Amanda Ripley Author of The Unthinkable

I didn’t know a simulated explosion could include a 20 to 30-foot “fireball” that lasts for 2 minutes. I thought that would fall into the category of an actual explosion.

Well, we’ll find out Wednesday morning apparently, as DC continues its inexorable march to TV fame and flame-out. The following alert is being sent around to various DC-area residents and buildings:

For the filming of a TV pilot, there will be a simulated explosion
on Wednesday, March 25, 2009, between 9:30 a.m. and noon near
Key Bridge in the District. The explosion will produce a 20 to 30’
fireball that will last for approximately two minutes.

The explosion will take place on the Potomac River just north of
the Key Bridge and Jack’s Boathouse (K/Water Street, NW under the
Whitehurst Freeway). In the scene to be filmed, there will be six (6)
sculling boats on the Potomac River and one of them blows up. CBS
Paramount television is filming a pilot titled “Washington Field.”
This is a new television series about the elite Washington field
office of the FBI and a team of agents with exceptional and diverse
skills who are called together for only the most critical cases.

The Department of Homeland Security and D.C. Police and Fire
departments have been notified, along with the Washington Airports
Authority. The Virginia State Patrol and Arlington Police Department
will also be contacted.

On Thursday, the FDNY unveiled the nation’s first and only high-rise fire simulator.  And in a city chock-full of high-rises, this is a great and much-needed improvement to the FDNY’s training programs.  The simulator, funded almost exclusively by actor Dennis Leary’s foundation (The Leary Firefighters Foundation), was a long time coming.  The four-story, 4,000 square-foot-space simulates the conditions of the particularly brutal high-rise fire. According to The Leary Firefighters Foundation, the simulator is an essential tool for the FDNY:

“High-rise, multiple dwelling fires are among the most complex and dangerous incidents for firefighters. These buildings hold in heat and fire gasses that can quickly spread, creating punishing conditions for fire personnel. The High-Rise Simulator will recreate the dangerous environment in which split-second, life or death decisions by firefighters are made...The practical skills learned through exercise in the Simulator will build the firefighter’s knowledge and confidence and serve as an important tool in addressing the safety of both civilians and rescue personnel.”

FDNY engine and ladder companies will train at the Randalls Island simulator over the next few months.

Nice piece by Michael Wilson in the NY Times about Chad Lindsey, the latest (and possibly most self-aware) subway hero. He was waiting for a train when he saw an older man fall into the tracks. Lindsey, an actor from Harbor Springs, Mich., threw down his bag and jumped onto the tracks after him. As he struggled to get the man--now unconscious--back up to the platform, he saw lights approaching in the tunnel. Notice how his mind sorts through his database of options:

“‘I yelled, ‘Contact the station agent and call the police!’ which I think is hilarious because I don’t think I ever said ‘station agent’ before in my life. What am I, on ‘24’?”...[Then] he remembered the subway hero of 2007, Wesley Autrey, who jumped on top of a man who was having a seizure on the tracks and held him down in the shallow trench between the rails as the subway passed over them. “I was like, ‘I am not doing that. We’ve got to get out of here.’”

Other passengers helped pull the man out, and Lindsey jumped back onto the platform--about 10 or 15 seconds before the train arrived. The police arrived, and what did Lindsey do? Well, he got on a train and continued on his way. Seems bizarre. But then again, that’s what people do. They follow patterns. They get their overhead baggage before they escape a burning airplane. They twitter while awaiting emergency treatment. Only once he was on the train did Lindsey start to “freak out.” He began shaking as the stress hormones worked their way through his body--and his brain allowed him to begin processing what had happened.

Sounds like Lindsey and the man he rescued are both doing fine.

Note to casting agents: Lindsey’s on-air reel below.

I was struck by a paragraph in a recent article by Natalie Angier in which she explains why we remember songs so much more easily than regular spoken words. Believe it or not, the answer goes a long way toward explaining why we tend to move so slowly in life-or-death situations.

The brain understands the world by detecting patterns:

“The brain has a strong propensity to organize information and perception in patterns, and music plays into that inclination,” said Michael Thaut, a professor of music and neuroscience at Colorado State University. “From an acoustical perspective, music is an overstructured language, which the brain invented and which the brain loves to hear.”

We process what happens to us in any given moment by trying to fit it into patterns we’ve seen before. We like patterns--in music and in everyday life.

Even in disasters. ("The fire alarm is going off. Must be a drill. Let’s ignore it.") If life doesn’t fit into a pattern, we try to make it fit. ("The fire alarm is going off. And something smells like smoke. Some fool must be burning some toast. Let’s ignore it.") If we can’t make it fit, we will eventually adapt. ("The fire alarm is going off, and smoke is creeping through the cracks in the door. I should probably go find out which idiot is burning his toast...") But the more frightened we are, the harder it is to think outside of the patterns. Thinking and processing new information requires executive brain functions--which tend to shut down under the influence of cortisol and other stress hormones.

So the more patterns and melodies in your brain (including exceptional patterns, the kind that come from training and life experience), the more quickly you might move through the playlist.

I did a presentation for a group of Senate staffers yesterday on the Hill, and as usual with these things, the best part (for me) was at the end--when people came up to tell me their own stories. I keep waiting to give one speech in which this does not happen--or in which the things people tell me are not surprising and compelling and new in some way. But it hasn’t happened.

Anyway, one woman told me that when she was in a major earthquake years ago, time had “slowed down” for her--as it does for so many people in life-or-death situations. She was able to use this distortion to her advantage; as she felt the car whipping back and forth and realized what was happening, she calmly assessed the height of the buildings and the probability of their collapse. Then she steered her car into the middle of the road and parked it there--at the farthest point from the buildings--to keep herself safe.

Another example of how the brain is helping you by manipulating your perception. This is happening all the time, but it is most obvious when we are under extreme duress. In a study of police officers involved in shootings, more than half reported experiencing this distortion. Time distortion is so common that scientists have a name for it: tachypsychia, derived from the Greek for “speed of the mind.” Which is not to say scientists really understand it.

Check out Hanna Rosin’s Atlantic piece about the deep, dark gap between the rhetoric and the data on breastfeeding. It’s a classic example of how emotion can trounce facts, especially when it comes to parenting.

After all, the brain is wired to rank emotion over facts, which is why we fear airplane crashes more than heart attacks--and why we end up with a generation of yuppie women knocking themselves out to breastfeed, even if it’s not working for them or their children. It’s a reminder that whenever emotion is high, it is worth looking for research--if there is any…

“One day, while nursing my baby in my pediatrician’s office, I noticed a 2001 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association open to an article about breast-feeding: “Conclusions: There are inconsistent associations among breastfeeding, its duration, and the risk of being overweight in young children.” Inconsistent? There I was, sitting half-naked in public for the tenth time that day, the hundredth time that month, the millionth time in my life—and the associations were inconsistent?… [T]he medical literature looks nothing like the popular literature. It shows that breast-feeding is probably, maybe, a little better; but it is far from the stampede of evidence that Sears describes. More like tiny, unsure baby steps: two forward, two back, with much meandering and bumping into walls. A couple of studies will show fewer allergies, and then the next one will turn up no difference. Same with mother-infant bonding, IQ, leukemia, cholesterol, diabetes. Even where consensus is mounting, the meta studies—reviews of existing studies—consistently complain about biases, missing evidence, and other major flaws in study design.”

I can assure you that Hanna is now knee-deep in hate mail. And love letters. 

For years, the feds have been using your tax dollars to promote marriage (see Kate Boo’s award-winning 2003 New Yorker Story, ”The Marriage Cure”).  These campaigns seem to be continuing under Obama, although there is little evidence to show that they work.

What does lead people to marry? And what leads them to divorce? Will the recession raise or lower the divorce rate?

According to MSNBC, British lawyers have warned that divorce rates in their country could rise as the economic recession puts pressure on marriage.  And that’s saying something. Apparently, Britain has one of Europe’s highest divorce rates.

In fact, hundreds of Brits went to the UK’s first-ever divorce fair today in Brighton, where attendees received free advice from lawyers, counselors, and even astrologers.  The fair was touted as the only event to help newly-single people ”bounce back from relationship break ups and life crises.”

Meanwhile, other stories predict a slowdown in divorces -- because breaking up is expensive.  Unfortunately, that’s not to say that people aren’t breaking up. Some couples are forced to live together because the cost of maintaining two homes is proving nearly impossible.  Even divorce attorneys say that staying together could save thousands of dollars. And with that kind of advice, we may not need a divorce fair here. 

Yesterday’s education speech by President Obama left me on the edge of my seat. The man is saying all the right things. The man knows how to talk, and he made some bold declarations about national standards, merit pay, and getting rid of bad teachers.

On standards, Obama was pretty clear. All the recent talk of accountability means nothing if we’re keeping score with 50 different sets of rules:

“Today’s system of fifty different sets of benchmarks for academic success means 4th grade readers in Mississippi are scoring nearly 70 points lower than students in Wyoming - and getting the same grade. Eight of our states are setting their standards so low that their students may end up on par with roughly the bottom 40% of the world.

That is inexcusable, and that is why I am calling on states that are setting their standards far below where they ought to be to stop low-balling expectations for our kids. The solution to low test scores is not lower standards - it’s tougher, clearer standards. Standards like those in Massachusetts, where 8th graders are now tying for first - first - in the world in science. Other forward-thinking states are moving in the same direction by coming together as part of a consortium. More states need to do the same.”

But that’s the easy part. After all, a whole crew of governors, school leaders and even union officials have come out in support of some kind of common standards. The question is, what will the standards be? Will this endeavor also include a national test, which would make the most sense? Is Obama right to entrust the details to Congress--which has so far utterly failed to use its stimulus leverage to push schools to enact real, sweeping reforms?

OK, OK, moving on to teacher quality, the heart of the issue. Obama’s rhetoric is tantalizing, but I am wary of the fine print. Notice the caveats built into this alleged call-to-arms:

“...Just as we have to give our teachers all the support they need to be successful, we need to make sure our students have the teacher they need to be successful. That means states and school districts taking steps to move bad teachers out of the classroom. Let me be clear: if a teacher is given a chance but still does not improve, there is no excuse for that person to continue teaching. I reject a system that rewards failure and protects a person from its consequences. The stakes are too high. We can afford nothing but the best when it comes to our children’s teachers and to the schools where they teach.”

Say, here’s an idea: Why not just move bad teachers out of the classroom? For the kids in said classroom, there is no time to spare. If a child has a bad teacher three years in a row, that child will never catch up. So why just “take steps” to remove the teacher? Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations...

I am not saying teachers should be fired arbitrarily or without legal protection. Like the rest of us, they are protected by a long list of federal and state laws that prohibit unfair, discriminatory firing (laws that did not exist when tenure was first invented). I am saying teachers who do not move students forward--on average over several years--should not--on average--be teaching. They should be let go, just like other professionals who are not successful at their critically important jobs. But that is not the case in America today.

Here’s what worries me: “Taking steps” is a euphemism. It means following the established teacher tenure rules, which is to say, if a principal deems that a teacher is no good (which rarely happens to begin with), that principal should begin to wind his or her way through the labyrinth of union-approved contract rules designed to delay and deflect accountability. These processes often take years. And at the end, nary a teacher gets fired.

If you “reject a system that rewards failure,” you should be thinking bigger than baby steps.