6 ms·
Why didn't any of the planning include participation in emergency preparedness organizations, or funding watchdog organizations to make sure that services are m
by dalke 11y ago
Why didn't any of the planning include participation in emergency preparedness organizations, or funding watchdog organizations to make sure that services are mismanaging their resources (e.g, Pro Publica and NPR's exposes on the American Red Cross, at http://www.propublica.org/article/the-red-cross-secret-disaster http://www.propublica.org/article/the-red-cross-secret-disas... and https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-half-a-billion-dollars-for-haiti-and-built-6-homes https://www.propublica.org/article/how-the-red-cross-raised-... ).
The closest it gets is "Make friends with neighbors", but plenty more is possible. I did see the comment that many will "pray for the government to bail us out", but that leaves out the people who will volunteer to be part of the NGOs to help others, and suggests that we, the people, have nothing to do with the actions of the government.
It's very detailed on what you can buy, but doesn't give any advice on figuring out which are real worries, and which are movie scenarios. Consider "Respiratory and environmental protection", where "If you worry about releases from chemical plants or overturned ammonia tankers, 3M multi gas cartridges ($17) and half facepieces ($12) offer robust protection when sized and fitted properly. In such an event, it would be also important to develop a plan for sealing your home".
Why not recommend visiting the Local Emergency Planning Committee to learn about any dangerous chemicals in your area? That would give an idea of which chemical plants are nearby, and a better idea of how to respond. It may be more likely that there's a fertilizer plant nearby (as residents in Waco discovered in 2013) or gas pipeline (as residents in Adair County, KY discovered in 2105, and residents near Carlsbad, N.M. discovered in 2000) and you need to worry about explosion more than gas problems.
In any case, I've now looked through a few dozen news reports of chemical plant problems, and found no example where gas masks, etc. would be useful.
On the other hand, and using the recent news report about Flint as an example, it seems that occasional water and air testing for long-term, low-grade poisons would more useful and cost effective than worrying about short-term, acute events.
Personally, I would prefer to see things structured around known problems - what does one need should there be a heavy metals spill upstream of you, like what happened at the Animas River? How much money would you need in order to be able to move, and no one wants to buy your property because the well water on the land is now toxic? How should you prepare for an oil pipeline spill in your backyard, as the residents of Mayflower, AR (and many others) have had?
When would it be better to put the money into applying more pressure on the EPA and FEMA, for more oversight and more funding for oversight, than to assume that individual preparedness is the right solution?
BTW, as it stands, its discussion about what to do in case of hurricanes is nearly non-existent, mostly saying "If you own a house, especially in a region prone to earthquakes or tropical storms, you should probably have a sledgehammer, a chainsaw (with a charged battery or some fuel at hand), bolt cutters, and a pry bar." Chainsaws after Hurricane Andrew were worth their weight in gold - as part of the cleanup process. But if we're talking planning, then window storm shutters are also important, as is tree trimming before the season starts.
What it should really do is point to more complete resources, like http://www.ready.gov/hurricanes http://www.ready.gov/hurricanes or http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/prepare/ready.php http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/prepare/ready.php . Viewing the latter, I see it includes things like "Make sure schools and daycares have School Emergency Plans" and "Pet owners should have plans to care for their animals" which should also be part of any plan.
- orik 11y ago>Rational prepping is meant to give you confidence to go about your business, knowing that you are well-equipped to weather out adversities. But it should not be about convincing yourself that the collapse is just around the bend, and letting that thought consume and disrupt your life. I don't think funding watchdog organizations really fits the goal of the article. The article also went over realistic and unrealistic risks and urged the reader to focus on realistic risks and not zombie apocalypse scenarios.
- dalke 11y agoWhile I think it does. Focusing only on myself is near-sighted planning. If I trusted FEMA or the Red Cross - which I don't, for reasons I mentioned - then I would likely face simpler adversities. If those relief organizations were able to get tents, food, and water to New Orleans within 2 days after Katrina hit - which they could do if they were well-run and funded - then I wouldn't have to plan for possibly two weeks of self-sufficiency should a major hurricane hit. Is it better for me to spend a lot of money on myself for something that isn't likely? Or pay less for something that is of overall more use for myself, my community, city, state, and nation?
- f- 11y agoHm, I sort of suspect that you skipped much of the first part of the guide, which talks about identifying the relevant risks, including - say - studying flood maps, identifying nearby industries, walking around the home to spot fire hazards, etc? And talks a lot about not obsessing about unlikely issues, when your greatest worries may be your own financial security or a house fire. It specifically instructs people to map out plausible risks and write response plans before they buy a single thing listed in part II. The whole purpose of part II is to go over some cost-effective purchases iff you have a robust basis to prioritize a particular threat and a rough idea of how you want to solve it. So yeah, for example, the mention of respirators has to be interpreted in that context; very few people can meaningfully benefit from a respirator. There are also mentions of being able to board up windows in locations prone to severe weather, etc. I would really like to address your concerns and improve the doc, but as it is, I'm sort of struggling to pinpoint the nature of the complaint :-(