not to nit-pick the examples given, but my memory (which of course could be faulty) of that scene was that the bystander who took the mask was a ratty street person, the type of person portrayed that would have stole things during good times or bad. i don't believe the thief took it because of any fear of disaster, because at that point in the film, only the Dr Barnes was aware that such dangers even existed. when she got to the surface after personally witnessing the loss of a colleague underground, there were no outward signs above of a possible disaster looming. in fact, there wasn't a "disaster" happening at all.

so if my memory is right, then this is an incorrect example when accusing Hollywood (and an "exaggeration", exactly what the author's thesis was complaining about regarding others), thus brings into question any other statements made by the author.

So you therefore regard Hollywood movies as a reliable guide to disaster behavior? I doubt it very much.

what??? of course not! i'm not defending Hollywood in the least.

but poorly researched and incorrect information does nothing to help the author's credibility.
"Myths, Exaggerations, and Realities" indeed.

how to anticipate behavior,practice i would say is the best and maybe only way.police and Docs seem be good at it because of all the people they come in contact with in their work,plus i would say in different parts of the county behavior is not the same enough to really tip you off to what comes next in a face to face.
all i can say is that in the years i worked with people at a hospital i,and my fellow workies,could watch someone cross a waiting room on a late friday night and say "drug seeker"or whatever.

I can really recommend Amanda Ripley's book on this subject. I personally think it gives a broader and better treatment on this subject.

One point she emphasizes: People are likely to continue their pre-disaster roles into the disaster scenario. Hotel guests continue "guest"-like behaviour, behaving nice and composed while letting the staff take care of any problems. The staff will do anything within their capabilities to take care of their guests.

People will also bring whatever they usually do into the disaster scenario. Doctors, medics and nurses will tend to the wounded. Expect rescue workers, police officers and military officers to take command, initiative and action.

One of Ripley's conclusions is particular important: Expect the majority of people to become somewhere between passive denial (this can't be happening - or if it is happening I don't want to know about it) and comatose. At the same time, we are wired for cooperation. When we're confused we want someone in control - someone who clearly knows what to do and tells us what it is. But we're dazed, and it takes some effort to get through the haze.

The logical upshot: Train staff to give clear, consise commands - and train them to SHOUT at people to get them moving when nescessary. Plane stewardesses train to shout JUMP so that people can go at a rate of 1 person per second down that slide (otherwise people will hesitate, stop to think "is this the right thing to do? Will I get hurt? What's the best way to jump?" ). You need some shouting to short circuit that kind of mental processing.

Equally important: Tell people what's going on. Don't lie to them about some minor hickups when you're preparing for what might very well be deadly disasterous.

This certainly agrees with what I have observed in wilderness situations. People are often fairly passive when help arrives, ut will respond to clear directions, almost always with gratifying results

The author might have unintentionally misremembered the scene. He might have intentionally exaggerated. Or perhaps your memory isn't what it used to be. But even if the author was incorrect in his summary of the movie, the point still stands that movies tend to sensationalize disasters, and many people without any prior acquaintance of disasters get their impression from popular media.

I agree that exaggeration has no place in good research, but your particular criticism, even if valid, does not affect the truth of the larger claim. Anyone of us can easily think of a large number of disaster movies that exaggerate out of proportion.

Now, if some of the larger claims made in the chapter are wrong, I'd love to hear them for the sake of my own preparation. I don't think one slip up automatically means the rest is junk.

Il Bob!, You're correct, I totally forgot the Bonus Marchers. by the way, Eisenhower was Mcarthur'ssecond in command in that operation, if memory serves. You are also correct that it probably wasn't Martial Law because DC is the Federal City and not a State subject to civil law.

DC is absolutely subject to civil law.

True, and the DC National Guard is subject to the Posse Comitatus Act, limiting the power of the military to enforce the local laws.

During the 1970's anti-war demonstrations, the DC Guard MP units augmented the DC Police in a law enforcement role. To avoid possible violations of that act, the Guard units were sworn in as DC Police, thus having the same law enforcement powers as the regular police.

They even gave us a real adhesive backed stick on DC Metropolitan Police badge to wear on our flack vests.