[EAS] Joplin

[Lowell Kiesow]

My position is more nuanced that it might come across.  I like 
backups on the backups, and I try to build my facilities that 
way.  At one time, I had four transmitters at three different sites 
for just one station.  If we can build CAP EAS with redundancy and 
hardened systems, I'm right there to push.  But I also get frustrated 
with the nay sayers that dismiss CAP because, in the initial 
roll-out, it often relies on Internet for distribution.  Yes, we can 
come up with scenarios when it won't work, but I can come up with a 
lot more scenarios where it will work, and it'll do a far better job 
than "legacy" EAS.

It's easy to sit here and snipe. but there are economic realities 
faced by governments at all levels right now.  The perfect system 
isn't going to drop in our laps because there isn't money to build 
it.  In states where EAS is already pretty functional, the practical 
solution means deploying CAP as an overlay to legacy EAS as a means 
to provide redundancy.  For states where EAS never really blossomed, 
(of which there are too many) CAP will improve the situation greatly, 
despite any deficiencies.  One thing I predict is that CAP will 
succeed enough to generate a lot of interest by the EM community and 
the political types that hold the purse strings, and improvements 
will eventually happen, even in places where EAS has been 
dysfunctional up to now.

In the example of MO, I would expect that weather alerts are widely 
distributed by NWS radio, and I would hope that the state plan makes 
NWS a mandatory source for EAS.  CAP shouldn't change that.  Also, 
one would think that SAME radios will be pretty popular around MO and 
AR for awhile.

At 08:50 PM 5/23/2011, you wrote:
>I don't totally agree with you on this one Lowell.  Immediately 
>after a disaster strikes the necessary public information can change 
>or at least continue to develop in rapid succession.  Be it a 
>tornado or other emergency situation, the event will continue to 
>unfold.  It could be a call for volunteers, or call for evacuation 
>due to fire or hazmat condition triggered by the initial event.  And 
>we need to consider a worst case scenario where there could be more 
>tornadoes popping up in more storm lines as they advance through the 
>area.  With initial infrastructure crippled, we still need to give 
>the public updates on the crisis.  If it is after hours or if 
>conditions are so bad that broadcast personnel can't get to their 
>facilities to start round the clock live coverage then automatically 
>relayed EAS messages will continue to get the word out.
>
>Remember, the biggest blunder at Fukushima Japan was the lack of 
>worst case scenario insight.  Multiple failures triggered by one 
>event created their worst nightmare.
>
>--Ira
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: "Lowell Kiesow" <lkiesow at kplu.org>
>Sent 5/23/2011 9:48:35 PM
>
>The question is >when< the Internet/cell phones went
>down.  Obviously, they would have failed during the tornado, after
>warning is too late.  Those systems would have been functioning in
>advance of the storm when the warning message has value.  Most EAS
>alerts are going to be sent in advance of a hazard, not following
>it.  If a tornado were to hit my community, I don't need EAS to tell
>me what happened after the fact because I can look and see for
>myself.  What I do need is for it to warn me in advance.  In the
>aftermath of an event, normal press channels can and should work
>better than EAS.
>At 08:16 AM 5/23/2011, you wrote:
> >Devastation in Joplin, MO.  Cell phone network down. Internet
> >down.  Broadcasters doing what we always do.  Is it too late to stop
> >from jumping off the CAP/IPAWS/CLOUD cliff?
> >
> >Wayne R Miller, Chairman
> >Illinois SECC
> >309-678-1297
> >
>Lowell Kiesow, Chief Engineer
>KPLU 88.5, KVIX 89.3, KPLI 90.1
>www.kplu.org  www.jazz24.org

         Lowell Kiesow, Chief Engineer
         KPLU 88.5, KVIX 89.3, KPLI 90.1
         www.kplu.org  www.jazz24.org