Rescue expert's 'Triangle of Life' article provides good advice about earthquake safety.
We can't say that every single point mentioned in the above article about earthquake safety by controversial 'rescue expert' Doug Copp is wrong or bad advice, but there are some pretty substantial reasons why readers might want to take the article (particularly its advice that everyone who uses the 'duck and cover' technique in an earthquake ends up crushed to death) with some very large grains of salt.1) Disaster preparedness experts with groups such as the American Red Cross have disputed that findings based on earthquake experiences in other countries (e.g., Turkey) are applicable to earthquake situations that might occur in the United States, where building codes are substantially different:We at the American Red Cross have studied the research on the topic of earthquake safety for many years. We have benefited from extensive research done by the California Office of Emergency Services, California Seismic Safety Commission, professional and academic research organizations, and emergency management agencies, who have also studied the recommendation to 'drop, cover, and hold on!' during the shaking of an earthquake. Personally, I have also benefited from those who preceded me in doing earthquake education in California since the Field Act was passed in 1933. What the claims made by Mr. Copp of ARTI, Inc., does not seem to distinguish is that the recommendation to 'drop, cover, and hold on!' is a U.S.-based recommendation based on U.S. Building Codes and construction standards. Much research in the United States has confirmed that 'Drop, Cover, and Hold On!' has saved lives in the United States. Engineering researchers have demonstrated that very few buildings collapse or 'pancake' in the U.S. as they might do in other countries. Using a web site to show one picture of one U.S. building that had a partial collapse after a major quake in an area with thousands of buildings that did not collapse during the same quake is inappropriate and misleading.2) The validity of the research methodology and conclusions expressed in the article quoted above has been criticized by other disaster preparedness experts, who have noted that the event on which the article was based was a rescue exercise and not an experiment which simulated an earthquake:Copp likes to base his evidence on the Turkish 'experiment' that he was involved with. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to all involved, this was not an experiment at all, but rather a voluntary organization's search and rescue exercise. My colleagues in Turkey corroborate that a building scheduled for demolition was used as a search and rescue training opportunity. They did decide to put mannequins in different spots to see what would happen. And indeed they reported finding mannequins unharmed next to large and heavy objects. What is the problem with this? Simply this: To collapse the building, they rammed the columns, causing the building to pancake. They did NOT simulate an earthquake. Earthquakes come in waves. They cause lateral shaking. They cause a variety of different kinds of damage. Since this experiment didn't produce anything resembling shaking it really doesn't tell us anything at all about what would happen during an earthquake.3) Doug Copp's claim that he performed rescue work at the World Trade Center (for which he was paid $650,000 in compensation for injuries he supposedly sustained there) has been challenged in a series of articles published in the Albuquerque Journal which described him as a self-serving opportunist rather than a true rescue expert, reporting that:Self-proclaimed rescue guru Doug Copp's mission to ground zero was considered so important that he had clearance to be flown to New York even though all civilian air traffic in the United States had been grounded. Once there, he says he assumed a pivotal role and sustained devastating injuries while wading through the 'toxic soup' in search of survivors and victims, and was awarded nearly $650,000 for his injuries. But there is little evidence Copp performed real rescue work, and it is doubtful that he deserves compensation. Doug Copp was awarded $649,000, tax free, from the fund set up to compensate victims of 9/11. He says it's not enough. But it's doubtful he deserves anything. A Journal investigation found little evidence that Copp did real rescue work in New York. His forays into the rubble were to shoot video, some of which he tried to sell. His claim of seeking medical care within the time frame appears false. All typical of Copp's years as a self-proclaimed rescue guru. No one who worked with Copp said he did real rescue work in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. Instead, they said, he took videotape at the site, tried to get on TV, hung around a hotel and promoted himself. Everyone who went to New York with Copp disputed his claims about what he did there. Doctors questioned Copp's claims that he is seriously and terminally ill. The doctor Copp says he sought care from within the fund's time requirement said the encounter never happened. And Copp's body-finding machine, which he said he invented, turned out to be a commercially available gas detector.The Associated Press also reported that:John Norman, a New York City fire chief who led the rescue and recovery effort at ground zero, said Copp's claim to have been first to search collapsed subway tunnels and only one of four people to go underground is 'a fraud.' 'I didn't authorize him to do anything,' said Norman, who added that he probably would have had Copp arrested had he known he was at the site.(Other entries in the Albuquerque Journal's series of articles relayed complaints from numerous people who dealt with Mr. Copp and noted that he was under investigation by a U.S. Department of Justice fraud unit.)We'd recommend sticking with safety information prepared by established earthquake safety experts, such as the American Red Cross, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and Earthquake Country Alliance.
nan