Emergency Preparedness and Survival

Every time our country is hit by a major disaster, be it a flood, hurricane, fire or something else, the news is filled with sad stories about woefully unprepared people being left with nothing but the clothes on their backs. Too many people falsely believe that our government and emergency services will take care of them and keep them safe. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) suggests that people keep at least a three day supply of food, water and other essentials on hand at all times for each member of their household. They strongly encourage people to expand this to a two week supply if they can afford to do so. It can easily take several days for the government to get help to disaster victims. If the disaster is not limited to a small geographic area, it could take much longer. For example, if a tsunami wipes out the eastern seaboard or if terrorists detonate suitcase nukes in several major cities, there simply may not be enough emergency workers and supplies to go around.

Imagine for a moment that a disaster hits your home or office. It could be a dam failure, fire, tornado, hurricane, flood, earthquake or even a terrorist attack. 3,000 gallons of raw sewage could erupt from your drains and toilets when city maintenance goes awry. A small plane might crash into your home without warning. Your building may be destroyed or authorities might simply deem it unsafe and force you to leave. Streets could be blocked, flooded or collapsed making it impossible for you to drive to safety. How would you fare if you have only moments to quickly grab a couple of items before you are forced to flee on foot?

Are you ready to survive in an overcrowded gymnasium or stadium for several days with nothing more than what you can carry? Will you be passably comfortable in a room packed with people when you have nothing more than a few square feet of space on the floor? Will you be like the hurricane Katrina victims that were stuck in rescue shelters and rooftops without food or water if the government is slow to deliver supplies?

All of the gear in the world is of little use if you don't have it packed into a portable and quickly accessible package when you need it. You might not have two hours to dig through piles of camping gear to find what you need when your house is about to slide down a cliff. Unless you are a die-hard backpacker, chances are good that most of your recreational outdoor equipment will be too bulky and heavy for you to carry very far if roads are blocked and vehicles can't be used.

For around $150 and an hour or two of effort you can easily put together a good emergency kit that will help you and a loved one survive for a few days without running water, electricity or help from others. Hunger, thirst, cold, wet, minor injuries and boredom need not overly trouble you if you are adequately prepared.

The ability to create fire, construct shelters, patch up injuries and plan for a variety of adversities helps distinguish humans from less intelligent animals. Please take a moment to look over your emergency kit and make sure that it is complete, accessible and in good condition. If you don't have a kit, get one. Here are a couple of links that may help:

The Disaster Preparedness and Survival Gear section of my Amazon store

The FEMA "Are You Ready?" page (tips, checklists and guides from the US government)

Once you get the basic survival gear together, consider adding these additional items to your pack:

• Underwear and Socks in a zip-lock bag: Dry socks are especially important as they help keep your feet healthy so that blisters, infections, fungus and other things don't prevent you from trekking to safety
  
  
• Paperback novel and a deck of cards in a zip-lock bag: Survival can be surprisingly boring. These can keep you sane if you get stuck in a shelter for days and can even be used as kindling.
  
  
• Batteries for radios, cell phones, flash lights, GPS devices, etc.
  
  
• Prescription medications for yourself, family and pets
  
  
• Feminine hygiene products (tampons, pads, etc.)
  
  
• Powder: It can prevent heat rashes, dry wet feet to prevent blisters, help sweaty hands grip slippery objects and partially deodorize clothing.
  

The Bio-War on Drugs

The title link is to the InTheseTimes.com story about how congress wants to use a bioweapon in the war on drugs. Here are some quotes:

This infection, first detected in Asia, has rapidly spread across the United States. It is caused by a mold-like fungus that can penetrate the cornea of soft contact lens wearers, causing redness and pain that can lead to blindness—requiring a corneal replacement. That same week, the House of Representatives passed a provision to a bill requiring that the very same fungus be sprayed in “a major drug-producing country,” such as Colombia.

Before I get accused of distortion, it should be noted that the idea behind this is not to harm people but rather to use the fungus to destroy cocaine crops. It is believed that the eye-ball eating variety is a mutation and it is not absolutely certain that using this fungus to fight cocaine will result in epidemic blindness. Nevertheless, if we spray entire areas with it, who knows what will happen to the people who live nearby?

I find this sort of thing to be very disturbing. Our country spends far too much effort and tax dollars fighting a war against drugs that it will never win as long as both people and mind altering substances exist anywhere on the planet. If people are willing to do something as vile as sniff glue, lick frogs and suck Nitrous Oxide out of cans of whip cream for a buzz, what makes anyone think that laws will stop drug use?

According to the article, after 30+ years of research on this fungus, the following groups have "all concluded that the fungus is unsafe for humans and the environment":

• The Office of National Drug Control Policy (a.k.a. the Drug Czar’s office)
• The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
• The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA)
• The U.S. State Department
• The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Here are some more quotes:

“Fusarium species are capable of evolving rapidly. … Mutagenicity is by far the most disturbing factor in attempting to use a Fusarium species as a bioherbicide,” wrote David Struhs, then secretary of Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection, in a 1999 letter rejecting the use of the fungus against Florida’s outdoor marijuana crop. “It is difficult, if not impossible, to control the spread of Fusarium species.”

The DEA stopped funding Fusarium research in the United States during the early ’90s after it learned that Fusarium infections can be deadly in “immunocompromised” people—not only AIDS patients and those with other illnesses, but also those who are severely malnourished. The University of the Andes in Bogotá has recently reported that 12 percent of Colombian children suffer from chronic malnutrition.

Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of biohistory should realize that this is a bad idea. There are countless examples of people introducing new species into areas that quickly went out of control and devastated their new habitats. (Search on “invasive species destroy” for examples.) In this case, if the fungus is known to be both aggressive and prone to rapid mutation, it is extremely unlikely that we can predict what effects it will have on a new area a few years after it is introduced. We already know that it can attack eyes and kill people under certain conditions. What might it do in 10 years after it takes over new regions and has time to evolve into something worse?

This is a bad idea even if the fungus doesn’t run amok and mutate into something nasty. If we successfully harm cocaine production, the world supply of cocaine will go down and the demand will remain unchanged. As a result, cocaine will become an even more valuable commodity, and those cocaine growers who survive the fungus attack will become dramatically more powerful and wealthy. Addicts will take greater risks and commit more outrageous crimes in order to obtain enough money to feed their habits. People will be even more willing to kill for drugs and control of drug markets. Those who want cocaine and cannot obtain it will turn to other drugs.

We would be much better off legalizing, regulating and taxing drugs. It would immediately take the profit out of it for criminals (why illegally buy overpriced stuff of dubious quality from a gang-member/dealer when you can go to the drug store?). The drug lords and smugglers would suddenly find themselves without a source of wealth and power. The tax revenue would help pay to incarcerate people who commit crimes while intoxicated. Drugs can indeed be harmful to users and society, but outlawing them only makes matters worse. Look at prohibition: When alcohol was illegal, gangs flourished. The gangs had money to bribe police officers and judges, buy Thompson machine guns, etc. With this as a foundation they were able to amass vast amounts of power and even found political dynasties (the Kennedy family, for example). It is not in our national interest to guarantee wealth and power to criminals by maintaining the war on drugs.

Laser Eye Surgery: I Can See!

Regular readers of this blog may be surprised by this deviation from my usual topics, but I am going to take this opportunity to share a personal experience with you in the hope that you might have a similarly positive experience.

For over a decade I needed glasses to see (contacts wouldn't work for me). I'd start my day by waking up in the morning, putting on my glasses, and then getting out of bed and walking to the bathroom. The glasses would come off for a shower, and then go back on before I left the bathroom and stay on for the rest of the day. Driving, watching TV and doing pretty much anything wasn't possible without my glasses. Snorkeling on vacation without glasses meant that the fishes and scenery were indistinct blobs. Nature watching with binoculars and spotting scopes was a juggling act that involved constantly putting my glasses on and off (for some reason I could never see well through other optics while wearing glasses).

All of this hassle is over, now. I had all laser LASIK surgery in both eyes about a month ago. My vision is now 20/15 without corrective lenses. I can see perfectly all of the time. My useable field of view is much larger, as I can turn my eyes to the side to see rather than my entire head (if you wear glasses, looking to the side with your eyes means trying to see an area outside of the focal point of your corrective lenses). When I got hot and sweaty, I don't need to constantly clean oil and moisture off of my glasses to see. When I open the dishwasher or step into a steamy room, my glasses aren't there to fog up. I can wear any kind of sunglasses instead of expensive yet unfashionable prescription lenses. My nose is no longer sore from the constant chaffing of nose pieces. I literally have people telling me things like "Wow, you look younger!", "Did you lose weight?", "You look good, what did you change?" and "I never noticed how nice your eyes are".

Now that the healing is mostly done, I look forward to seeing how this will affect my shooting. I could see well the day after the procedure, but it can take up to 3 months before I am 100% healed, so I didn’t want to risk gunshot residue and copper or lead dust getting into my eyes and thus haven’t shot since the surgery. While doing simple holster drills and dry firing (with snapcaps), I’ve noticed that target acquisition through open sights is much faster than it was with glasses.

The actual laser procedure was quick, painless and surprisingly bearable. The worst part about it was the "creepy" feeling I had about the thought of someone messing with my eyes, but there was neither pain nor even much discomfort. The only downside I have is some post procedural dryness that is easily managed with drops, but even that is rapidly subsiding.

If you are sick and tired of glasses, I suggest you look into having LASIK. Do your research and find a top notch doctor with the best equipment and the best procedural techniques. I paid about double what some of my friends did, and I had better results than people I know who went to discount doctors. I'll never know for sure if I just got lucky with the outcome and wasted the extra money, but I do believe that paying for one of best surgeons in North America contributed to these great results.

Libertarian Myth #1

For lack of a more perfect fit, I describe myself in the blogger profile as a "libertarian minded individual". I often vote for Libertarian candidates and take the Libertarian side of most issues during political discussions. As a result, I am occasionally on the receiving end of anti-Libertarian comments. Since I usually hear the same few criticisms repeated, I am adding a new feature to this blog:

Libertarian Myths

This will be a somewhat regular series of posts examining and debunking commonly held myths about Libertarianism.

Today’s Libertarian myth:

Libertarians are pro-drugs

Not true. The Libertarian position is that tax dollars should not be seized from citizens for the purposes of arresting, trying and imprisoning people who use drugs. This does not mean that we support, like and/or encourage recreational drug use.

Here’s a quote from the National Libertarian Party’s web page on ending Prohibition:

Drug prohibition does more to make Americans unsafe than any other factor. Just as alcohol prohibition gave us Al Capone and the mafia, drug prohibition has given us the Crips, the Bloods and drive-by shootings. Consider the historical evidence: America's murder rate rose nearly 70% during alcohol prohibition, but returned to its previous levels after prohibition ended. Now, since the War on Drugs began, America's murder rates have doubled. The cause/effect relationship is clear. Prohibition is putting innocent lives at risk.

What's more, drug prohibition also inflates the cost of drugs, leading users to steal to support their high priced habits. It is estimated that drug addicts commit 25% of all auto thefts, 40% of robberies and assaults, and 50% of burglaries and larcenies. Prohibition puts your property at risk. Finally, nearly one half of all police resources are devoted to stopping drug trafficking, instead of preventing violent crime. The bottom line? By ending drug prohibition Libertarians would double the resources available for crime prevention, and significantly reduce the number of violent criminals at work in your neighborhood.

I’ve never used illegal drugs and have no interest in trying mind-altering substances. This is not because they are illegal nor is it because they are scarce. (On the contrary, when I was a student, such things were available for the asking.) If crack became legal tomorrow, I wouldn’t run to the nearest crack house to try some. Would you? Is the fact that such things are illegal really all that keeps people from frying their brains? I sincerely doubt it.

I personally don't care if an adult, in the privacy of their own home, smokes, injects sniffs and drinks as much as they like, providing they don't endanger anyone else or become an unwelcome burden on others. I wouldn’t respect them for it, but I also wouldn’t pay money to incarcerate them. If they drive while intoxicated, rob people to pay for their drugs or commit some other harm, they should be prosecuted and punished. If they show up for work intoxicated the employer should have the right to fire them. If they pickle their brains to the point where they can’t support or care for themselves, they either better hope a charity or relative takes them in or prepare to be declared legally incapacitated and spend their remaining days in an austere institution where they are fed basic nutrients and kept out everyone else’s hair.

As far as I’m concerned, doctors should be able to prescribe whatever they think will best meet a patient’s medical needs. After watching someone slowly die from cancer, I say ANYTHING that might help ease the pain and nausea should be fair game. Frankly, if a person is dying, what difference does it make if you give them morphine, heroine, marijuana, crack cocaine or whatever? If it eases their last few months of agony, it is probably a good thing. I don’t understand why it’s "good" to continuously shoot a patient full of morphine to the point where they fade in and out of consciousness, yet other ways of providing oblivion are “evil” and thus cannot be legally considered by the medical profession.

Senate Moves to Include Cold Medicine in the War On Drugs

According to the article in the title link, it's going to get a little harder to buy cold medicine. Here are some excerpts:

The bill would require stores to sell Sudafed, Nyquil and other medicines only from behind the pharmacy counter.

...

Consumers would have to show a photo ID, sign a log, and be limited to 7.5 grams — or about 250 30-milligram pills — in a 30-day period. Computer tracking would prevent customers from exceeding the limit at other stores, according to the bipartisan bill.

...

The Senate voted by unanimous consent to add the anti-meth measure to the massive Commerce, Justice and Science appropriations bill, which is expected to pass the Senate next week.

This is yet another example of the government passing new laws to combat criminal acts that are already forbidden by law. Say goodbye to stocking up on cold and allergy medicines to take advantage of sale prices. Remember those quick trips to the drug store in the middle of the night to grab some Nyquil so you can finally fall asleep? Now you'll have to find a clerk to go to the pharmacy counter, find your medicine and give you paperwork to fill out. If your store's pharmacy counter closes before the rest of the store, you might even have to wait until the next day. I suspect conveniences stores and other low volume sellers might quit selling these medicines rather than worry about complying with selling procedures.

Who will enforce this? Will there be people tasked with going into stores and issuing citations if the cold medicine isn't secured? Will there be sting operations in which cops try to buy medicine without ID or without signing for it so they can bust the store if they don't follow the procedure? Will there be a system to verify that the buyer has valid ID and isn't a meth cooker using fake ID? It is infuriating that our tax dollars are going to be used to make it more difficult to buy common cold and allergy medicine than it is to buy alcohol, tobacco and pornography.

This is so typical. Someone commits a crime with a gun, so they pass laws to make it harder for everyone to buy guns. Vandals illegally spray paint on a wall, and people pass laws requiring that stores keep spray cans under lock and key. Drug pushers commit the crime of stealing cold medicine, another crime of making illegal drugs and a third crime of selling illegal drugs, and rather than concentrate on busting them, they make it harder for sick people to buy medicine. According to this logic, toilet paper and shaving cream should become controlled substances in order to prevent childhood pranks.

Umm, Why?

I know this isn't exactly my usual subject matter, but it was so odd that I just had to post it. Here's an excerpt from the article in the title link:

Coming soon: the drug company that brought us Viagra has set its sights on solving a rather less notorious sexual problem - the premature female orgasm. The pharmaceutical giant Pfizer has patented drugs to make it harder for women to climax during sex.

I wonder how long before Medicare starts paying for this one. . .

Amazing Technology to Help the Blind See

AN ARTIFICIAL eye that could enable blind people to recognise the faces of their family was hailed as "revolutionary" and potentially "life-changing" yesterday.

The device uses a camera linked to a computer chip embedded in the eye to relay images to the brain.

To date, it has managed to produce only dots or rows of dots, but it is hoped further developments within the next five years will enable people to recognise doors and walls and ultimately learn to differentiate between familiar faces.

Stories like this really make me glad to be alive in a time of such incredible and rapidly developing technology. Imagine what a difference something like this can make in a person's quality of life if they have need of it.