[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Fwd: [iaem-list] The Asia Tsunami and Hazard-Specific WarningSystems
[TC Members - Just summarizing a thought on this... - Art] >Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 23:33:43 -0800 >To: International Association of Emergency Managers list <iaem-list@iaem.com> >From: Art Botterell <acb@incident.com> >Subject: [iaem-list] The Asia Tsunami and Hazard-Specific Warning Systems > >IAEM Discussion Group: > >Friends - > >I know many of us are focused on the humanitarian relief effort in >the Indian Ocean Basin... and I certainly don't want to divert >attention from those crucial tactical activities... but on a more >strategic level, I wonder whether the current global media attention >to the lack of tsunami warning there might be missing the point just >a bit. > >The conventional story-line seems to be that people died >unnecessarily because there was no tsunami warning system in the >area affected by Sunday's events. While that much seems certain, it >occurs to me that there must have been a wide variety of other >warning capabilities in place around the region... weather warning >systems, fire alarms, radio systems, PA systems, community alarm >bells, community word-of-mouth and so on. > >So is it possible that the real problem isn't that there wasn't a >dedicated tsunami warning system, but rather that the existing >public warning capabilities had become "stovepiped" so they could >only be used by particular agencies for particular hazards... so >that when an exceptional situation arose, there was simply no way to >take advantage of those existing assets? > >Building and maintaining single-purpose warning systems is both >inefficient and inflexible. But to the extent that public warning >is perceived as a subsidiary activity of hazard-specific disciplines >(fire, military, health, etc.) instead of as a comprehensive >all-hazard societal function, it seems that the over-specialization >of warning systems will be a natural, if unintended, consequence. > >So maybe, instead of yielding to the knee-jerk impulse to build >another stovepipe system specifically for tsunamis, the global >emergency management community ought to be channeling investment >toward an integrated, all-hazard approach to public warning. We >have the necessary technologies, including the OASIS Common Alerting >Protocol as a global open standard for interconnecting warning >systems. What seems to be lacking is clear guidance to policymakers >as to how the limited resources available can be leveraged more >effectively. > >(Two disclaimers: first off, I'm not saying that there shouldn't be >investment in tsunami detection and analysis: only that in this case >we had the information and still weren't able to use it effectively. >And second, I'm most emphatically NOT calling for a single >magic-bullet warning technology... we all know there's no such >thing, for both technical and sociological reasons. What I'm >talking about is an all-hazards approach to using all our full, >marvelous array of available warning methods, both high-tech and >low-, in a coordinated and effective way.) > >Just a thought... > >- Art > >-- >Art Botterell >Emergency Information Systems Consultant >phone 707 750-1006 >fax 877 546-6890 >email acb@incident.com > >---
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]