PPW Report 2002-02
`
`Developing A Unified All-Hazard
`Public Warning System
`
`A Report by
`The Workshop on Effective Hazard Warnings
`
`Emmitsburg, Maryland
`
`November 25, 2002
`
`7515 Colshire Drive MS N655
`McLean, VA 22102
`TEL: (703) 883-2745
`FAX:(703) 883-3689
`
`1 of 47
`
`IBM EX. 1008
`
`
`
`

`

`The Partnership for Public Warning (PPW) was incorporated in January 2002 as a 501(c)3
`public/private non-profit institute as recommended in 2000 in the report Effective Disaster
`Warnings authored under the National Science and Technology Council at the White House
`(www.nnic.noaa.gov/CENR/NDIS_rev_Oct27.pdf).
`
`Our mission is to promote and enhance efficient, effective, and integrated dissemination of
`public warnings and related information so as to save lives, reduce disaster losses and speed
`recovery.
`
`We anticipate being chartered as a Utilized Federal Advisory Committee, providing a formal
`basis for Federal employees to work with representatives of all other stakeholders of warning
`systems.
`
`Our goal is to work together towards a full range of national standards, protocols and
`priorities related to public warning systems.
`
`Our vision of the future is that most people at immediate risk from natural or manmade
`disasters will obtain timely and accurate information about what is highly likely to happen or
`is happening via a wide variety of dissemination systems so that they can respond in ways that
`reduce their losses.
`
`We anticipate that private industry will develop most dissemination systems as successful
`business ventures and that warning receivers will be included in many different types of
`consumer electronics devices that might even self-activate in times of crisis.
`
`2 of 47
`
`
`
`

`

`Developing A Unified All-Hazard Public Warning System
`
`Executive Summary
`
`The purpose of this report is to propose a national all-hazard public warning architecture and
`to outline some of the issues that will need to be addressed in creating such an architecture.
`
`A warning is information provided to people at risk in advance of (alert) or during (notify) a
`hazardous event, with the objective of inducing those at risk to take appropriate action to
`reduce losses. The goal of warning is to prevent hazards from becoming disasters. The
`success of a warning is measured by the timely and appropriate actions taken to mitigate
`hazards and secure personal safety.
`
`Warnings are primarily the responsibility of local jurisdictions with assistance from state and
`Federal governments. Warnings are also issued by critical industries such as nuclear power
`plants or oil refineries, typically as a requirement of their license to operate. Most warnings
`are issued from any one of thousands of government sources, but most systems to deliver
`warnings rely on industry for receivers and typically for the many aspects of warning
`distribution. Today many different warning systems exist that are quite heterogeneous, are not
`interoperable, and do not reach most of the people at risk. The many government agencies
`issuing such warnings are inconsistent in their terminology leading to confusion and
`inadequate response.
`
`Bringing diverse warning resources together and focusing on a unified all-hazard warning
`system will improve the effectiveness of all warnings significantly. More people at risk will
`be warned. Improved warning systems and procedures will clearly save significant numbers
`of lives every year, will reduce losses from natural and man-made disasters, and will speed
`recovery. Building and operating a unified all-hazard public warning system is beyond the
`capability of any local community, state, Federal agency, or industry. It requires the
`cooperation of all these groups to work effectively together in partnership. There is a need for
`Federal leadership, and while many Federal agencies are responsible for warnings, there is no
`single Federal agency that has clear responsibility to see that a national, all-hazard, public
`warning system is developed and utilized effectively. Primarily because of this, an industry
`capable of unifying and standardizing warnings has not developed. We believe that the new
`Department for Homeland Security should take responsibility for leading development of a
`national all-hazard public warning architecture in partnership with other Federal agencies,
`state and local governments, industry, universities, and other stakeholders.
`
`The findings and recommendations contained in this report are the product of an ongoing
`dialogue among some of the nations leading experts in warning systems. A group of scholars,
`emergency managers, agency officials and consultants met in Emmitsburg, Maryland June 19-
`23 to both evaluate the Homeland Security Advisory System and to consider ways of
`improving the effectiveness of current public warning systems. There was a solid consensus
`at this meeting that improvement of existing diffuse warning efforts can be achieved most
`effectively and at the most reasonable cost by developing an all-hazards public warning
`system in the US. This consensus is quite notable in that significant change will be required
`
`3 of 47
`
`i
`
`
`
`

`

`within many of the agencies represented to develop such a uniform system. Further, the
`willingness to embrace the work necessary to implement an all-hazards warning system is
`evidence that the need for such a system is considered extremely compelling.
`
`The challenges ahead are significant but tractable. They include:
`(cid:120) Generating adequate real-time data and intelligence upon which to base a warning
`(cid:120) Determining the point at which data are indicative that a warning should be issued,
`(cid:120) Using standard warning terminology that is easily understood by message recipients
`(cid:120) Refining the message for a very diverse population with different levels of education
`and responsibility
`(cid:120) Providing the warning in a standard protocol that allows industry to implement
`interoperable systems,
`(cid:120) Delivering the warning to just the people at risk and emergency responders through
`multiple communications channels
`(cid:120) Educating and training people to act in appropriate ways
`(cid:120) Constantly evaluating and reevaluating the effectiveness of the overall system.
`
`In developing an all-hazards warning system, we must acknowledge and incorporate insights
`derived from over 60 years of Federally funded social science research on how people
`respond to disaster warnings and how the warnings can be made more effective. This body of
`research challenges popular myths that still prevail among those who are hesitant about
`warning systems including the belief that warnings generate panic or that false warnings
`greatly diminish the propensity of people to heed future warnings. Research, based on
`extensive observation of many natural and technological disasters, reveals that mass panic is
`highly unlikely when accurate information is provided. Rare false warnings do not seem to
`lead to a “Cry Wolf” syndrome. People want accurate and reliable information, and if the
`official sources do not provide it they will seek it from less reliable sources. We summarize in
`this document many lessons learned from this research in evaluating the warning process.
`
`Another challenge in designing a uniform all-hazards warning system involves knowing what
`people must know in order to interrupt their normal activities to heed a warning and take
`appropriate action. We must recognize that warning is a continuous process that peaks during
`rare crisis events. Warning requires education and training, it often involves moving from
`very sketchy information over time to increasingly specific information. People at risk must
`participate in this progression in order to understand the imminence, severity, and likelihood
`of experiencing a hazardous situation. People rarely respond effectively to a last minute, “out
`of the blue” alert to take action unless they can directly perceive the threat.
`
`Given that warnings are issued for many types of hazards, warning recipients are far more
`likely to quickly assess what is happening and determine what to do if the same terminology
`to describe risk and suggested action is used in these very different situations. Thus, a unified,
`all-hazard, public warning system must adopt a standard terminology for hazard warnings.
`
`We also recommend the implementation of a unified, all-hazard, public warning message
`protocol, so that industry can modify existing hardware and build new hardware to receive
`warnings. It appearse quite feasible to add such capabilities to objects such as telephones,
`
`ii
`
`4 of 47
`
`
`
`

`

`televisions, or radios that are purchased and used daily for other reasons. The rapid increase in
`use of Internet, Internet Protocol and wireless communication devices opens many powerful
`possibilities. With a standard message protocol and a reliable stream of messages, industry
`can evaluate the market potential and use its originality and competitiveness to produce all
`types of warning delivery systems.
`
`In summary, we strongly recommend the implementation of an all-hazards public warning
`system that:
`Is cognizant of the social science research in the area of human response to warnings
`(cid:120)
`Incorporates training for populations at risk and the emergency managers who must
`(cid:120)
`mobilize a response
`Is based on a standard terminology for expressing risk and appropriate responses
`(cid:120)
`(cid:120) Utilizes a standard protocol for warning issuance.
`We are confident that such a warning system is a major step toward enhanced public safety
`for a variety of natural and technological hazards in which timely response and appropriate
`action are critical.
`
`5 of 47
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Participants
`Dr. Chris Adams, CIRA, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO
`Doug Allport, President, Allport Group, Ottawa, Canada
`Dr. Ben Aguirre, Disaster Research Center, University of Delaware, Dover, DE
`Darrell Ernst, Lead Defense Space Systems Engineer, MITRE Corporation, McLean, VA
`Kevin Foust, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, DC
`Craig Fugate, Director, Division of Emergency Management, Tallahassee, FL
`James Goltz, California Governor’s California Office of Emergency Services, Pasadena, CA
`Captain Eliot Grollman, Federal Protective Service, Chair WMD Committee for the
`Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC
`Dr. Eve Gruntfest, Geographer, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, CO
`Jim Hammill, Executive Director, Homeland Defense, Government Liaison & Special
`Projects, Telcordia Technologies, Red Bank, NJ
`Dr. Michael Lindell, Hazard Reduction & Recovery Center, Texas A&M, College Station, TX
`Dr. Rocky Lopes, American Red Cross National Headquarters, Falls Church, VA
`Frank Lucia, Federal Communications Commission, Emergency Alert System, Retired,
`Frederick, MD
`Dr. Andrew Michael, Chief, Earthquake Probabilities and Occurrence Project, U.S.
`Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA
`Dr. Dennis Mileti (by telephone), Director, Natural Hazards Research and Applications
`Information Center, Chair, Department of Sociology, University of Colorado, Boulder,
`CO
`Dr. Nancy Mock, Department of International Health and Development and the Payson
`Center for Technology Transfer and International Development, Tulane University,
`New Orleans, LA
`Sarah Nathe, Special Assistant to the Vice Provost-Academic Planning & Facilities,
`University of California, Berkeley, CA
`Constance Perett, Administrator, Los Angeles County Office of Emergency Management, Los
`Angeles, CA
`Dr. John R. Powers, Chairman, CCRI Concepts, Alexandria, VA, former Executive Director
`of the President's Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection
`Timothy Putprush, Emergency Alert Service Primary Entry Point Program Manager, Federal
`Emergency Management Agency, Berryville, VA
`Deborah Riopelle, Center for Public Health & Disaster Relief, University of California, Los
`Angeles, CA
`Richard Rosano, Senior Program Manager, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response,
`Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MD
`Ben Rotholtz, General Manager, Products and Systems, RealNetworks, Seattle, WA
`Richard Rudman, Director of Engineering, KFWB Radio, Los Angeles, retired and former
`Chair, Emergency Alert System National Advisory Committee to the FCC, Los
`Angeles, CA
`Dr. Robert Tilling, Volcanologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, CA
`Dr. Peter Ward, Chair, Board of Trustees, Partnership for Public Warning, McLean, VA and
`Jackson, WY
`Dr. William Waugh, Department of Public Administration and Urban Studies, Georgia State
`University, Atlanta, GA.
`
`iv
`
`6 of 47
`
`
`
`

`

`Eric Weinstein, Program Manager, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response,
`Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Rockville, MD
`Dr. Dennis Wenger, National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA
`Don Wernly, Chief Performance and Awareness Division, Office of Climate, Water, and
`Weather Services, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, MD
`
`The views expressed by these participants are based on their professional experience and do
`not necessarily represent the views of their employers.
`
`7 of 47
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`Introduction
`On March 18, 2002, the Department of Justice published the Homeland Security Advisory
`System (HSAS) in the Federal Register and requested public comment on or before April 25,
`2002. The Partnership for Public Warning, in its role of bringing together representatives of
`all the stakeholders in warning systems nationwide, submitted written comment reviewed
`widely by social scientists and other experts experienced in issuing warnings and in
`evaluating their effectiveness. It became clear, in this process, that convening a workshop of
`such experts would be of great value before the final version of the HSAS was presented to
`the President July 25, 2002. With financial assistance from the Federal Emergency
`Management Agency, the National Science Foundation, the National Weather Service and the
`U.S. Geological Survey, as well as private industry, 29 experts met at the National Emergency
`Training Center in Emmitsburg, MD, June 19-23. This group included experts from the social
`sciences, physical sciences, communications technologies, emergency management, and
`Federal law enforcement terrorism specialists. The results of this workshop, along with a
`detailed analysis of the HSAS, were many suggestions on how to improve warnings for a
`wide range of hazards and a decision to urge development of standardized all-hazard
`terminology and all-hazard protocol.
`
`On July 4, 2002, a report, Improving the Effectiveness of the Homeland Security Advisory
`System, was issued and sent to Governor Tom Ridge, Director Office of Homeland Security
`(http://www.partnershipforpublicwarning.org/ppw/docs/hsas_report.pdf).
`
`The major emphasis at the workshop was on the need and potential for an all-hazard standard
`terminology and protocol. This report summarizes the consensus reached on these issues
`together with lessons learned from past research and needs for future research.
`
`vi
`
`8 of 47
`
`
`
`

`

`Developing A Unified All-Hazard Public Warning System
`
`1. An Overview Of Warning.................................................................................................. 3
`Warnings Seek Action ....................................................................................................... 3
`The Success Of Warning Is Measured By What Actions People Take ............................. 3
`Warnings Are Primarily A Local Government Responsibility.......................................... 3
`Federal Responsibility For Warnings ................................................................................ 4
`Most Warnings Originate From Government Organizations............................................. 4
`Warning Systems Require A National Partnership Between Government And Industry.. 5
`Many People Are Involved In The Warning Process ........................................................ 5
`Eleven Important Elements Of The Warning Process ....................................................... 6
`2. Lessons Learned About The Fundamental Principles Of Effective Warning Systems ..... 7
`Warning System Context ................................................................................................... 7
`Warning System Design..................................................................................................... 8
`The Mass Panic Warning Myth ......................................................................................... 8
`The Cry Wolf Warning Myth............................................................................................. 8
`The Over Information Myth............................................................................................... 8
`Withholding Information Is Typically Not In The Public Interest .................................... 9
`Lessons About The Effects Of Warning Messages ........................................................... 9
`Lessons About Warning Receivers.................................................................................... 9
`Lessons About Warning Message Content ...................................................................... 10
`Lessons About Warning Message Timing ....................................................................... 10
`Lessons About Warning Channels................................................................................... 11
`Lessons About Warning Sources ..................................................................................... 11
`Lessons About Warning System Reliability .................................................................... 11
`Lessons About Training ................................................................................................... 11
`Lessons About Technology Development ....................................................................... 12
`Lessons About Evaluation ............................................................................................... 12
`3. Design Of An Effective All-Hazards Warning System ................................................... 12
`What Motivates People To Take Action? ........................................................................ 12
`Warning Is A Continuous Process ................................................................................... 14
`Diversity Creates Many Challenges For Successful Warning ......................................... 16
`Heterogeneity In Current Warning Systems .................................................................... 17
`Who Should Be Involved In A Unified Warning System?.............................................. 18
`Critical Components Of A Unified All-Hazard Public Warning System ........................ 19
`4. Developing A Unified All-Hazard Terminology ............................................................. 19
`5. Developing A Unified Message Protocol ........................................................................ 23
`6. Research Needs ................................................................................................................ 26
`7. Recommendations............................................................................................................ 28
`Appendix 1: What Are The Actions That Should Be Taken?.............................................. 30
`Appendix 2: Comments On The Common Alerting Protocol.............................................. 33
`Appendix 3: Examples Of Threat-Level Scales In Current Use.......................................... 37
`Appendix 4: Definition Of Terms Used............................................................................... 38
`
`9 of 47
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`2
`
`10 of 47
`10 of 47
`
`
`
`

`

`1. An Overview Of Warning
`Warnings Seek Action
`The warning process consists of people with information communicating with people at risk,
`and others such as emergency responders, in advance of or during a hazardous event, with the
`intent that those at risk will take appropriate action to reduce casualties and losses. The goal
`of warning is to prevent hazards from becoming disasters. The success of a warning is
`measured by what actions people take. A warning might recommend immediate action or it
`might simply encourage people to seek more information.
`
`Warnings about events days, weeks, or years away can and should be explained in detail
`through the print and broadcast media. In these cases there is ample time for those who have
`information about an event to inform people at risk and others such as emergency responders
`about the hazard. People at potential risk can be encouraged to seek additional information in
`order to make informed decisions about how to take appropriate action to reduce losses.
`However, warnings about events seconds, minutes, or hours away need to be disseminated
`rapidly through special warning systems using messages that have been designed during
`calmer times to encourage the desired behaviors. At 2:00 AM, traditional communications
`channels are simply ineffective. Such immediate warnings are the central focus of this report.
`
`Warnings might be for natural disasters, technological accidents, or acts of terrorism. They
`could be for air quality or water quality. They may ask people to be on the lookout for a
`kidnapper or other criminal on the run. They may be for hazards that people can clearly
`perceive, such as a tornado, or they may be for hazards that cannot be perceived without
`specialized equipment or access to intelligence information. In these latter cases, it is critical
`that the warning system and its operators have a high level of credibility so that people feel
`compelled to take action based solely on the warning message.
`
`The Success Of Warning Is Measured By What Actions People Take
`A warning prompts people to take immediate actions that reduce losses. Natural and
`manmade hazards create disasters when they kill and injure people, destroy and damage
`property, and cause further economic and emotional problems by instilling a sense of unease
`and uncertainty into society. Such losses can and have been reduced when people receive an
`alert of what is likely to happen soon, or notification of what is happening and advice about
`what to do in response to the hazard. With such knowledge, people can take appropriate
`action to get out of harms way, to reduce losses, to reduce uncertainty, and to speed recovery.
`Thus a warning must provide the information and motivation for people to take informed
`action. The goal of a warning is to prevent hazards from becoming disasters. The success of a
`warning is measured by what actions people take.
`
`Warnings Are Primarily A Local Government Responsibility
`Disasters are local and local government has the primary responsibility to look after the
`welfare of its citizens. Thus local government has the primary responsibility to warn its
`citizens and to assist them to prepare, respond, and recover from disasters. However, it is
`beyond the capability or capacity of local governments to see that a unified, multi-channel,
`nationally standardized system is available to them for delivering warnings to their citizens.
`
`11 of 47
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`When disasters overwhelm one or more communities, the state is responsible to assist. When
`a disaster leads to significant loss, then the President may declare a major disaster or
`emergency and the Federal government becomes responsible to assist. Such Presidential
`declarations have been occurring approximately 50 times a year in recent years. Under the
`Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Congress expresses its
`intent “to provide an orderly and continuing means of assistance by the Federal Government
`to state and local governments in carrying out their responsibilities to alleviate the suffering
`and damage which result from disasters.”
`
`Federal Responsibility For Warnings
`US Code Title 42, Chapter 68, Subchapter II, Section 5132 states:
`(cid:120) The President shall insure that all appropriate Federal agencies are prepared to issue
`warnings of disasters to state and local officials.
`(cid:120) The President shall direct appropriate Federal agencies to provide technical assistance
`to state and local governments to insure that timely and effective disaster warning is
`provided.
`(cid:120) The President is authorized to utilize or to make available to Federal, state, and local
`agencies the facilities of the civil defense communications system …. or any other
`Federal communications system for the purpose of providing warning to governmental
`authorities and the civilian population in areas endangered by disasters.
`(cid:120) The President is authorized to enter into agreements with the officers or agents of any
`private or commercial communications systems who volunteer the use of their systems
`on a reimbursable or nonreimbursable basis for the purpose of providing warning to
`governmental authorities and the civilian population endangered by disasters.
`
`More than a dozen Federal agencies have some responsibility related to warnings, but there is
`no Federal agency that has the clear responsibility to assure that a national all-hazard warning
`infrastructure exists and is properly utilized. We believe the new Department of Homeland
`Security should have this responsibility.
`
`Most Warnings Originate From Government Organizations
`When significant accidents occur along transportation corridors and especially when accidents
`involve hazardous substances, local emergency managers, police, or firemen often need to
`issue warnings to help people avoid the scene or to avoid materials being dispersed in the air
`or water.
`
`Many critical facilities such a nuclear power plants, chemical plants, oil refineries, chemical
`stock piles and dams are required by Federal, state, or local government to provide warning
`systems and originate warnings to citizens living nearby when the facilities are in a dangerous
`condition.
`
`Some state and many Federal agencies develop warnings through extensive research and
`instrument or intelligence networks. In these cases, warnings are often issued by Federal
`agencies, but usually in close cooperation with state and local emergency managers. For
`example:
`
`4
`
`12 of 47
`
`
`
`

`

`(cid:120) The National Weather Service issues warnings of severe weather and flooding focused
`on specific localities throughout the country and has done so for more than 130 years.
`(cid:120) The U.S. Geological Survey issues warnings of earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and
`landslides.
`(cid:120) The Department of Justice issues warnings of criminal activities.
`(cid:120) The Environmental Protection Agency issues warnings concerning air or water
`quality.
`(cid:120) Legislation before Congress requires the proposed Department of Homeland Security
`to provide warnings of terrorist acts.
`
`The national Emergency Alert System and its predecessors, the Emergency Broadcast System
`and CONELRAD, were designed to allow the President to warn the entire nation of major
`events such as an incoming enemy missile with a nuclear warhead. The President has never
`activated this system.
`
`Most public disaster warnings are issued by government agencies because without the
`existence of clear standards of best practice, private organizations may incur significant
`liability. Many private organizations do issue warnings, for example for weather, but these are
`usually covered by contracts that limit liability. Media weathermen may refine local warnings
`for their community but must remain mindful of standards of best practice.
`
`Warning Systems Require A National Partnership Between Government And Industry
`Mass warning devices such as sirens are typically owned and operated by local government or
`managers of critical facilities. The national warning system, however, the Emergency Alert
`System, is operated under an unfunded government mandate by unpaid volunteers at
`television and radio stations and cable systems throughout the country. NOAA Weather Radio
`provides government transmission, but the receivers are built by industry and owned and
`operated by individuals or organizations. Warnings can be issued through telephones, pagers,
`computers, and many other personal communications devices, wired and unwired. The media
`play an important role in distributing warnings. Thus most warning delivery systems need
`government input, but are manufactured, owned, and operated by private industry and by
`individuals. The government cannot afford to provide the devices that reach every person at
`risk. Industry can and will provide such devices or include this capability in all types of
`devices sold primarily for other purposes if there are clear national standards that create a
`national market. There must be an effective public/private partnership between government
`and industry to deliver warnings.
`
`Many People Are Involved In The Warning Process
`Warnings must be received by a complex target audience including the general public,
`institutional decision makers (in business, state and local government, and non-governmental
`agencies), and emergency responders. Emergency responders, a term we will use in the rest
`of this report includes firefighters, law enforcement officers, paramedics, public health
`workers, and emergency managers.
`
`The news media and the emergency management community frequently act as intermediaries
`between those issuing warnings and households (or other information end-users). These
`
`13 of 47
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`intermediaries—together with independent experts in university research institutes, national
`laboratories, and other agencies—critically evaluate the information disseminated by the
`technical experts to determine if it is accurate, internally consistent, consistent with other
`sources’ messages, complete, specific, timely, relevant, and important. If a warning is judged
`to be inadequate in any of these respects, it will be challenged, supplemented with additional
`information, or ignored. Moreover, end-users evaluate the warnings they receive from all
`sources in terms of their prior knowledge about the hazard and the recommended response
`actions. Finally, end-users also evaluate the warnings they receive about any given hazard in
`terms of their knowledge about other safety and health hazards and recommended actions for
`those other hazards.
`
`Eleven Important Elements Of The Warning Process
`A warning system is a complex mix of many critical elements from original data to action:
`1. Data collection, analysis, and decision making to issue a warning: development of
`evidence of a hazard through collection of data and information, their analysis, and the
`process by which a decision is made to issue a warning
`2. Framing a warning: specifying a verbal and digitally coded warning message using
`standards for terminology and format based on knowledge of how to communicate
`warnings that will lead to an appropriate response
`3. Reliable input of warnings from authorized sources to one or more local and
`national communication backbones: secure collection of warnings from thousands
`of authorized sources into systems that can deliver the warnings to a wide variety of
`distribution systems
`4. Transmission to a wide variety of warning distribution systems: Redundant and
`robust transmission along local and national backbones for input to a wide variety of
`distribution systems
`5. Distribution to user receivers: Redundant distribution by wire and wireless to a wide
`variety of end-user devices
`6. Reception by end-user devices: Reception of the signals primarily only by the people
`at risk through local mass warning devices, through intelligent networks or through
`intelligent receivers that know where people are and what their interests and affinity
`groups are
`7. Announcement of appropriate warnings to end-users: Announcement of the
`warnings in an appropriate language and physical means by activation of devices that
`can deliver the warning to people no matter what they are doing or whether they have
`a disability
`8. Decision by the end-user to take appropriate action: The processes by which the
`end-user decides to take action and indeed takes that action.
`
`In addition many continuing processes are required to improve the effectiveness:
`9. Public education: Education of the public on warning terminology and appropriate
`response
`10. Ongoing evaluation and improvement: A system for evaluating effectiveness and
`introducing improvements
`11. Emergency planning: Planning related to all aspects of framing, delivery and
`utilizing warnings
`
`6
`
`14 of 47
`
`
`
`

`

`Technology is the easiest element. All types of appropriate technology already exist.
`Standards, procedures, training, and experience are critical.
`
`2. Lessons Learned About The Fundamental Principles Of Effective
`Warning Syst