I’ve blogged a lot about tornado warning sirens. They’re antiquated, ineffective, unnecessary, and a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. A few of those blogs I’ll post in just a bit, but first…

WTMJ-TV just broadcast a piece about communities starting to re-examine whether to have sirens or not.

Here are two blogs I’ve posted in the past on this subject. The first is from 2010.

The facts: Too many problems associated with tornado warning sirens

Tornado warning sirens have provided a public service for decades.

They’re also imperfect with many inherent problems.

But don’t take my word for it. I offer the scholarly view of Emily Laidlaw, associate scientist for the Societal Impacts Program at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.

Laidlaw writes in the January/February 2010 issue of Weatherwise magazine, “The Controversy Over Outdoor Warning Sirens.” She opens with an account of the 2008 tornado that ravaged a camp in Iowa, killing four scouts, noting that a siren probably saved some lives. Here are excerpts from that point of the article with certain sections emphasized by yours truly:

The Little Sioux Scout Ranch tornado is a text­book example of how outdoor warning sirens should be utilized—in conjunction with comprehensive preparedness and weather awareness, as part of a warning net­work of multiple information sources. But sirens don’t always work as intended. Siren, Wisconsin, for example, was hit by an EF3 tornado on June 18, 2001. Unbe­knownst to most residents, the town’s siren sys­tem had been disabled by a lightning strike the previous month. Accustomed to relying on sirens, many residents expected them to sound when the tornado was imminent. The sirens did not go off, and three people died.  

Scientific literature highlights a number of pit­falls of using sirens, including unrealistic societal dependence on them, desensitization towards them, sound-limiting geographic factors such as wind direction and varying topography, ineffectiveness in elderly and hearing impaired populations, and the fact that sirens are designed to be heard only in out­door settings, such as at picnics or baseball games. In addition, there is no standardized policy for how or when communities activate sirens, meaning that a person from Nebraska who normally hears sirens and heads to her basement to seek shelter from a tor­nado might visit Washington’s coast and not realize that the same siren tone now means a tsunami may be approach­ing and that she should seek higher ground. Simi­larly, a person from Colorado who assumes that a siren indicates a need to seek higher ground due to flash flooding might head outside into the path of a tornado in Tennessee. In Virginia, a siren might mean straight-line winds of 80 mph are imminent, while in a small town in Kansas, the siren could simply mean it is time for lunch.

Even the phrase ‘outdoor warning sirens’ some­times evokes controversy. ‘Calling them ‘outdoor warning sirens’ is con­fusing to people,” said Mark Widner, emergency preparedness manager for the city of Independence, Missouri. ‘There isn’t a person alive who doesn’t expect to hear them in their house.’

Sirens aren’t as glamorous or intriguing as new e-mail and cell phone alert systems, and they’re expensive. One siren can cost anywhere from $10,000 to $50,000, depending on its specifications. Many new residential developments consider sirens an eyesore and mandate that they must meet a vari­ety of aesthetic requirements before being installed, which only increases the cost. All of this can cause community officials to stop short of installing siren systems, even after a disaster.

On May 13, 1980, a vicious tornado struck the town of Kalamazoo, Michigan, killing 5 people, injuring 79 others, and leaving 1,200 bewildered res­idents homeless. A post-event survey by University of Georgia researcher Thom­as Hodler found that sirens in the area sounded, effec­tively warning two-thirds of the affected population. In the storm’s aftermath, offi­cials estimated that only 17 percent of the city’s residents could typically hear existing sirens, but a $150,000 request for better siren coverage had been rejected.

Sirens, frequently cited in warning research literature as the second most common source of weather warning information for the general public, are a passive warning method. The average per­son can have no television, radio, or phone service, and be complete­ly unaware of a severe weather threat and yet still be warned when a severe weather threat is imminent. All other technologies require some sort of action by the end user, even if a person receives the necessary equipment for free.

A large percentage of emergency managers and meteorologists, for example, maintain that the average person would be better served by receiving severe weather warnings from a NOAA weather radio rather than a siren. First, weather radios are designed to be heard indoors. Second, they appear to be more cost effective than sirens, ranging in price from approximately $30 to $110. 

‘Sirens are less effective and less dependable than a weather radio, and they’re late,’ said Paul Johnson, director of the Douglas County (Nebras­ka) Emergency Management Agency. ‘You’ve got something that’s less effective, it’s late, and the cost has a legacy to it every single year,’ he said.

Research by Walker Ashley and colleagues at Northern Illinois University pointed out that siren systems are less effective during nocturnal tornadoes, which they found were 2.5 times more likely to cause fatalities than tornadoes occurring during daylight hours.

To be sure, Laidlaw provides pros about warning sirens. However, there are far too many question marks, including the risky scenario of supplying a false sense of security.

Laidlaw concludes:

“The greater challenge, then, falls to a commu­nity of integrated meteorology and social science researchers to better understand how people make decisions during warnings, whether forecasts for weather threats are communicated effectively, how people perceive and interpret that information, and how emergency managers and other community officials can better use tools, such as outdoor warn­ing sirens, to save lives.

As Ashley and colleagues wrote at the conclu­sion of their 2008 study on vulnerability to noc­turnal tornadoes, ‘We must begin to stare down these questions and not sidestep them with the assumption that ‘technology’ will deliver complete and successful mitigation against these events in the future’.”

Here’s a Laidlaw Power Point presentation.

—This Just In, June 22, 2010

One year later I blogged:

Tornado warning sirens=cry wolf=danger

ALSO:

Better than a siren: How new technology is keeping people safe from tornados

Tornado sirens have to go.

Please click here to view the May 2017 edition of “Privileged to Serve”, the monthly e-newsletter issued by my office.

This edition includes:

-Galland Henning Nopak, Inc.: 130^th Anniversary

-Arbor Day 2017

-Body Worlds: Animals Inside Out

-Legislative Roundup

-Update contact list of Elected Officials

-2017 Travelling Beer Garden Dates

-Free days at the Milwaukee County Parks, museums, and the County Zoo.

-Upcoming events in our community.

I encourage you to forward this newsletter to anyone who may find it informative. Please do not hesitate to reach out to my office if I can be of assistance concerning any matter involving Milwaukee County.

All My Best,

Steve F. Taylor 

Milwaukee County Board, 2nd Vice Chairman

Economic & Community Development Committee Chairman

Milwaukee County Supervisor, 9th District

(414) 278-4267

(414) 223-1380 fax

steve.taylor@milwaukeecountywi.gov

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is reporting there’s opposition to state Senator Dave Craig’s “Right to Carry” proposal. We knew there would be.

The newspaper reports some school district officials are leery about the bill that is a huge priority for the author, state Senator Dave Craig who represents all of Franklin. They fear school safety will be compromised.

According to the Journal Sentinel the bill “would allow some gun holders to bring weapons into Wisconsin schools,” and that “schools would have to individually post signs prohibiting weapons under state trespassing laws in order to ban them from the grounds. Though illegal possession of a weapon in a school is currently a felony under state law, a violation of the trespassing provision in a school building is a class C misdemeanor.

The newspaper further reports, “Supporters of the bill maintain that the school grounds provision ensures parents who carry guns do not accidentally break the law when picking children up. The bill would allow those with a concealed carry permit to have a gun in their vehicle while taking children to or from school even if a school has posted notices.”

I agree wholeheartedly with that provision. However, there’s one paragraph in the Journal Sentinel article that sums up my opposition.

“Introduced by Rep. David Craig (R-Big Bend) and Rep. Mary Felzkowski (R-Irma) in March, the bill, Senate Bill 169, also enables people to carry concealed firearms without a permit. The legislation would undo current state law, which mandates that concealed firearm carriers get training and a license.”

That portion of the legislation is one that Craig has routinely avoided in his public communications about the plan. I can understand his reluctance.  The prospect of carrying a gun without training from a professional expert can be alarming to many folks. The training requirement is a big reason Wisconsin was able to pass conceal carry in the first place.

A state Senate committee holds a public hearing on Craig’s bill Wednesday at the state Capitol. Maybe then we can get some answers from Craig as to why he thinks requiring training in order to conceal carry is so unreasonable.

On April 6, 2017, a state Assembly committee in Madison held a public hearing on Assembly Bill 48, the “Blue Lives Matter” bill.

The bill expands the persons who can be a victim of what is commonly known as a “hate crime” to include law enforcement officers. A hate crime is a crime in which the perpetrator selects the victim due to a perception or belief regarding the victim, such as the victim’s race, religion, color, or disability, or, under this bill, status as a law enforcement officer.

No action has been taken on the bill so far (BTW, Franklin’s state Senator, my state Senator, Dave Craig has not signed on as a co-sponsor of this bill).

Many states have passed this type of legislation in a response to the increase in assaults on police officers.

I strongly support this bill. It’s good legislation.

Seems the Associated Press doesn’t agree. To fulfill their template they sent out, not one, but two staffers to report that “Blue Lives Matter” policies are alarming…to activists and protesters.

Count me as unsympathetic.

Here’s the AP story.

Save