Emergency kits - do we need them?

One of the heroes of my teenage years was Doc Savage, a character from the age of pulp fiction who became popular through a re-release in paper backs. What was so great about Doc was that he was not a superhero but a man who had been trained to peak efficiency in all his faculties by his parents. He kept his skills current through a rigorous daily training program. The attraction for young people was the message that you could be great if you were willing to work at it.

One other thing that was interesting about Doc was that he never carried a gun. He abhorred the taking of a human life and believed that carrying a gun created a dependence on them. Mind you, he did wear a vest that put Batman's utility belt to shame but most of the time he got out of trouble by relying on his intelligence, physical strength, and keen senses.

These leads me to wonder if we are not doing ourselves a disservice by our emphasis on emergency kits rather than skills training. Now don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating that we not encourage the public to build emergency kits. Even Doc Savage occasionally used a gun (always to wound, of course). But I do have some concerns when "building a kit" forms the core of our preparedness message and serves as an indicator of how well our populations are prepared.

My first concern is that to the best of my knowledge there is no empirical research that shows the value of emergency kits as a measure of preparedness or if, in fact, they are actually used in disasters. Common sense suggests that they have utility but that can vary based on the nature of the disaster and the location. We just don't know.

Secondly, we base most of our kits on the 72 hour rule which is also not backed up by any empirical research. Indeed, we don't even know where the rule originated; I've heard quite a number of versions of its origins, ranging from the Cold War to the time needed to mobilize mutual aid. Nobody really knows why we use 72 hours as a baseline.

We also cannot agree on what the kits should contain. I've seen some kits small enough to be worn as a vest or carried in a handbag. I've also seen kits with enough material to outfit a MASH unit. 

Even the issue of water is problematic: we talk about 1 gallon per person for day, which totals 24 pounds for three days but the average adult needs can survive on 2 quarts per day, a more manageable 12 pounds. The other two quarts per day are usually allocated for cooking and hygiene but this is not always clearly stated. We also encourage people to purchase kits with only a few ounces of water in them. To add to the confusion, the need for water is dependent on the environment. We may well be telling people to stockpile more or less than they actually need.

Again, my point here is not to slam emergency kits (I own several) but rather to suggest that one-size does not fit all and that we should be teaching people how to survive in their unique environment. We should be teaching them to think and not just encouraging consumerism.

It's what Doc would do!

Comments

[Coffeecolouredworld.wordpress.com]

I think the best thing we should do (not that I personally have) is create an emergency kit specific to the environment we live in. In some environments, like here in the North East I don't really need a kit, it's not like the ground is going to suddenly start shaking like it does in CA . . . oh wait a minute I've been through 3 earthquakes, none in CA. Perhaps I should rethink this?

[Lucien Canton]

Hee, hee! You're on the right track, though.