Professor: Alert system can become a 'cry wolf' warning

The warning system to alert citizens of the level of terrorist threat poses a dilemma for many every time an alarm is given: What should I do?

At times, the response has been a stampede of consumers buying gas masks, duct tape and plastic sheeting. Others just shrug and go on about their daily routines, resigned that there is little they can do.

"People don't want to feel helpless," Tim Sellnow, a professor at North Dakota State University and expert in crisis communications, said Wednesday. "Our culture is not one that's passive in the face of adversity."

Now, with war in Iraq imminent and fears of retaliatory terrorist strikes heightened, it's entirely appropriate to elevate the risk level to condition orange, signifying a high risk, Sellnow said.

However, since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, local officials and ordinary citizens have frequently been frustrated by vague and ambiguous warnings that leave little guidance about what concrete steps to take.

Over time, people can become indifferent to warnings that are frequently given as threat levels fluctuate, a "cry wolf" phenomenon documented in studies, Sellnow said.

"The more we pile up these warnings on people, I'm afraid we're desensitizing people," he added. "Our concern is that we know that an alert system like this is essential."

For example, Sellnow said, during the early 1990s the government issued dire warnings about health risks associated with radon gas. The warning campaign was ineffective, he said, because people felt there was little they could do, and therefore didn't heed the advice.

The key to a more useful system will be to work to develop a better communications network among agencies, with more clearly defined priorities and responses, and more specific information about where the threat is greatest, he said.

"So there is something more than a blanket warning for the whole United States" and its interests abroad, Sellnow said.

A computer system devised by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for its inspectors at ports of entry could serve as a model for homeland security officials, Sellnow said.

The "staffing calculator" analyzes information to determine where staff and other resources, such as X-ray machines and sniffing dogs, should be allocated among sea ports and airports.

In fact, Sellnow consulted with the USDA on its risk communication plan for ports of entry. The plan originally was in the works well before 9/11, for unintentional contamination, but took on a bioterrorism focus.

Now homeland security officials are evaluating the USDA's "staffing calculator" as a possible model for allocating people and other resources for different kinds and levels of threats.

Readers can reach Forum reporter Patrick Springer at (701) 241-5522