What would we do if the lights went out?

[Kong Soo Do]

Even in the US....Even in large cities.....I do not recall riots in NYC when most of the eastern grid went black in 2009.....

Took a look at some stats for the 2003 & 2009 black outs. In 2003, according to Wikipedia, 1616 stores were damaged by rioting and looting. 1037 fires were set. 3776 people were arrested and over 300 million in damages. This was in 2 days.

In the 2009 black outs, just in NY, according to the NY times, there was almost a 100% rise in crime compared to the same period from the year before. Additionally, there were about 60 incidents of looting. The number of shootings were up nearly 600%. More than twice the number of homicides. There were more than 30,000 calls for police in the first 3 hours. They didn't list the number of fires. Again, this was in less than two days.

So let's extend the situation out to 5 days or perhaps 10 as Nat Geo projected. Does the situation get better or worse? After two days is when the grocery store shelves are empty, water isn't coming out of the tab, sanitation has backed up, emergency services are either stretched thin or perhaps non-existent. If the above is the result of a two day black out what will be the results of one of longer duration?

 

[Tez3]

Those figures say a lot then about that society and it's that society that needs to change rather than people accepting that this will happen they need to be working to ensure their society is one that can cope in a decent manner. However there are millions of decent hard working people who won't do all that shooting, rioting and looting.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Those figures say a lot then about that society and it's that society that needs to change rather than people accepting that this will happen they need to be working to ensure their society is one that can cope in a decent manner. However there are millions of decent hard working people who won't do all that shooting, rioting and looting.

Working towards a politer society is fine. The millions of decent people that didn't loot or riot are not the issue. It is the ones that did loot, riot, rape and commit arson that are the issue. That is a realistic issue that would need to be considered in a common sense plan. Do you want to see that type of mayhem? Of course not, but it would be naive to thing that it isn't a real possibility particularly in large urban centers where you have a concentration of people and a lack of supplies and services.

And the point needs to be stated that this was a mere two-day event. Two days without power, on a local or regional basis, where the total infrastructure hasn't been compromised and people are diligently working on solving the issue is not that serious an event in the grand scheme of things. Yet non-decent people still used it as an opportunity to inflict harm. So that begs the question; what type of scenario will unfold if the situation is extended, perhaps for quite some time and is on a large scale, perhaps national level? Just in two days the regional infrastructure was compromised severely. Not destroyed, but definitely operating under duress. Yet on a large scale the infrastructure will be even harder hit. Food cannot be resupplied (in the U.S. the bulk of goods an services still ultimately move by overland transportation. If that part of the infrastructure is compromised due to lack of fuel and other issues then foods and goods resupply is compromised). The average grocery store has three days of food on the shelf under normal circumstances. Three hours during a panic. And of course, with no electricity the ability to pay will be compromised i.e. credit cards and ATM machines. Hospitals and other facilities may have generator back up, but again that is fuel dependent.

So the question becomes; how will those millions of decent people that rode out a 2 day black out react during a 10 day black out when the stores have been emptied for over a week by that time? Honest question. For a family that has done a bit of sensible prepping and has some food tucked away, a way to disinfect water and maintain hygiene and a way to protect themselves then perhaps a 10 day lack of power could be considered an uncomfortable vacation. If people don't have enough food, clean water and ways to maintain hygiene, or the ability to protect themselves from those that will seek to gain advantage...it will not be pleasant at all. Then you will have decent people panicking as well as getting sick from poor hygiene methods. If you look at what kills people in undeveloped nations you will see that unsafe drinking water and poor sanitation methods are high on the list of what kills people. Well, what will a large city that has no electricity, compromised infrastructure and perhaps no immediate relief become? Again, an honest question.

 

[Tez3]

I think you missed my point. The prevention you want and the prevention that should be done are actually two different things.
I said nothing about a 'politer' society but a decent, civilised one. You have to ask yourself why are they rioting because you have riots going on over political issues as well as your 'black out' issues so perhaps the people aren't as sheeplike as you imagine?
I think your 'problems' aren't about natural disasters happening but rather political disasters leading to civil unrest which is what happened, the rioting and looting is a result of that society's mind set which needs changing obviously.
You seem to think 'decent' people panic while the bad ones don't, in my experience people don't panic nearly as often as you imagine and that is backed up by the factual research I mentioned early, people work together to find solutions so are you also telling us Americans as well as being sheeple are also incapable of working together to solve problems? Your poor opinion of your people is disappointing.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

I think you missed my point. The prevention you want and the prevention that should be done are actually two different things.

Wonderful, and how do you propose this happens?

I said nothing about a 'politer' society but a decent, civilised one.

I see, so you're saying a decent, civilized society isn't also polite?

I think your 'problems' aren't about natural disasters happening but rather political disasters leading to civil unrest which is what happened, the rioting and looting is a result of that society's mind set which needs changing obviously.

So people rioting, looting, burning and raping during a natural disaster (or a man-made disaster as per the OP) is about politics?

You seem to think 'decent' people panic while the bad ones don't

No, I think all people can panic given the right set of circumstances.

...so are you also telling us Americans as well as being sheeple are also incapable of working together to solve problems?

The people that were looting, rioting, setting fires and raping...how well did they work together to solve the problem? I would say that there were part of the problem.

Your poor opinion of your people is disappointing.

Okay, so since history has demonstrated my point during short-term disasters, you're suggesting that a longer term disaster (natural or man-made where the infrastructure is compromised) will suddenly be better? Is this your view?

 

[Tez3]

History hasn't shown you to be 'right', what has been shown is you picked one example of rioting and looting, I can shown you a great many examples of where this didn't happen. The fact ii happens in certain places and not others says a lot about the people where it does happen don't you think? The fact is that in a great many places where there is a natural disaster people do work together to save, comfort, fed and find water for each other so why don't the people in your example?

Again you missed my point about politics though.

During the winters here, people are often in blackouts for days ( one town was out was for a couple of weeks) they don't start rioting or looting. I'm sure many people can tell you of circumstances where there's been blackouts and no riots, we had floods here in the West Country a couple of years ago, very bad and they lasted for weeks, no riots instead everyone helping each other. Tsunamis, earthquakes (and terrorist attacks) in Asia and New Zealand, same again no disintegration of civilisation but instead helping each other. Recent bad floods in Europe, blackouts due to electric pylons down, no rioting ( a bit of fear though the zoo animals got out and were roaming the streets). fires in Australia, Greece, France and Italy don't have riots, we were without electricity for three days after a forest and shrub fire ( people died) in the South of France, we were looked after by local people, no riots. Did you see the Japanese rioting and looting after the tsunami there? In Nepal after the earthquake ( and things are still very bad there), in Thailand and Indonesia after that tsunami? History doesn't record disasters as being the start of civil unrest unless you are implying that is a US thing?

 

[Tez3]

Internet Scientific Publications


"Reaction to disaster
Factors that the public considers in reacting to a disaster warning include the significance of and understanding of the threat, and confidence (or lack thereof) in authorities. Initially, people make the determination whether or not the threat is real and they trust the source of information before taking action (Helsloot, & Ruitenberg, 2004).

During Hurricane Katrina, a large portion of the blame was placed on local, state and federal governments. Many individuals claimed the government responded to the hurricane and flooding too slowly, and felt there was no excuse for this. A survey conducted on Hurricane Katrina evacuees found that most individuals blamed the federal government, the state of Louisiana and the city of New Orleans for the problems that occurred due to the hurricane and flooding. A large number of evacuees believed the federal government would have responded more quickly to rescue efforts if more of them had been wealthier and white, rather than poorer and black. Thus, many blamed the government at the local, state and federal levels for the poor disaster response in the wake of Katrina, and they felt that the federal government did not care about ‘people like them' (Survey of Katrina Evacuees, 2005).

Garrett, & Sobel (2003) believe that this perception could be at least partially true. They determined that nearly half of all disaster relief is politically motivated, rather than by need. They found evidence of a higher rate of disaster declaration by the president in states that are politically important. This leads many states to be overlooked, even when legitimate disasters are suffered, often in favor of electoral vote-rich states that experience only mild natural occurrences. There is also a link between the political affiliation of the governor and the president during election years, with more disaster declarations being made in states politically important to the president. Research has shown that flood declarations are greater during presidential reelection years. For instance, in 1996 (President Clinton's reelection year) the level of disaster expenditures was roughly $140 million higher than in previous years. The unilateral nature of the Stafford Act makes this possible by allowing the president to bypass Congress, possibly punishing or rewarding legislators.

Disaster expenditures are also higher in states that have congressional representation on FEMA oversight committees (Garrett, & Sobel, 2003). States with legislators on a FEMA oversight subcommittee were estimated to receive an additional $31 million in excess expenditures. These statistics are disheartening to average citizens who place their trust in government officials to put personal interests aside for the public good.

Expectations about human response to disasters and terrorism are not compatible with known expected behavior under emergency conditions. Panic and dysfunctional behavior may differ from natural disasters and terrorist incidents. Disaster victims do not necessarily act in shock and panic, but more likely in response to what they believe is in their best interests given their limited understanding of the circumstances. Behavior in disaster response is generally pro-social as opposed to anti-social (i.e. looting), despite what is portrayed in popular media and press coverage (Perry, & Lindell, 2003; Helsloot, & Ruitenberg, 2004).

Generally people tend to act in pro-social ways, including performing acts of rescue and providing assistance and other altruistic responses. The myth of irrational and anti-social behavior can actually hamper disaster response planning when managers believe that giving incomplete or withholding information is justified. With incomplete information people are less likely to trust the sources and comply with recommendations (Perry, & Lindell, 2003)."

 

[Kong Soo Do]

History hasn't shown you to be 'right', what has been shown is you picked one example of rioting and looting, I can shown you a great many examples of where this didn't happen. The fact ii happens in certain places and not others says a lot about the people where it does happen don't you think? The fact is that in a great many places where there is a natural disaster people do work together to save, comfort, fed and find water for each other so why don't the people in your example?

Again you missed my point about politics though.

During the winters here, people are often in blackouts for days ( one town was out was for a couple of weeks) they don't start rioting or looting. I'm sure many people can tell you of circumstances where there's been blackouts and no riots, we had floods here in the West Country a couple of years ago, very bad and they lasted for weeks, no riots instead everyone helping each other. Tsunamis, earthquakes (and terrorist attacks) in Asia and New Zealand, same again no disintegration of civilisation but instead helping each other. Recent bad floods in Europe, blackouts due to electric pylons down, no rioting ( a bit of fear though the zoo animals got out and were roaming the streets). fires in Australia, Greece, France and Italy don't have riots, we were without electricity for three days after a forest and shrub fire ( people died) in the South of France, we were looked after by local people, no riots. Did you see the Japanese rioting and looting after the tsunami there? In Nepal after the earthquake ( and things are still very bad there), in Thailand and Indonesia after that tsunami? History doesn't record disasters as being the start of civil unrest unless you are implying that is a US thing?

Those are wonderful examples, except most of your examples are comparing apples to oranges. The blackouts that affected New York also affected large portions of the North Eastern seacoast parts of Canada and several other states. This region size event affected 55 million people. It also compromised the infrastructure on the scale not matched by most of your example. The notable exception would be the event in Japan. It should be noted however that not only did the nations 300,000 police officers mobilize, the military also mobilized, international support mobilized and in the affected areas Japanese organized crime also organized to prevent looting and rioting within their areas of control. The different sects of organized crime in Japan actually organized roving patrols within their selected districts. Compound this with the fact that Japanese society is noted for being civil and polite even in times of disaster. Unfortunately, this cannot be said of other industrialized nations. Case in point the various gangs in New York City did not mobilize to prevent looting, they participated in it.

Again as to your other examples the infrastructure was not compromised on the same scale as what happening here in the US In the examples I provided. It also needs to be noted that in many examples such as India where 700 million people were affected by a power grid failure a vast number of those people did not have electricity in their homes to begin with. Simply put many countries differ from industrialized nations in that they are not so dependent on the grid for their normal day-to-day operations. Unfortunately, this cannot be said for the majority of America in urban centers.

Lastly, and your examples national aid and international aid was forthcoming in short order. And normalcy was restored as quickly as was realistically possible for the situation. This thread is discussing the situation, which is very possible According to governmental authorities, where the infrastructure has collapsed, aid might not be forthcoming quickly, and, parts are only made overseas to restore the infrastructure. Thus, it is only prudent to be part of the solution and not part of the problem, which means having enough food, clean drinking water, and medical supplies to be able to ride out the situation. That goes a long way from removing you from people who have not prepared, and who will take advantage of the situation for their own gain.

 

[Tez3]

Ah the 'we always have things bigger' argument, ok you win, everything is bigger, more terrible and the rest of the world can never understand.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Ah the 'we always have things bigger' argument, ok you win, everything is bigger, more terrible and the rest of the world can never understand.

This is not what I said at all, nor was it the intent. I'm sorry we're speaking different languages but I've done the best I can to detail my OP. How you wish to view or interpret it is up to you. Have a wonderfully nice day.

 

[ChrisN]

Please chill both of you.

As many say.... A person is rational a group of people are not. When things go bad they go bad i'm sorry to say.

 

[Tez3]

Please chill both of you.

As many say.... A person is rational a group of people are not. When things go bad they go bad i'm sorry to say.

Chris, I don't know why you think we need to chill? You don't have discussions or debates?

The fact that you think we are in a temper or in intense argument shows that your statement about people when things go bad is flawed.
When things go pear shaped not everyone goes bad. Eyam - Plague Village - Derbyshire

 

[jks9199]

ATTENTION ALL USERS:

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful. Any further issues will lead to infactions being issued.

jks9199
Administrator

 

[ChrisN]

Individuals don't groups do. As for

Chris, I don't know why you think we need to chill? You don't have discussions or debates?
.

Guess my mind set is not right at the moment. Just don't like any thing that is vaguely hostile.

 

[Tez3]

Neither of us was being rude to the other, neither of us were disrespectful, it's a discussion with us holding different views, nothing else, no bad feelings, no rudeness. We may not see each others point of view but there's no animosity in this at all.

 

[Tez3]

Individuals don't groups do. As for

Guess my mind set is not right at the moment. Just don't like any thing that is vaguely hostile.

No, it wasn't even vaguely hostile. An amicable disagreement.

 

[Kong Soo Do]

Neither of us was being rude to the other, neither of us were disrespectful, it's a discussion with us holding different views, nothing else, no bad feelings, no rudeness. We may not see each others point of view but there's no animosity in this at all.

@ Chris and jks.

Tez is very correct. Tez and I have discussed a great many things and usually agree. On this particular subject we are coming at it from different perspectives, and that's fine. I did not see Tez as being rude or disrespectful and if anyone took it that way I would submit that they have mistaken the tone and intent. I don't believe I was being rude or disrespectful towards her, and from her comment above she feels the same way. Just a frank discussion with honest views.

I believe an administrative warning should have waited until she called me a 'Yank' and I called her a 'Limey'

But for the record, we're not mad at each other. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure I indicated that I respect her opinion in a previous post.

 

[tshadowchaser]

IS this thread about a day long blackout, a week long, or something that might be a forever situation? Are we talking a regional <say 100 square mile, 200, 1000 OR MORE).
Is there any hope for recovery or help by the government or is this a case of survival at all costs for the individual and families because there is no government and no communication possible ( heaven help those teens brought up with a cell phone attached to the end of their arm )
All of these factor have to be considered and I am seeing differing time lines being talked about side by side in this thread.
Lets set some guidelines on the time we are talking about

 

[Tez3]

@ Chris and jks.

Tez is very correct. Tez and I have discussed a great many things and usually agree. On this particular subject we are coming at it from different perspectives, and that's fine. I did not see Tez as being rude or disrespectful and if anyone took it that way I would submit that they have mistaken the tone and intent. I don't believe I was being rude or disrespectful towards her, and from her comment above she feels the same way. Just a frank discussion with honest views.

I believe an administrative warning should have waited until she called me a 'Yank' and I called her a 'Limey'

But for the record, we're not mad at each other. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure I indicated that I respect her opinion in a previous post.

I believe for a Mod's warning to appear someone reported a post/posts.

For the record I wasn't arguing I was explaining why I was right! NO, I'm joking, honestly! (it's a good line though)

This is a huge subject though and the post by tshadowchaser is a good one.

I wouldn't call KSD a Yank as I seem to have acquired an American adopted/foster son at my daughter's wedding last week, he's in the USAF, a mate of my son in law (he's Scottish) and a bit lonely so we are now his 'mum and dad' in the UK lol so no rude comments from me. Wedding pictures will be shown on the slightest provocation and the least excuse I will add!

 

[Tez3]

Sorry, I am just a very weak person who gives into temptation...........tehe.

Anyway, it's relevant look at all the sweets stockpiled in jars to be eaten!