine the perils faced by early explorers as they sailed into parts unknown.

Fortunately, the likelihood that any of us will encounter such a situation is comparable to lottery odds. Unfortunately, the so-called freshwater around us often isn’t much more potable than seawater – albeit for different reasons – and can be every bit as dangerous. So, what will you do when the tap stops flowing?

Consider this simple challenge from Dr. Arthur T. Bradley’s Handbook to Practical Disaster Preparedness for the Family:

“Heavy rains have flooded the nearby water treatment facility, introducing two dangerous pathogens (Giardia and Shigella) into the water supply. Local authorities have issued an order to use bottled water and boil tap water. The rains are expected to continue for the next five days. How will you provide clean drinking water for your family? Do you understand the risks these pathogens pose?” (Bradley, 2012, pp. 3–22)

Right away, you’ll notice this scenario is actually a best-case version of disaster. The water is contaminated – but it’s still flowing. We can assume utilities are functioning. So, you boil what you need and move on.

Now let’s add a twist: What if the local river floods? Your home isn’t in the flooded zone, but your power is out and bottled water is no longer an option. Would you still know what to do?

The truth is, there’s no single perfect answer. But there are many workable solutions with varying levels of convenience, cost, and reliability. It may be a worn mantra, but again – it all starts with education. Take time to study different purification methods and available products. Then choose the combination that best suits your needs.

Storage

Stockpiling water has the clear advantage of instant availability. Unless your stockpile floats away with the storm, you’re covered. The downside is storing enough for long-term use is logistically difficult, and water does indeed have a shelf life.

“Unless treated with a water preserver, it must be poured out and refilled about every six months” (Bradley, 2012, p. 3–23).

Bradley dedicates an entire chapter to water storage, making it clear that tossing a few jugs in the garage is not a sufficient plan (Bradley, 2012). Still, this shouldn’t stop you from storing what you can if trouble is forecast.

“Regardless of your approach, one thing holds true. If disaster is imminent, store as much water as possible. If you don’t have enough water containers, fill bathtubs, buckets, pots, barrels, and anything else you have available. Remember water is not only used for drinking and cooking, but also hygiene and sanitation” (Bradley, 2012).

Even if you do have enough containers, I would argue you should still fill everything else you have. More is more.

Again, no single solution fits every family or every situation. What matters is that you take time to make basic preparations – and keep an agile mindset to adapt when needed.

References

Bradley, A. T. (2012). Handbook to practical disaster preparedness for the family (3rd ed.). Lexington, KY: Arthur T. Bradley.

It’s a simple question on the surface: is it better to spend more effort stockpiling basic needs, or preparing to acquire them on site?

Some refer to this dilemma as “Butter vs. Bullets.” I prefer “Apples vs. Ammo.” Unfortunately, the mercurial nature of disasters quickly complicates things. Just for the sake of argument, let’s focus on water. Nutritional needs might be met through hunting (a debate all its own), or even ignored for a short while – but water is neither easily procured nor safely ignored.

Think about the role water plays in your daily life. Drinking is only the start. Sanitation, cooking, hygiene – every aspect of survival leans on a reliable source. Filtering water may work in a wilderness survival context, but disasters introduce a whole different set of variables.

Take this challenge posed by Dr. Bradley in Handbook to Practical Disaster Preparedness for the Family:

Heavy rains have flooded the nearby water treatment facility, introducing two dangerous pathogens (Giardia and Shigella) into the water supply. Local authorities have issued an order to use bottled water or to boil all tap water. The rains are expected to continue for the next five days. How will you provide clean drinking water for your family? Do you understand the risks that these pathogens pose? (Bradley, 2012)

At first glance, the solution seems straightforward – just keep boiling water. Yet any storm powerful enough to flood a treatment plant could easily knock out power as well, and with it your electric stove or easy access to fuel. What then? Could you come up with an alternative? Even if the answer is yes, having a small cache of water to bridge that gap would prove invaluable.

This is another example of why a well-rounded preparedness mindset is far more practical than focusing entirely on one strategy. A garage full of water and food isn’t feasible for most people to maintain. At the same time, developing the skills to provide for every need on site is equally unrealistic. The smartest course? A balanced approach – learn basic survival skills, and keep some fundamental supplies on hand. That combination might turn out to be the most resilient choice of all. Survival skills and keeping some basic supplies on hand, might prove to be the most beneficial.

References

Bradley, A. T. (2012). Handbook to practical disaster preparedness for the family. Lexington, KY: Arthur T. Bradley page 50.

Has disaster preparedness become too commercialized?

One of the more difficult issues with survival in disasters is communication and sphere of awareness. Common individuals from the public are oft accused of giving little thought or concern about preparedness until after the event – obviously much too late. Is it even fair to expect more? John and Suzy Q. have enough to worry about conducting their everyday lives. To them, the notion of preparing to survive in worst case scenarios smacks of cardboard plaques claiming the end is near.

Perhaps playing on both this and the sensational fear that follows every disaster event, some commercial products have arisen promising preparedness in a box. Just pay the freight, and never give a second thought while the kit gathers dust in some forgotten corner.

This is severe folly that could potentially cost more lives than having no preparations at all. An overconfident family may opt to ride out an incoming hurricane or shun help until it is too late to do so. Dr. Arthur Bradley, author of Handbook to Practical Disaster Preparedness for the Family summarizes the concept perfectly.

Bradley, A. T. (2012). Handbook to practical disaster preparedness for the family. Lexington, KY: Arthur T. Bradley, Kindle Location 482.

We all love one stop shopping. It’s easy, and there’s little thought required. Capitalizing on that line of convenience thinking, several companies now offer prepackaged disaster preparedness kits. Most are stored in airtight buckets or easy to carry backpacks-both good ideas. If you read the the retailer websites, you might be convinced that preparing offers nothing more than forking over $99 and finding a shelf on which to store the bucket of goodies.

Through an exhaustive step by step analysis, Dr. Arthur goes on to put a commercial family of four survival kit up against a real world east coast hurricane scenario. His conclusion was not surprising. The kit fell woefully short of meeting the most basic needs.

Bradley, A. T. (2012). Handbook to practical disaster preparedness for the family. Lexington, KY: Arthur T. Bradley, Kindle Location 529.

The bottom line is that, upon further analysis, the bucket DP kit falls far short of meeting your family’s post-hurricane needs. Test this kit against other scenarios, such as a winter storm, terrorist strike, or widespread blackout. No doubt you will agree that it does little to improve your chance of survival, let alone make the situation more tolerable.

The simple truth is that disaster preparedness is not unlike any other personal skill. It is not particularly complex, but does require a nominal expenditure of thought and effort. You can order today, but it’s of little use unless you act now.

Imagine if you will, having lunch at a local bistro with your best friend. Suddenly, you find yourself thrown flat among shards of glass, wood, and twisted metal. Your ears ring, vision blurs, and you can barely breathe. You realize there’s been an explosion of sorts, and you’re lucky to be alive.

Your friend is not so lucky. They lie a few feet away, a viscous gash running through their neck all the way to the spine. He or she spasms, choking, and gagging even as they bleed out. You are watching your friend die.

Just as the awful realization hits, your sphere of awareness begins to expand. Others are in similar disarray. Some are like you, others badly hurt, and some like your friend are clearly terminal if not dead already.

Soon enough a car veers toward the building’s remains, screeches to a halt, and its occupants rush inside. They claim to be off duty EMT personnel. One of them shuffles toward you, yells “yellow”, and orders you to wait outside. They then give your friend a cursory glance and declare “black”, moving on without another look. It doesn’t take any medical or emergency training to know your friend, your still living friend, has just been given up for dead.

Could you stand by, coolly detached, knowing this was done for the greater good? Now imagine thousands of other mental taxing disaster scenarios that may be thrust upon an unprepared John Q., ask a similar question, and picture the result. During a functional chemical weapon exercise performed in Cincinnati, the human disaster factor is summarized perfectly in this caption.

FitzGerald, D. J., Sztajnkrycer, M. D., & Crocco, T. J. (2003). Chemical weapon functional exercise–Cincinnati: observations and lessons learned from a “typical medium-sized. citys response to simulated terrorism utilizing weapons of mass destruction. Emmitsburg, MD: National Emergency Training Center. Page 209, image caption:

For decontamination and triage to be effective and efficient, early control of victims is essential. In a real event would the responding units be as effective at rapidly organizing the crowd of hysterical “victims” into an orderly decontamination line?

Conclusions were speculative at best, but researchers speculated in a real emergency the the herding cats principal would be likely to hinder response efforts.

FitzGerald, D. J., Sztajnkrycer, M. D., & Crocco, T. J. (2003). Chemical weapon functional exercise–Cincinnati: observations and lessons learned from a “typical medium-sized. citys response to simulated terrorism utilizing weapons of mass destruction. Emmitsburg, MD: National Emergency Training Center. Page 209:

Lessons learned. Anticipate initial difficulty in establishing scene priorities. In this scenario, the engine company that responded first was met by a stream of screaming victims, which distracted the company from initial scene evaluation. The four firefighters were pressed to gain rapid control of the situation, activate the incident command system, and begin gross decontamination. It remains unclear whether a small cadre of firefighters could gain control so efficiently in the setting of an actual terrorist event. It also remains unclear whether
such crowd control would be possible in the setting of 5,500 victims, as in the Tokyo incident. However, it is likely that the majority of people in a large event
would disperse prior to arrival of first responders, and that those remaining would comprise individuals too sickened to escape.

In short, to expect an organized triage of victims in any sizable incident is something of a pipe dream. Response personnel (and victims themselves) must prepare to not only handle the disaster itself, but to deal with the inevitable, mercurial human nature thereafter.

Racism is a problem. Let’s get that out-of-the-way right away. But as with any real problem, injecting it as a narrative into every known facet of society or life rarely produces any working solution.

Moreover it seems, that due to the political sensitivity of racism as a topic, scientific method no longer applies as a ground rule of discussion. As a primary example, let us look at the opening quotation of an article published by The Eastern Sociological Society: Priming Implicit Racism in Television News: Visual and Verbal Limitations on Diversity.

See Sonnett, J., Johnson, K. A., & Dolan, M. K. (2015). Priming Implicit Racism in Television News: Visual and Verbal Limitations on Diversity. Sociological Forum, 30(2), 328-347

We highlight an understudied aspect of racism in television news, implicit racial cues found in the contradic-

tions between visual and verbal messages. We compare three television news broadcasts from the first week

after Hurricane Katrina to reexamine race and representation during the disaster. Drawing together insights

from interdisciplinary studies of cognition and sociological theories of race and racism, we examine how

different combinations of the race of reporters and news sources relate to the priming of implicit racism. We

find racial cues that are consistent with stereotypes and myths about African Americans

—

even in broadcasts

featuring black reporters

—

but which appear only in the context of color-blind verbal narration. We conclude

by drawing attention to the unexpected and seemingly unintended reproduction of racial ideology.

Disaster preparation is an extensive and potentially expensive business. Distilled to materials alone, nearly any advice on how to stock for the unexpected tends to include lengthy material bullet lists. Comprehensive lists might look great on paper, but are they realistic compared to the limits of a typical families’ personal resources?

Let’s look at a single item as suggested in CERT UNIT 1: DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
PARTICIPANT MANUAL, 1-22: Water.

Keep in mind that a normally active person needs to drink at least 2 quarts of water each day. Hot environments and intense physical activity can double that requirement. Children, nursing mothers, and ill people will need more.
Store 1 gallon of water per person per day (2 quarts for drinking, 2 quarts for food preparation and sanitation).*
Keep at least a 3-day supply of water for each person in your household.

Seems simple enough, until one begins to do the math. Following the above guidelines a family of four would need to keep twelve gallons of water on hand at all times, making sure to replenish the supply at regular intervals. Do you have the ten or so square feet needed to spare? Can your drywall-mounted shelves withstand one hundred pounds?

What about poorer families? Those who do not have space or money to spare on day-to-day resources, let alone extra water jugs? Moreover, these same families are typically more vulnerable to disasters in general. As an alternative, single step filtration straws could offer drinking water for a lesser expenditure of space, money, and time.

All the above merely covers water, arguably the easiest necessity to acquire. I would suggest looking at all areas of disaster preparation not just from the disaster itself, but also from the standpoint of limited availability. This article lacks the necessary scope or research to back up the concerns presented, but I hope to invoke some discussion and further examination. Preparation guidelines tailored more to the limits of its target audience might be less than ideal, but they would be a vast improvement over the nothing that may result from more lofty expectations.

Zombies, zombies, zombies… look about and you will find them permeating nearly every aspect of contemporary culture. I would honestly doubt a real Zombie invasion would provide so many sightings of our favorite shambling obsessions.

With that in mind, to find Zombies being exploited for any number of topics need nothing more than a cursory search. Survival tips are no exception.

BUDK is but one of many outfitter companies caught in the Zombie invasion. While their “tips” shown here might be an obvious ploy for sales, the ideas given are not entirely nonsense – be it wilderness treks or an urban blackout. Taken with a grain of water purifying iodine of course.

1. Lifestraw Personal Water Filter – In any given disaster, water is an immediate and obvious need even the most sheltered suburbanite is aware of. Unfortunately procurement is not as forefront. Recommended storage of one gallon per day for each individual borders on impractical for many families. Purifying is the next best step, but even in the best of times it is a process the untrained would find rather enigmatic. A single step item that combines simplicity with compact storage is a great combination for busy families looking attempting preparations but unable or unwilling to devote a great deal of personal resources.
2. Stormproof Matches – Another great item that satisfies a need most know of but few know about. The article makes a point to speak of durability, but the associated longevity might prove more important when an emergency kit long forgotten is suddenly forced out of mothballs.
3. One Person Tent – Great for wilderness survival. For a family huddled around their NOAA radio, probably a nicety best left to more lavish budgets.
4. Axe – I can’t see the value in the particular item advertised, but they aren’t wrong about the need for an axe or hatchet. Any outdoor or hardware supplier will have a more practical version on hand. But do make sure to get stainless steel.
5. Bicycle – Can’t get them all right! Bicycles are fantastic, but for reasons outside the purview of disaster preparation. Sure, they’d have enormous value in a long-term situation, but bicycles won’t do anyone much good during those crucial aftermath hours.

Five tips, and three on the money? You could do worse learning how to stay alive from a writing about dead folks. Remember to take their (and my) advice in accordance with your own needs. Stay safe!

Was the ultimate conclusion of Dr. Marjorie Kruvand, and Dr. Fred B. Bryant’s case study of the CDC Zombie Apocalypse Campaign a fair assessment?

Dr. Kruvand and Dr. Bryant sought out to discover if the CDC’s now famous Zombie Apocalypse campaign produced positive results in disaster preparation. They reached a fairly straight forward conclusion: No.

Public Health Reports / November–December 2015 / Volume 130 – Page 662

Although the campaign garnered
substantial attention, this study suggests that it was not
fully capable of achieving CDC’s goals of education and
action.

With respect to the research and groundwork laid out in Dr. Kruvand and Dr. Braynt’s study, I must respectfully, but vehemently disagree. It is true that instantaneously quantifiable results did not see significant change vs. a control group. However, it is also true that a campaign established in 2011 continues to attract attention and discussion in 2018. This intangible result has even filtered its way into classrooms, now serving as the target metaphor in the very course this assignment was crafted for.

One might compare the CDC Zombies to the mascot of a sports team. He, she, or it has no short-term effect on the outcome of an individual game. Rather, the mascot serves as an emotional focal point for support efforts. In turn, those efforts may attract attention and resources in the form of greater financial influx, superior staff, and more player talent that ultimately translates to success on the scoreboard. So it is that while a single campaign alone may not have sent John Q. off to pack supplies, it can and has served as a proverbial lighting rod to education and public service alerts for the better part of seven years. Those intangible results may well be far more valuable in the long-term than a year of boosted preparedness statistics.