[EAS] Fire

[Botterell, Arthur@CalOES]

Dave,

So how did we get into this mess?  Excellent question.  A think a lot of it has to do with emergency managers and public safety folks having never been trained in the social science of public warning.  (As a result, many practitioners are anxious and hesitant to use the warning systems they have, and tend to rely on folk-lore and habit for their policies, and on what vendors tell them for their knowledge acquisition.) 

On a more macro level, historically we've built warning systems piecemeal around particular threats and/or particular technologies.  Programs were constructed for particular purposes using particular funds and in particular places in the parent organizations.  The all-hazard integrated philosophy of public warning, binding multiple systems together to work in concert, has only really emerged in the past couple of decades.  

Thus EAS, for example, was designed to fit analog broadcasting technology and to operate in a way defined for civil defense requirements.  In interoperability terms, it's a "silo."  IPAWS was an attempt to put an interoperability layer over EAS, WEA and other stuff, but the inherent limitations of SAME-based EAS (and Weather Radio) weren't removed.

As with any paradigm, EAS has become the only conceivable reality for many folks.  And as with any paradigm, that will continue until a critical mass of people notice a critical mass of problems with that construct and begin to consider alternatives.  But change has its cost, both in capital investment and in impacts on people's existing jobs and political roles.  The past won't let go without a fight, and in this case, that battle has barely begun.  

CAP threatened to disrupt the EAS status-quo, but for now it's bottled up in the IPAWS over-layer.  I don't see anyone working on next steps.  Apparently the need isn't clear enough yet.

Art

-----Original Message-----
From: eas-bounces at radiolists.net [mailto:eas-bounces at radiolists.net] On Behalf Of Dave Kline

Well said Art.
I do agree with the things you said.

It would seem to me then, that on one level, society expects us to respond a certain way, even in emergency situations.
While on another level society knows that we will probably not do the things that make the most sense for ourselves or others.
You have addressed my first question by acknowledging the fact that we, myself included, do not usually respond to these events with forethought and reason. After all we are human... to err and all.

So then why is it that we are forced to live with a warning system where we are expected to act like an extension of that system? We are human, as you point out. To that I will add, we are also not machines.

The mechanism of our warning systems seem to lose us in our human frailties and failings.
I used to think there was nothing wrong with the EAS on a systemic level. I believed it was the people who failed to properly implement the systems that caused the problems. Perhaps I looked at it the wrong way. Perhaps our warning systems should be designed with an awareness of the human condition. 

Perhaps psychologists and behavior specialists should be designing these systems instead of technicians and politicians. I do not intend to make a likable comparison between the technical and the political. There is no more greater dichotomy, in my mind, than these two groups. Perhaps we are just not suited to work together to solve these problems. Once we have the right groups working on it, it may actually be able to work in a way that will help the human component better help themselves. 

----------------------------------------
Dave Kline   UNO-TV/Mav Radio/KVNO
----------------------------------------