10-31-2012, 09:09 AM
OK, I get it that sirens are "old school" technology when it comes to modern notifications. I get it that there are at least three or four other ways to get the word out. Just remember that we live on an island where not everyone stays plugged in electronically the way those of us who constantly post on blogs do. Not everyone even stays glued to their TV. I commend and admire Cat's Neighborhood Watch approach, but having spent three years in HPP trying to organize NW, I can't tell you how many people refused to participate. Ultimately, the first responders (police, fire, and volunteer) who went door to door were our last and best line of defense, and it seems they came through yet again. But here in a nutshell is perhaps the point that most of the critical posters on this thread are trying to make:
If our officials are going to say we have a siren system that works and is an important part of our warning safety net, it needs to work. It also needs to be present in the areas most likely to suffer a disaster, which in these parts would be the tsunami and rapid eruption overrun zones, regardless of whether those locations are in private subdivisions. Otherwise, they should remove them to avoid the cost and confusion.
If our officials are going to say we have a siren system that works and is an important part of our warning safety net, it needs to work. It also needs to be present in the areas most likely to suffer a disaster, which in these parts would be the tsunami and rapid eruption overrun zones, regardless of whether those locations are in private subdivisions. Otherwise, they should remove them to avoid the cost and confusion.