Survival In An Emergency
Byrnzie
Posts: 21,037
I've been interested in this subject ever since hearing the Englishman Paul Barney talk on t.v about his surviving the 1994 Baltic ferry sinking - Out of a total of 989 passengers and crew on board 138 were rescued alive but one died later in the hospital. What causes some people to react and survive while others freeze and die?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/201 ... f-comments
What your brain does in an emergency
Research into people's reactions to emergencies aims to make sure there are more survivors in future
* Lucy Tobin
* The Guardian, Tuesday 16 March 2010
'Imagine you're stuck in a burning building, trying desperately to escape. After stumbling to the end of a smoke-filled corridor, you have to choose whether to turn left or right. The decision could determine whether you live or die – but the way you make it is not as random as you might think, according to Ed Galea, professor of mathematical modelling at the University of Greenwich.
Galea has forged a career out of working out the science and psychology behind how people's brains function in disaster zones. He has interviewed thousands of survivors, from 300 people who escaped the World Trade Center on 9/11 to plane crash and Paddington rail disaster survivors. The results of his research are used by governments, building designers and emergency workers around the world to try to plan for the effects of future catastrophes.
His latest project, funded by a €2 million (£1.8m) European Union grant, is BeSeCu (Behaviour, Security and Culture), which involves trying to understand whether culture affects the way people behave in emergency situations. "The question we're answering is, do people from different countries behave differently in a crisis?", says Galea. "Most of the data that's used in evacuation analysis is from the UK, US and Australia. There's an implicit assumption that people everywhere behave the same, but we're not sure that's true."
So BeSeCu is carrying out "unannounced evacuation drills" in multistorey university library buildings around Europe, including Poland, Czech Republic and Turkey, and comparing the results with evacuation data from Brazil and the UK. "We're going to compare the data on response time and behaviour. If it varies in different places, that will suggest a need to change how we plan for emergency situations – we'll have to take a much more localised approach."
Galea's interest was triggered by victims' responses to a tragic fire in the Daegu underground in Korea. "I looked at photographs of the inside of burning carriages, and collaborated with a Korean researcher who interviewed survivors. Most sat around, waiting for instructions from an authority figure. When I presented the findings at a UK conference, it was suggested that my data was irrelevant because 'that would never happen in the UK'. So I started wondering whether people around the world react differently."
Working at Greenwich's Fire Safety Engineering Group, Galea and his team have designed Exodus, a computer modelling system that can simulate how people behave in emergency evacuations, which is used in 33 countries. It was used in the design of London's O2 arena, Sydney's Olympic stadium, the "bird's nest" arena in Beijing and the Airbus A380.
Now he is adding to the model by analysing data from interviews with survivors of the 7/7 terrorist attacks in London and the Madrid bombings. "By studying how people responded on the underground trains and in the stations, we hope to better understand how the perception of risk, reaction to authority figures and interaction with other survivors influences emergency behaviour." The findings will be used to improve computer software so it better reflects how people behave in emergencies and can be more reliable in building design.
There are also practical ideas that are easier to implement, Galea says. "I'm looking at how people respond to alarms and instructions. If people on trains always wait for an official to tell them what to do, then perhaps we need to improve communication systems on trains so they have a better chance of working in extreme situations."
Galea is also investigating how people think when trying to escape house fires or a flooding house. "We've set up an online survey looking at how people move – at intersections, do they go left or right, for example. So far it seems that left-handed and right-handed people behave differently, and so do people who drive on different sides of the road. Working out the patterns will give people a better chance of surviving future disasters."
Galea, who spends his days mapping human behaviour, fell into his work "completely by accident". More than two decades later, he has amassed plenty of advice on getting out of a fire or crash alive. "The main thing is having good situational awareness," he says. "Understand the environment you're in, whether it's a plane, train, ship or building, know where your nearest exit is and how you'd escape in a hurry. If you're travelling with family, plan what you would do in an emergency, like whether you'd try to reunite before escaping, or meet outside."
On planes, Galea recommends choosing a seat close to an exit. "I always try and sit within five rows of an exit on an aisle seat," he says. "Once you're seated, count the rows to your nearest two exits in case it becomes too dark to see." Galea stresses, however, that planes are "really quite safe".
One thing that does make him upset, however, is disaster movies. The latest to hit our screens is 2012, which Galea says makes him "frustrated about how badly Hollywood gets it wrong".
"Disaster films convey completely the wrong view of how most people behave in these kind of situations," he says. "Hollywood shows people panicking, but my research shows that 9.9 times out of 10, people don't turn into crazed individuals, but behave quite rationally. They tend to help each other, too."
That, says Galea, is a crucial part of his job. "The knowledge that most people react in a humanist way helps me to get in up in the morning – I come to work knowing that people tend to behave in a supportive, helpful way in emergencies, so any way we can help inform intelligent building design and disaster strategies will help them to survive."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/201 ... f-comments
What your brain does in an emergency
Research into people's reactions to emergencies aims to make sure there are more survivors in future
* Lucy Tobin
* The Guardian, Tuesday 16 March 2010
'Imagine you're stuck in a burning building, trying desperately to escape. After stumbling to the end of a smoke-filled corridor, you have to choose whether to turn left or right. The decision could determine whether you live or die – but the way you make it is not as random as you might think, according to Ed Galea, professor of mathematical modelling at the University of Greenwich.
Galea has forged a career out of working out the science and psychology behind how people's brains function in disaster zones. He has interviewed thousands of survivors, from 300 people who escaped the World Trade Center on 9/11 to plane crash and Paddington rail disaster survivors. The results of his research are used by governments, building designers and emergency workers around the world to try to plan for the effects of future catastrophes.
His latest project, funded by a €2 million (£1.8m) European Union grant, is BeSeCu (Behaviour, Security and Culture), which involves trying to understand whether culture affects the way people behave in emergency situations. "The question we're answering is, do people from different countries behave differently in a crisis?", says Galea. "Most of the data that's used in evacuation analysis is from the UK, US and Australia. There's an implicit assumption that people everywhere behave the same, but we're not sure that's true."
So BeSeCu is carrying out "unannounced evacuation drills" in multistorey university library buildings around Europe, including Poland, Czech Republic and Turkey, and comparing the results with evacuation data from Brazil and the UK. "We're going to compare the data on response time and behaviour. If it varies in different places, that will suggest a need to change how we plan for emergency situations – we'll have to take a much more localised approach."
Galea's interest was triggered by victims' responses to a tragic fire in the Daegu underground in Korea. "I looked at photographs of the inside of burning carriages, and collaborated with a Korean researcher who interviewed survivors. Most sat around, waiting for instructions from an authority figure. When I presented the findings at a UK conference, it was suggested that my data was irrelevant because 'that would never happen in the UK'. So I started wondering whether people around the world react differently."
Working at Greenwich's Fire Safety Engineering Group, Galea and his team have designed Exodus, a computer modelling system that can simulate how people behave in emergency evacuations, which is used in 33 countries. It was used in the design of London's O2 arena, Sydney's Olympic stadium, the "bird's nest" arena in Beijing and the Airbus A380.
Now he is adding to the model by analysing data from interviews with survivors of the 7/7 terrorist attacks in London and the Madrid bombings. "By studying how people responded on the underground trains and in the stations, we hope to better understand how the perception of risk, reaction to authority figures and interaction with other survivors influences emergency behaviour." The findings will be used to improve computer software so it better reflects how people behave in emergencies and can be more reliable in building design.
There are also practical ideas that are easier to implement, Galea says. "I'm looking at how people respond to alarms and instructions. If people on trains always wait for an official to tell them what to do, then perhaps we need to improve communication systems on trains so they have a better chance of working in extreme situations."
Galea is also investigating how people think when trying to escape house fires or a flooding house. "We've set up an online survey looking at how people move – at intersections, do they go left or right, for example. So far it seems that left-handed and right-handed people behave differently, and so do people who drive on different sides of the road. Working out the patterns will give people a better chance of surviving future disasters."
Galea, who spends his days mapping human behaviour, fell into his work "completely by accident". More than two decades later, he has amassed plenty of advice on getting out of a fire or crash alive. "The main thing is having good situational awareness," he says. "Understand the environment you're in, whether it's a plane, train, ship or building, know where your nearest exit is and how you'd escape in a hurry. If you're travelling with family, plan what you would do in an emergency, like whether you'd try to reunite before escaping, or meet outside."
On planes, Galea recommends choosing a seat close to an exit. "I always try and sit within five rows of an exit on an aisle seat," he says. "Once you're seated, count the rows to your nearest two exits in case it becomes too dark to see." Galea stresses, however, that planes are "really quite safe".
One thing that does make him upset, however, is disaster movies. The latest to hit our screens is 2012, which Galea says makes him "frustrated about how badly Hollywood gets it wrong".
"Disaster films convey completely the wrong view of how most people behave in these kind of situations," he says. "Hollywood shows people panicking, but my research shows that 9.9 times out of 10, people don't turn into crazed individuals, but behave quite rationally. They tend to help each other, too."
That, says Galea, is a crucial part of his job. "The knowledge that most people react in a humanist way helps me to get in up in the morning – I come to work knowing that people tend to behave in a supportive, helpful way in emergencies, so any way we can help inform intelligent building design and disaster strategies will help them to survive."
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/ ... 492999.ece
The Sunday Times
June 14, 2009
What it takes to survive
In a disaster, most of us turn to marble – but 10% of people calmly make decisions that save their lives. Ben Sherwood finds out from the experts how to cheat death
In August 1992, while covering the siege of Sarajevo for ABC News, I was sitting shoulder to shoulder with a veteran producer and friend named David Kaplan when a 9mm sniper bullet ripped through the back door of our Volkswagen van.
The bullet pierced David’s back and severed his pulmonary artery. French combat surgeons fought to save him but his injuries were too grave. It was pure chance that he – not I – had ended up in the fatal middle seat, which had seemed the safest spot, away from the windows.
Why do some people live and others die?
Why do bullets find one victim and not another? Are there any hidden ways to improve the odds?
I have asked myself these questions ever since. Over the years I’ve also wondered how certain people make it through the most difficult trials while others don’t. Why do a few stay calm and collected under extreme pressure when others panic and unravel? How do some bounce back from adversity while others collapse and surrender? I’ve discovered that, when it comes to survival, there’s a whole lot that you can’t control – but a surprising amount that you can.
Researchers examining emergencies as disparate as the London blitz, the Kobe earthquake in Japan in 1995 and the attacks of September 11, 2001, have discovered that people rarely panic. But neither do they snap into action. Rather, most freeze until they’re told what to do. They morph into marble.
Exploring this phenomenon is the main focus of Dr John Leach of Lancaster University, one of the world’s leading experts on survival psychology. Leach was baffled in March 1987 when 193 of the 539 people on board the Herald of Free Enterprise died when the ferry capsized just outside the Belgian port of Zeebrugge. The waters were shallow, and rescue operations began almost immediately.
How could so many people drown so close to shore? The weather wasn’t dangerous. So what happened to all those people who didn’t make it? Why do so many people perish when they don’t need to?
He believes some people become “prone to dying”. There’s nothing magical or metaphysical about this process, he says. “It’s all about the engineering system called your brain. In the simplest terms, something becomes impaired – dysfunc-tional – and that means you don’t make the right decisions.”
Leach isn’t just an academic. After serving in the RAF, he remained in the reserves and was mobilised to Iraq in 2003. He specialises in teaching British forces how to survive in every environment.
Leach remembers his own unpleasant introduction to the “survivors’ club” eight months after the Zeebrugge disaster. He was changing trains at King’s Cross Underground station on the evening of November 18, 1987. Moving through the packed tunnels, he noticed the “thickest, greasiest, most cloying smoke I’ve ever seen”. It didn’t make sense. There were no flames – just acrid black smoke. Almost without thinking, he found his way up to ground level and hurried to the exit, smoke swirling after him. In the cool evening air outside, fire engines screamed onto the scene. Men and women spilt out in the night, covered with soot and ash.
Leach decided to go back inside to help. He was trained in rescue operations. A policeman turned him away. Stepping back, Leach began to observe the disaster in real time. As the fire spread, trains kept on arriving in the station, disgorging passengers onto platforms choked with smoke. Above ground, staff unwittingly directed passengers onto escalators that carried them straight into the flames.
Leach recalls that many commuters followed their routines and marched right into the disaster, almost oblivious to the crush of people – some actually in flames – who were trying to escape.
Leach has a name for this syndrome: the incredulity response. People don’t believe what they’re seeing. They tell themselves there can’t really be a fire in London’s busiest Tube station. This really isn’t happening. So they go about their business, engaging in what’s known as the normality bias. They act as if everything is okay and underestimate the seriousness of danger. Some experts call this “analysis paralysis”. The stress of a crisis can cause the key part of the brain that processes new information to misfire. People lose the ability to make decisions. They turn into statues.
The disaster at King’s Cross, in which 31 died, helped to shape one of Leach’s central conclusions about survival: “Denial and inactivity prepare people well for the roles of victim and corpse.”
In any emergency, he continues, people divide into three categories.
First, there are survivors who manage to save themselves. Second, there are passengers who never have a chance and die immediately. Third, there are victims who should have lived but perish unnecessarily. According to the European Transport Safety Council, 40% of the fatalities in aircraft crashes around the world occur in situations that are survivable.
In many circumstances, Leach says, there is no way to stay alive. He calls this the reality principle. “There are times when you have no choice,” he says. “You die. Full stop. It’s just the way it goes.” That leaves two groups to examine: the survivors and the victims. Why do some people perform effectively and decisively when others freeze? How do they control their emotions and organise their plans?
Leach and his team interviewed the survivors of many disasters, testing them for key psychological traits. Among them was Paul Barney, an English landscape architect who survived the Estonia ferry disaster in the Baltic in 1994 while 852 died (see panel, right).
After examining many disasters and categorising the ways people respond to life-threatening situations, Leach came up with the theory of 10–80–10.
First, about 10% of people handle a crisis in a relatively calm and rational state of mind. Under duress, they pull themselves together quickly. They assess situations clearly. Their decision-making is sharp and focused. They’re able to develop priorities, make plans and take appropriate action. Psychologists call this “splitting”, and it’s common among people who keep their cool under the greatest stress. Another 10% simply freak out. But most of us – around 80% – feel lethargic and numb. We sweat. We feel sick. Our hearts may race. We experience “perceptual narrowing”, or so-called tunnel vision. We stare straight ahead. We barely hear people around us. We lose sense and sight of our surroundings. In short, most of us turn into statues in the first moments of a crisis.
In aviation parlance, this is known as negative panic. The current theory of such inaction goes like this: as your frontal lobes process the sight of, say, an aeroplane wing on fire, they seek to match the information with memories of similar situations in the past. If you have no stored experience of a plane crash, your brain gets stuck in a loop of trying and failing to come up with the right response. Hence: immobility. You wait for instructions. The key is to recover quickly from this “brainlock”. But how?
Leach studied brainlock among parachutists – who notoriously forget to deploy their chutes – and theorised that their knowledge of how to save themselves was stored in their long-term memory; under great stress, that information couldn’t get across to the part of the brain where it was put to use.
Christian Hart, an American psychology professor and parachutist, believes this offers three survival lessons. First, try to relax. The simple act of remembering to loosen up can break you out of brainlock.
Second, remember where you are. Situa-tional awareness can mean the difference between life and death. Third, human and mechanical errors may be fixable, but you never find out if you give up.
Trisha Meili never gave up. On the evening of April 19, 1989, the 28-year-old Salomon Brothers trader was jogging in Central Park when she was raped, beaten and left for dead. Found three hours later, she was bleeding badly from five deep slashes on her head, and her body was shaking and jerking. She had lost 75-80% of her blood and barely had a pulse. Her skull was fractured and she was bruised on every inch of her body except the soles of her feet. A doctor told her family: “It might be better for all if Trisha died.”
Now 48, she has only the slightest scar on her left cheek, deftly concealed in a dimple crafted by a surgeon. She has no memories of what she calls her “plunge into darkness”: the brutal attack, 12 days unconscious in intensive care, six more weeks “delirious” in the hospital, a city and nation gripped by her trauma, and an outpouring of sympathy that included 18 pink roses from Frank Sinatra.
“I can only believe that I was scared out of my mind,” she says of the attack. “I was told by the police that I fought.”
Long after the attack, she went to see Dr Robert Kurtz, who directed the medical team that saved her life. He confirmed that she was a fighter – and not just with her fists. “You’re an indomitable person,” he told her. “You were in a situation where other people like you might well be dead.”
Does the will to live really make a differ-ence? In 1979 a British psychiatrist, Dr Steven Greer, rocked the medical world with a study in The Lancet. He had found that women with breast cancer who demonstrated a “fighting spirit” survived longer. Greer grouped 69 women into four categories: fighting spirit; denial; helpless and hopeless; and stoic acceptance. After five years of study, 75% of the fighting spirit and denial groups had “a favourable outcome”, compared with 35% of the helpless and stoic groups. Of the women who ultimately died, 88% were helpless or stoic.
Twenty years later Greer co-authored a larger study in The Lancet of 578 women. This time, the authors concluded that the fighting spirit would not prolong your life, but helplessness and hopelessness might actually shorten it. “It is not what may be added in by fighting but what is taken away by being helpless that seems important in disease outcome,” they wrote.
Greer is 80 now and works part-time as a psychiatrist at a hospice in Surrey. He treats terminally ill patients. He tells me the fighting spirit is hard to measure – that’s why studies fail to prove its impact – and that it is “much weaker than biology”. However, while it may not influence your length of life, it will certainly improve the quality of your remaining time. People with the fighting spirit show “far, far less” depression, anxiety and other mental health problems, he says.
For those with plenty of life still ahead of them, focus and preparation are the key to survival in an emergency.
Cynthia Corbett, a principal investigator in cabin safety research at the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), is a specialist in human factors in plane crashes. In the end, plane crash survival comes down to a simple question, Corbett says: “How committed are you?”
Being correctly dressed for an emergency, memorising the safety card, knowing where the exits are and having an evacuation plan – and being ready to apply it ruthlessly – can significantly improve your chances, even if you’re large or not particularly agile. When Corbett travels, she always notices passengers who ignore the safety briefings, wear the wrong clothes and treat the flight like some kind of party in the air.
“What is your life worth?” she wonders. Then she thinks: “I’m going to survive and you’re not.”
© Ben Sherwood 2009
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'