In this post I will be discussing whether or not we has Americans have evolved in our technologies and our logic since the World Trade Center attack of September 11th, 2001. The question has been raised if the American public would react differently if another attack were to happen, and if we have made and technological changes or improvements in the last ten years that would help us in our disaster clean up and response.
First I will talk about the technological advances or lack there of. I believe that we have not made any real technological advances that would help us in a state of emergence. Of course, we have made technological advances in the past ten years, but not necessarily in disaster relief. For example, one of the major issues with the incident on September 11th was the lack of communication with the victims and the responders. I do not think that this will change if another attack were to happen. This is because people would immediately go to use their cell phones and call for help, almost instantaneously the cell towers would become overloaded rendering them useless. Like we discussed in class, after we had a minor earthquake in State College, our systems failed. If it were to actually be a disaster, it would only make matters worse. Nothing has been installed in buildings that would help this issue such as CB radios on every floor. So all in all, our communication tools would still fail and no contact with the victims would be possible.
Next, I do believe that our techniques and actions would be different if an attack were to happen again. Solely because it is human nature to learn from our mistakes and improve them so we do not make the same mistakes again. For example, while working with the Office of Emergency Management over the summer, I took a look at our evacuation plans and how they evolved over the years. I noticed a huge difference in the plans prior to 9/11 to the post 9/11 plans. They consisted of a lot more detail and a lot were scenarios were discussed. Furthermore, I believe that the country is a lot more prepared for a terrorist attack or even a natural disaster. This is only because we as a nation learned for past events. Our emergency responders are now being trained on how to handle a similar situation and things would go a lot different then they did ten years ago. For example, I do not think that security guards would be telling people to go back to their offices after a plane flew into the building. This is because, buildings are now practicing evacuation routes and will be more prepared next time. This raises the concern that people do not and will not act the same for a practice evacuation as they would if it was the real deal. People naturally tend to panic in a state of emergency and there is no possible way to change or correct that.
Your post is interesting and similar to what I blogged about this week. I would have to disagree slightly in your first paragraph; I wouldn’t say all of our systems failed during or after the recent earthquake. Soon after the quake I was able to make several of phone calls. A majority of calls and several text messages I was sending were to people in Virginia where the quake was centered. So not only was I able to communicate, but people from Virginia where the epicenter was. On the other hand, had the earthquake been higher on the Richter scale and damage was more severe, I think the possibility of networks going down was highly likely. Overall I would have to agree, technological upgrades haven’t been made since 9/11. Especially in a borough like State College, I would bet that there have been no technological upgrades since /or due to 9/11.
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned in your second paragraph that prior to 9/11 the evacuation route had been modified. I wonder if the huge differences that were made would be effective or not? I think sometimes plans look good on paper, but until the action is put to use or tested, there is no way of telling whether or not the plan if effective or not. My point is, all kinds of changes have been made after 9/11, but I think it is hard to tell whether or not these changes are effective until another situation happens are they are put to use. Like you said, people naturally tend to panic in a state of emergency and there is no possible way to correct that. I read a statistic somewhere that stated; its takes a normal person 10-20 seconds to respond to an attack, it takes a trained individual 2-5 seconds. So, overall I think we agree that even though changes have been made, it’s difficult to determine if the change is effective or not until it is put to use.
I will agree with you on the second part of your post. We are more prepared and have a better idea of how to respond. I do not think we will be shocked again if something like this happens. There will not be a total sense of disbelief but a need to react. Top to bottom from emergency response teams to security guards to everyday citizens will want to help and have a better understanding of what to do.
ReplyDeleteA lot of people have been talking about how all of our communication would still go down in the event of another attack like this. You mention cb radios which would help inside the building but what about an overall solution to the problem. Do you have any ideas on how to make our cell phones and the internet more redundant or more resistant to getting interfered with or over-loaded? I only ask because I was thinking about it myself and I am really not sure of what we could do about that.
Good blog post this week, really gives the reader a lot to think about.
Hey Mike-- Personally, I think that the advancement in technology we have seen in the past ten years is plainly evident; however, I don’t believe that the ways in which we respond via technology to disasters has evolved in any significant way. I also believe that the American public would still respond in the same fashion that we did during the horrible events surrounding the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Centers, and the Pentagon.
ReplyDeleteMany of the cell phone providers still provide services the same way that they had ten years ago, and thus are still likely to be prone to overloading due to mass demand of service during a crisis. Your example of the State College earthquake was perfect! I remember trying to call my mom right after I felt the IST building shake, and I couldn’t get my call to go through until about an hour after the earthquake was felt. I do also completely agree with you that if it were actually a disaster, if a building did collapse on campus, particularly the IST building which could cut off access to downtown State College via Atherton Street, the communication tools that we are so used to using would still fail and very few people would be able to contact other people.
I feel that I have to disagree with you when you say that our technologies and actions would be different if an attack were to occur again. While we have learned from 9/11 about the horrible actions possible, human nature is still flawed. Unless someone receives training to change their behavior during a disaster, human behavior often tends to repeat… most individuals will still run away from the disaster screaming and worrying about their friends and loved ones.
I can agree with you on both accounts - I don't think we've necessarily progressed enough on the technological front to help mitigate any of the damage of a catastrophic attack like 9/11 and I certainly believe that we are better mentally, physically, and technically more capable of responding to a similar disaster thanks to things like better training protocols and increased funding for first responders.
ReplyDeleteWhile many of the technologies being developed are interesting and powerful on paper, they realistically require too much training and money to be practical. Even if these technologies like drones make it into the field, they haven't exactly been tested nor do their uses necessarily fill any niches better than many older and less technological practices in place.
On the other hand, we can applaud efforts being made to make first responders and rescue personnel more capable of handling disaster like 9/11. Additionally, we can gleam some hope out of the human practice of learning from mistakes - while this doesn't guarantee anything, it certainly bodes well that we'll be more aware of potential disasters, how to mitigate them, and a greater awareness.