This is a fairly common theme.
So with little or no money to install and maintain a large and complex area to put in a system that the people will not likely listen to in anycase. I look at the nuclear warning systems in NH, Vermont, Mass, and CT and I see a population that essentially doesn't know what the warnings are about in the first place. This population is educated and should be aware. What would happen in south east Asia where the people are substantially less literate and more spread out. Keeping people knowledgeable on the warnings and understanding that they must react when the alarms go off, I believe is unlikely.
With the vast amount of money that would cost to put this in place, it isn't surprising that the countries decided not to put this in place. The cost/benefit equation didn't fit. That being said, with the large amount of aid being offered to these devastated areas, maybe some sort of system will be viable. But, will it be maintained properly when the money is gone? Will people use them correctly?
The Scotsman has an article where the discuss the work of the ITSU, which was trying to get a warning system in place. Someone was trying, but it just was too late. Maybe, with their existing plans, they can make it easier to get going.
I'm continuously amazed that people who put out these opinions are so clueless. This area economically isn't what you'd call wealthy. The land mass that could be effected is very large. The coastal areas of south east Asia and Africa that could be effected are huge, never mind the islands which are very numerous. There also is the fact that these events are very infrequent.No doubt building such a system will be a priority in the next year or so, but it's tragic that governments were unable or unwilling to spend the money and put plans in place before disaster struck.
So with little or no money to install and maintain a large and complex area to put in a system that the people will not likely listen to in anycase. I look at the nuclear warning systems in NH, Vermont, Mass, and CT and I see a population that essentially doesn't know what the warnings are about in the first place. This population is educated and should be aware. What would happen in south east Asia where the people are substantially less literate and more spread out. Keeping people knowledgeable on the warnings and understanding that they must react when the alarms go off, I believe is unlikely.
With the vast amount of money that would cost to put this in place, it isn't surprising that the countries decided not to put this in place. The cost/benefit equation didn't fit. That being said, with the large amount of aid being offered to these devastated areas, maybe some sort of system will be viable. But, will it be maintained properly when the money is gone? Will people use them correctly?
The Scotsman has an article where the discuss the work of the ITSU, which was trying to get a warning system in place. Someone was trying, but it just was too late. Maybe, with their existing plans, they can make it easier to get going.
1 comment:
Warnings systems are only as useful as their frequency of use. I grew up in Tornado Alley. Common practice was, in addition to using the air raid sirens from all the CD spending, the Police would all turn on their sirens when a tornado warning (spotted either on radar or on the ground) occured. Believe me, growing up down there, you heard sirens from more than one direction you started looking up while moving towards somewhere safe. All that said, it was something we had to worry about all the time. There were tornado strikes several times a year near Tulsa (most doing no damage). How many times are these people going to hear these warnings? Will they know what to do when they occur? How often will they get tested? They'll be used, what once every hundred years? I'm sure the millions spent on that system will make a more sense than millions invested in infrastructure.
Post a Comment