Don't count on technology to save you in a disaster: researchers

Guess what technology CAN save your life in an emergency ( depending on what TYPE of disaster ): Http://WWW. JARL.Org Http://WWW.ARRL.Org

Yup, technology can be a lifesaver for those residing in a country where the infrastructure is sound.

Depending on the type of disaster, a lot of tech will automatically become unusable. If the quake is big enough in Japan, it's unlikely cell phones will be of use immediately in the affected areas. That doesn't mean I'm not for it -- I think there are benefits that outweigh the negatives. But no, you shouldn't think you are okay because of tech. If the lights went out in Tokyo at rush hour and the power stopped for everything.... cringe.

Don't count on technology to save you in a disaster: researchers

You don't say?

It is a huge issue. Is technology a panacea (look up the meaning)? No. It isn't. Can it improve matters immensely? OF COURSE IT CAN.

I really have no comment about poorer countries. There are a lot of places on the planet where life is cheap, infrastructure is haphazard, and corners are cut so much that everything is a circle. Generations of better construction using better technology will give such nations more secure structures. But they will have to pay for that, and they won't. Everyone has better things to do than attend safety drills, right?

But for developed countries, it is a different story. Just two examples to rebut the article. A drone can only carry 3 kg. Oh rly? Well, 3 kg of water, medical supplies, communication devices, fire making materials and space blankets can keep a family going for at least ONE MORE DAY. And if a drone can do 20 sorties a day while doing recon at the same time, that is a lot of ground covered and a lot of saved people. They can also do remote inspection of infrastructure such as dams and rail and electrical transmission that might take a week to do on foot.

Electrical grid down? Nuclear power plant threatened? No problem. Just airlift in some large generators using helicopters. That could have been done in Fukushima if only people had thought about using existing technology and had it prepared.

A panacea is a solution for ALL PROBLEMS. Technology won't do that. But if people prepare for their own MICRO needs, then it makes it easier for expensive and scarce technology resources to address MACRO needs. Having more resources available in disaster situations allows for better outcomes and more opportunities to improvise and adapt.

Finally, in my experience in the 2011 quake, which was a regional disaster, I have to give really high marks to everyone in the region for doing their best to limit loss of human life. They were basically calm, rational, and problem solvers. I certainly can't say the same for people outside of the region. But anyway, some things that could have made matters A LOT better would be drones. Perhaps only 20 or so could have done many search and delivery tasks that took up a lot of human resources. Even 10 drone boats would have been a boon for many remote villages along the coast. One or two dirigibles could have given cellular access to a lot of people a lot more quickly.. They could have been moved as service was restored.

Flying just one or two drones over the reactors at TEPCO would also have shown that the fuel pools were NOT empty, as the US NRC falsely reported to the US Congress, and a lot of baseless hysteria could have been avoided outright. Simply in terms of providing better information when it is most vital, drones are often priceless.