WAITING FOR A WARNING CAN BE A RISKY BUSINESS

Storms that raged through the southern part of the United States, then east and north of our region, blew in not only grim tidings but a fair amount of citizen discontent last weekend. In one Mississippi town, where tornadoes ravaged property and killed at least six, people were upset that their community's warning sirens hadn't sounded. It has been a dozen years since Cape Girardeau officials silenced a plan to erect such a siren system. Given the context of the recent storms, reflection on that attempt is valid and timely; it also seems the decision made then was proper.

Residents might remember that in the summer of 1980 a network of sirens was assembled in Cape Girardeau, authorized by the city government to provide warning in the event of approaching disaster, specifically damaging storms. Testing of the system proved disastrous. Some of the sirens malfunctioned, and those that sounded could not be heard within homes. Some reasons were offered: the number of sirens installed wasn't sufficient for the wide-spread city, the rolling geography of the community distorted the sound, the vendor chosen was not up to the task. The bottom line: the system was not dependable enough to do its only task, which was to warn people. Ultimately, the system was disassembled and most of costs, about $110,000, were recovered.

Certainly, technology developed in the last 12 years might now, or some day, offer a more full-proof and cost-effective method of warning citizens, perhaps some in-home device that is touched off. However, the dependability question is still out there; who pushes the button of warning, and when?

Governments have a duty to protect their citizens. To what extent they do so, and at what costs, is what elected officials and public servants regularly determine. The National Weather Service, for example, is a much-needed agency, one that has a far-reaching impact on business, agriculture and personal safety. Certainly, that is a proper expenditure. A siren warning system, though, becomes more irrelevant as a public purchase as it becomes less effective in operation. In fact, there is an argument to make that the community does its citizens a disservice in constructing such a system because it provides a false sense of security. What is the potential for people being killed or injured in situations where they are waiting for a government to inform them of dan~ger? Given the current and prevailing distrust of government, we don't believe the nation likes those odds.

The belief that governments provide a big umbrella, one that protects all, is erroneous. Individuals must ultimately fend for themselves when natural disasters approach. There are resources out there to help weather services, most publicly financed, and the electronic media are especially good but individual awareness and personal resourcefulness count for much more. Waiting for a siren is too dangerous when lives are on the line.