After
disaster, myths hamper
9/11 offers case study of how people, government agencies react to tragedy.
By WAYNE ANDERSON
Published Sunday, September 8, 2002
Writer William Langewiesche was given complete access to the recovery and removal
effort at the World Trade Center immediately after the terrorist attack. He
had round-the-clock access to the site and to supervisors and workers. The
first of his three-part report appeared in the July-August issue of the Atlantic
Monthly. The articles will be published later this year as a book.
As an instructor in crisis intervention in the criminal justice program at
Columbia College, I found his insightful report almost a textbook example of
what really happens in a major disaster. That is, there are many myths of how
people react and of how the various tasks of recovery are handled; the reality
is often quite different. Because we are faced with the possibility of more
attacks, I thought it would be helpful to take a look at the myths and at the
reality and see what conclusions we can draw.
Myth: People panic in the face
of a disaster
"
After the dust storms settled, people on the streets of Lower Manhattan were
calm," Langewiesche reports. "They walked instead of running, talked
without shouting, and tried to regain their sense of place and time." Even
in the stairwells below the point where the planes hit, calm prevailed and
people going down stayed in an orderly line, leaving room for firefighters
working their way into the building.
People panic only when there is an immediate threat to their lives and escape
routes are blocked. We can predict there was panic above the area where the
stairwells were blocked. This is demonstrated by the number of people who jumped
out of windows, in some cases headfirst.
Rather than panic when the crisis hits, there is often a period of confusion
and sometimes denial as victims attempt to decide what has happened to them.
People make their best guesses, which can prevent them from taking appropriate
action. In the case of the World Trade Center attacks, the most frequent guess
was that another bomb like the one in 1993 had been set off. The scope of the
attack was so massive that few considered they had been hit by a fuel-loaded
airplane that would set off a fire that would melt the steel beams.
I noticed similar reactions in India when I was there after the earthquake
in 2001 that killed as many as 100,000 people. Several informants I talked
to at first thought a bomb had gone off; it was only three hours later that
everyone knew they were victims of an earthquake.
Conclusion: During a crisis, people will take what they perceive to be appropriate
actions even without direction or leadership. They are not likely to panic.
Myth:
There will likely be a shortage of resources during and after a crisis
Almost immediately after the 9/11 attacks, supplies began to pour into the
site: drinks, blankets, gloves and food. So much was offered that the oversupply
of goods hampered the rescue effort. Finally trucks had to be assigned to haul
the excess away.
Even in the Indian earthquake, neighbors shared what little they had with each
other, although it fell far short of what was needed. In our local disaster,
the tornado of 1999, I was impressed with the amount of goods made available
to be distributed. A factor I had not expected was the number of people who
refused any aid, expressing the desire to take care of their own needs.
\
