Len's News, Notes, and Stuff

Verify the Veracity of Advice You Receive by Email – Even When It Comes from Trusted Sources

Bad information flows around anywhere, even within networks of emergency management professionals. Just yesterday, there was an article credited to Doug Coup flying around the email system. It came to me from an individual in my branch, who got it from someone at another branch with a lot of emergency response experience, who got it from someone at the federal level and also has extensive emergency management experience. The entire chain of people who had touched and forwarded the email was credible.

Unfortunately, nobody had bothered to verify the facts and advice espoused by the article.

In the forwarded article, Doug Copp talks about his experience with the American Rescue Team International but does not note that it is a private company and that his experience is primarily in countries abroad, such as in Mexico and Turkey. He advocate the “Triangle of Life” rather than the “Duck & Cover” advice that the American Red Cross and FEMA promote in the United States. His justification is that in his experience, buildings collapse and “pancake” on the objects within them. Therefore, ducking under cover means getting crushed under the furniture in question, while those who lie down next to the objects have a chance to survive in the triangular gap created by the floor above breaking on the object and creating a triangular “lean-to” kind of space for survival.

However, after only 15 minutes of light research, I found a few credible sources that refute the Triangle of Life advice.

Snopes.com is a good source for verifying a lot of the stuff that goes around by email. Though it is not an academic or authoritative site, the Snopes folks typically do a good job of investigating and assessing the validity of common chain emails or viral messages going around social networks. Their assessment is that the jury is still out on the Triangle of Life, but that it leans towards being crap advice.

Earthquake Solutions is another private company, in this case a consulting company helping clients assess risks and develop mitigation and response plans. They cite that in their experience in the United States, Copp’s advice is wrong and downright dangerous.

However, the most authoritative source is the American Red Cross itself. Citing numbers and specific data from their experience with earthquake response, the Red Cross provides solid reasons why the “Drop, Cover, Hold On” is still the best course of action in an earthquake situation. The key points in their response are:

• “Drop, cover, and hold on!” is a U.S.-based recommendation based on U.S. Building Codes and construction standards.
• Engineering researchers have demonstrated that very few buildings collapse or “pancake” in the U.S. as they might do in other countries.
• Most injuries happened as a result of the collapse of [a street section, or] from falls caused by people trying to get out of their homes, or serious cuts and broken bones when people ran, barefooted, over broken glass.
• The American Red Cross has not recommended use of a doorway for earthquake protection for more than a decade. The problem is that many doorways are not built into the structural integrity of a building, and may not offer protection.
• [Try not] to move (that is, escape) during the shaking of an earthquake. The more and the longer distance that someone tries to move, the more likely they are to become injured by falling or flying debris, or by tripping, falling, or getting cut by damaged floors, walls, and items in the path of escape.

The Red Cross is not saying that identifying potential voids is wrong or inappropriate. What we are saying is that “Drop, Cover, and Hold On!” is NOT wrong — in the United States. The American Red Cross, being a U.S.-based organization, does not extend its recommendations to apply in other countries. What works here may not work elsewhere, so there is no dispute that the “void identification method” or the “Triangle of Life” may indeed be the best thing to teach in other countries where the risk of building collapse, even in moderate earthquakes, is great.

I made the mistake of forwarding on the original Triangle of Life article to close friends because it seemed credible and came from people whom I trust. I am glad that something tickled the back of my brain and prodded me to check up on the information. After just a bit of cursory research, I found enough contrary advice from other sources that I trust – most notably the American Red Cross response – that I had to quickly write back to my friends to tell them to disregard the prior information I’d just sent to them. I was even careful to look for attempts to discredit Doug Copp’s theory by discrediting him alone, but this was not the case. His advice, at least in an American and Canadian context and based on prior experience and data from the field, is wrong and dangerous.

Even when information comes from trusted sources, it is very much worth your while to do some personal research to verify it – particularly when it’s about saving lives.