Alan Barrow wrote: > I've personally gone on site for two hurricanes. Not because I'm a > cop wanna-be. No, I did it at significant personal cost and > discomfort because thousands of folks needed help. And were asked, > somewhat desperately, to help. And we were uniquely positioned to > help, and did so. > > I'd do the same if it was filling sand bags.
I totally agree with the above. The times I participated in emergency communications it was a tiresome but necessary chore involving discomfort, boredom, and a considerable sacrifice of time. (My own role was very minor, but there were dedicated hams there that really contributed a lot.) The local Red Cross services needed hams with HTs and mobile rigs. The work we did was tedious but necessary. I have no desire to be a cop or a firefighter, and I personally do not enjoy Emcomm. I did a hitch in the Army and that was enough for me. The strength of ham radio in the context of emergency communications is not that we are all sitting around all the time just itching to monitor for that SOS or whatnot. It is that amateur radio provides a reservoir of private citizens who own and know how to quickly deploy things like generators, antennas, and SSB/FM transceivers. We can quickly put together makeshift but effective communications in environments where all other communications are temporarily down and out. Katrina, the 1994 California earthquake, are but two examples. There are countless others. I do agree that some persons with agenda have used the Emcomm argument as a cloaking device to pursue an agenda. Winlink immediately comes to mind in this regard. But this should not take away from the civic minded hams in many countries who regularly make a real contribution to emergency communications. de Roger W6VZV
