The "Preparing for Emergencies" booklet

MANCHESTER, ENGLAND — In 1980, the British public was issued "Protect and Survive," a manual on what to do in the event of a nuclear attack.

With illustrated instructions on how to build a fallout shelter in your home out of furniture, cushions and mattresses (complete with a makeshift toilet from a kicked-through chair and a bucket), and then a disclaimer that no matter how closely you followed the instructions it probably wouldn't be enough to save you, "Protect and Survive" scared the country shitless. The detailed descriptions of nuclear fallout's effects didn't cushion the blow.

When the government announced it would distribute a booklet on preparing for a terrorist attack earlier this year, many expected a similar approach to a new threat.

But "Preparing for Emergencies: What You Need to Know," recently mailed to every household in the UK, contains no illustrations. In fact, there are very few details. Instead, the reader gets 22 pages of limp, polite language and chunky brightly colored symbols. Her Majesty's government wants everyone to know that, whatever happens, everything is going to be just fine.

The problems start with the title. "Emergencies" is a very vague term. The introduction says the booklet contains advice "that can easily be adapted for use in many domestic situations." This catch-all approach means the topics covered range from fire safety to basic first aid ("Broken bones: Try to avoid as much movement as possible") to mildly apocalyptic-sounding scenarios: "It is always useful to have bottled water, ready-to-eat food (e.g. tinned food) and a bottle/tin opener, in case you have to remain in your home for several days."

Then there is the booklet's tone — a mix of sorry-to-be-a-pain and broad reassurances:

A lot of this information is based on common sense advice and may seem obvious or familiar to you, but it has saved lives in the past.

...

If you find yourself in the middle of an emergency, your common sense and instincts will usually tell you what to do.

The T-word is not mentioned until page 9, and only in a subordinate clause: "[Emergency planning] exercises practise our response to a range of emergencies, including terrorism, by testing our preparedness." It then disappears until page 16, and the section titled "Helping to prevent a terrorist attack." Here, the reader is told to "Be vigilant ... Do not hesitate to tell the police ... Keep alert," and is given a handy checklist on required resources for terrorists:

Terrorists need...

A place to live: Are you suspicious about any tenants or guests?

To plan: Have you seen anyone pay an unusual amount of attention to security measures at any location?

Money: Individuals may set up bogus bank accounts, copy credit cards, return goods for large cash refunds.

Equipment: If you are a retailer, do you have any cause to be suspicious about anything being bought?

Of course, it could be argued that there are only so many ways you can prepare against those wielding box-cutters with an intent to kill, and thus it's pointless, potentially counter-productive, to go into too much detail. The lessons of the Maginot Line have been learned. But when "Preparing for Emergencies" does give details, they're the wrong type. This is from the section on chemical, biological or radiological incidents:

The Fire and Rescue Service has become equipped in recent years to decontaminate large numbers of people quickly. This involves showering with soap and water and then dressing in temporary clothing that would be provided.

How nice. I'm no wiser as to what a breath of sarin or ricin or anthrax will do to me, but I'll sleep well tonight knowing I don't need to bring my own change of clothes.

One spoof of "Preparing for Emergencies" imagines a government "Department of Vague Paranoia." Certainly, "Preparing for Emergencies" is vague. This begs the question: What's the point? If there is nothing specific to say, why say anything at all?

The theme is one of trust in the government — that the police, fire and rescue services are ready to deal with any "emergency." For many people, though, the run-up to the Iraq war, and the inquiries into its build-up, have heavily damaged that trust. What's more, the imagination doesn't have to wander far to reach a situation involving a terrorist and a nuclear facility, or chemical weapons and the London Underground. There, faith has to take a giant leap: Would the emergency services really be able to manage? Would most people be able to do what "Preparing for Emergencies" says and remain calm? The pessimistic, but realistic, answer is: probably not.

"Preparing for Emergencies" neither instills fear not allays it. Page 2 mysteriously says it is "constituted from 75 percent consumer waste and 25 percent virgin fibre." Whatever that means, like the advice it gives, it's flimsy ... and unlikely even to keep you warm for very long if it needed to be burned.

— Louis Cooke (louis@mintcake.com)

— graphic by Derek Evernden (derek@ocellus.net)