I suppose most everyone here will disagree with this...

[MedicRN]

For those who don't know, a warning is worse than a watch. It means conditions are favorable and likely to produce tornados.

This isn't exactly true. This definiation sounds like a watch with strong possibilities (something which catches a strorm chasers eye and starts them breathing heavy).

A tornado watch defines an area shaped like a parallelogram, where tornadoes and other kinds of severe weather are possible in the next several hours. It does not mean tornadoes are imminent.

(Emphasis mine)

A tornado warning means that a tornado has been spotted, or that Doppler radar indicates a thunderstorm circulation which can spawn a tornado. (Emphasis mine)

Source: Storm Prediction Center, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration

I don't intend to be picky (well, yes, I do), but as a storm chaser, I know the critical importance of the correct terminology.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled government bashing.

[EmergencyMedicalTigger]

This was just an unfortunate tragedy where the tornado happened to hit the school. If they released everyone, there probably would have been more deaths. I don't agree with the school's decision to not let parents who showed up to take their children. If a parent wants to take the child out of school, then let them go. The school is released from liability and the parent can take the child wherever he feels is safe. The author is an idiot. We have to have some sort of disaster plans in place or there would be more people killed during each event with mass chaos as someone said before me.

[Ridryder 911]

Okay, I will say more.. I live in tornado alley. It is obvious that many don't know or aware how fast and how dangerous these storms are. One of the first thing is not to be out driving around. No one exactly knows which direction and the intensity, how fast it may move. Technology is wonderful, but nature still wins.

It is not like you usually have an hour to be prepared at times. Sure there will be advisories, watches then after a sighting a warning. With the changes in weather patterns lately, more and more states should be more prepared.

Officials advise one to not to get out and especially to be on the highway. Many die each year attempting to "out run" storms. Remember, there is a high chance of large hail and heavy rains so visibility is poor. As well, the old myth of seeking shelter under bridges and revenues has been proven deadly. I personally retrieved a body that the woman was "sucked" away from her family as she held onto steel beams. Cars are tossed like toys. So yes, seeking shelter in a building is much safer. Yes, practice makes perfect. We have tornado's monthly (even in winter) and I can attest, students are much safer inside than running amuck attempting to get home. In fact my high school was built as a "below ground" for that reason.

For as basements, I can literally count on one hand how many homes in my area have basements. In the Midwest the soil is more clay and thus basements are not usually built because of shifts causing severe cracking and crumbling. as well, when a home is hit the house collapses onto the basement area.

The only true safe area is an approves storm shelter or safe room. Where the concrete is reinforced with over 8 inches of concrete and either placed into the earth or into the foundation. Even then a F5 can destroy such... there is research to improve safer protection devices.

I agree we sometimes spend needless time and money on what if's.. but in some areas this is not a what if ... rather when situation. If it saved one life, would it not be worth it ?

[CodeBlueEMT]

Lew Rockwell is a complete idiot. He works for liberty, property, peace, and the purely free society. He's anti-war, anti-state, and pro-market. Amazingly enough, he accepts donations through PayPal.

My heart goes out to the families that lost loved ones in Alabama.

It's easy to sit back and criticize local, state, and even our national government when tragedy strikes. I get so sick of media coverage when" Tonight's Top Story" is a 7 year old child being accidentally run over by a neighbor. Or, just last night, a mother saving her infant child from a structure fire. Unfortunately, her 2 year old child couldn't be saved. She had to watch this child die because she was restrained from trying to go back inside. Her 2 year old child was at the window, banging to get out. Did I need to see that?

Here's a quote, "Nobody cares in what direction you want the wagon to go if you won't get out of it and help push."

Shayne

[speedygodzilla]

They had plenty of time? 30 minutes? Right!! I think the school did the right thing. Anyhow the school would of been liable anyways it goes so better to follow a "plan."

[Michael]

Thanks for your responses! As usual, I learn more from y'all, and about different topics, than I expect to, since the closest I ever came to a tornado was Ms. Dorothy's.

As some of you pointed out, the CYA factor must figure into a school's policy and practice. So I'd like to ask more in the direction of justice than expedience. That is, what would you like to see happen, deferring the question of how to implement it. For example: Until there is radical tort-reform in this country, manufacturers will be smart to plaster products with warning labels that sometimes cross the line of absurdity, and playgrounds will be made safer and safer, to the point of neutralizing adventure associated with even minimal risk. So I'm asking something like "In their own interest, should kids be permitted to climb trees/rollerblade/bungee-jump/skydive/eat unlabeled possibly allergenic snacks/play Russian Roulette?" rather than "Is it prudent for a guardians to expose themselves to liability by facilitating those behaviors?" In other words, assessing for intrinsic value rather than calculating an external reward/penality ratio.

Ex-post-facto legal liability aside, when should experts forcibly over-rule laypersons for their own good?

[Richard B the EMT]

I am aware that NYC has "bomb shelters" in many public buildings. These were built for conventional bombing attacks, and not built to withstand a "Nuke" hit on the city. Our "Snow Emergency Routes" were not intended to help people get into the city during a blizzard, but as mass evacuation routes out, in the event of a "credible threat" of an enemy aircraft or ICBM attack, using nineteen fifties military thinking.

I live in New York City, but had a tornado touch down about 2 miles west of me, taking down phone and power lines, the poles they were strung from, but no real private property damage, and no injuries or loss of life. This was in a National Park area between the communities of Roxbury and Rockaway Point/Point Breeze, in Queens County, New York.

My own lack of knowledge makes me ask the question of schools in "Tornado Alley", knowing that being there becomes a question more of "when" as opposed to "if" of a tornado strike, do not schools have some kind of "storm cellar" or shelter, of rebarred concrete of a heavy thickness built to withstand that "F5" storm? If not, why not?

[scratrat]

This isn't exactly true. This definiation sounds like a watch with strong possibilities (something which catches a strorm chasers eye and starts them breathing heavy).

I don't intend to be picky (well, yes, I do), but as a storm chaser, I know the critical importance of the correct terminology.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled government bashing.

Sorry, I had it backwards, I knew what I meant though. Does that count?