If someone asked you right now where the closest fire extinguisher was, would you be able to answer correctly? Or answer at all? Safety is a major issue and is emphasized with safety training. Safety preparations are all around us, from fire alarms to flight attendants’ preflight speeches, from flashing exit signs, to street lights. But how much of this important information do we tune out? Researchers at UCLA recently conducted a study to find out just how well the average person retains information from safety training.

Alan Castel, an associate professor of psychology at UCLA and lead author of the study, along with Keith Holyoak, another UCLA psychology professor, asked 54 people who worked in the same building on UCLA’s campus where the closest fire extinguisher was after they had a mandatory safety meeting. Only 13 people knew where the closest extinguisher was — just 24 percent.

However, when they were asked to actually go and find a fire extinguisher, everyone was able to in a matter of seconds, despite not remembering where one was. So why were these people able to go and find a fire extinguisher so quickly even though so few of them could actually remember where it was?

“One possibility is that simply because we have seen something many times, it doesn’t necessarily register in our memory,” Castel said. “Once you have had to find it, you will remember where it is later, so we hope that this study might provide a useful exercise in terms of being able to locate this important safety device.”

Another important question the researchers asked was, why has this facet of human memory been overlooked for so long? This project showed that the more interactive the safety training is, the more likely that the people will remember the locations of important tools.

“The more interactive our learning process becomes, the more we retain what we’ve learned,” said Dorje M. Jennette, a psychologist for UC Davis Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS). “Practicing the process of locating the nearest fire extinguisher would improve safety training. [Safety trainers] could help to build curiosity about the answer by initially asking people where [the extinguisher] is, instead of telling them off the bat.”
Another interesting discovery during the study was made when the same people were asked again a few months later to find the nearest extinguisher, and all 54 of them were able to answer correctly — a huge improvement for the initial 13 that answered correctly a few months earlier.

“The physical action of looking for [the extinguisher] is what made all the difference,” Holyoak said.

So instead of zoning out during your yearly training, be active during it. In an emergency this knowledge could keep you calm during the panic, and be the difference between life and death.

KELLY MITCHELL can be reached at science@theaggie.org.

Lets face it — gun control is useless. Woah woah, hold your horses, you say. We need gun control laws to prevent all of the recent gun-related tragedies of late from happening again. Well, I agree with half of that statement, but the individuals who are proposing more stringent gun laws are forgetting the most important part of the whole situation: gun control laws will be useless because criminals, by definition, do not obey the law. We do need gun control laws, but not because they will actually change anything.

Humans love decisive action; it’s in our genes. When we have a problem, we need to fix it. But let’s think about this seriously for a minute. Will new gun control laws actually change anything? Is it the result of new laws that we are craving, or is it simply the act of taking action that we crave?

Don’t get me wrong. I believe wholeheartedly that new gun control laws are required. However, these new laws will be more of a gesture than an actual tangible change. Taking action is more important to us than the actual results of those actions. And even though new laws will no doubt get passed, they will be wishy-washy, feel-good laws meant to appease the peacemongers while also not pissing off the gun-toting Second Amendment enthusiasts.

Some people are of the opinion that common-sense gun laws will prevail in the end. But as the saying goes, common sense isn’t so common these days.

The dolphin-saving, salmon-eating hypocritical liberals want a full-blown gun ban. That is not going to happen. The right-to-life-ing, lethal-injecting hypocritical conservatives are worried that any new gun laws will lead us down a slippery slope to a full ban. Looking at the history of Clinton’s assault weapon ban, the conservatives have just as little to worry about as the liberals do.

That isn’t to say that there are no available options. Obviously, a nationwide firearm confiscation project along with strict punishments for anyone caught owning a weapon would greatly curb the number of gun-related incidents, both accidental and purposeful, every year. Individuals who were truly set on murdering someone would just resort to beating people to death with baseball bats, and no politician in America would even dream of trying to regulate or ban baseball bats.

Another interesting facet of the situation that is being ignored is the proliferation of at-home weapons fabrication. In recent years, 3D printing has moved from purely industrial applications into the consumer market where hobbyists can design and produce nearly any object they desire. Originally, these printed objects were weak and fragile, but as technology has progressed, the strength of home-fabricated objects has increased to the point that NASA has considered using 3D printers in the International Space Station so produce any part that needs repairing.

New 3D printers actually use powdered metal, formed and shaped through a process called Electron Beam Melting, that can make objects as solid as titanium, accurate down to micron accuracy, and has the ability to “print” moving parts. All an individual has to do is download a 3D model of a fully automatic weapon from the internet, click print and their printer will literally create a fully operational weapon within a few hours. People can even print their own ammunition, and modify the designs themselves.

So now what? Guns are not going to get banned, and any new laws that are enacted will do little, or nothing, to stop violence via firearms. On top of that, even if guns were completely banned, a determined individual could still get a hold of deadly firearms fairly easily by manufacturing it themselves.

Who do we blame? Who do we point the finger at and name as the cause of all these troubles? Since the gunmen often die during their rampages, the desire to assign blame ends up targeting things that have no business being targeted.

Video games get lots of bad press for desensitizing our youth to the cost of reckless violence. This is a weak argument at best. Japan has video games. They play more than we do. Canadians also have video games. In fact, one could even argue that video games offer a harmless outlet for aggression. If we look at countries with restricted access to violent media, the violent crimes are often far more heinous.

Poor countries like Honduras, Uganda, Myanmar and Burkina Faso have some of the highest murder rates on Earth with intentional homicide rates between 15 and 20 per 100,000 people. On the other hand, the United States has a rate of just five intentional homicides per 100,000 people. Canada’s rate is far below at 1.6 per 100,000, and Japan has a rate of just 0.4 per 100,000.

Perhaps what we need is not a reduction in the variety of methods one can use to kill someone, but instead, a reduction in the number of reasons one has to kill another. Poverty, bad education, unemployment, poor mental health … these are the culprits that we should be pointing the blame finger at. Perhaps the reason why none of these issues have been addressed is that we simply do not yet know how to fix them.

HUDSON LOFCHIE can be reached at science@theaggie.org.

The tragedy of Newtown, Connecticut has been pervasive in recent media, and Adam Lanza is becoming a household name. In all the coverage, there seems to be one question on everyone’s lips: Why? News reporters seem to have scrambled for answers, featuring experts and using eyewitness testimonies of “warning signs.” Even more people are asking about what can we do to prevent this from happening again. Some researchers say the latest developments in science hold the answers, while others deem “predictive science” a myth.

Predictive science combines many different fields of expertise to form a profile of an individual who is at high risk of committing a violent act. Currently researchers are searching for answers using patterns in behavior, brain activity, brain circuitry, genes and substance abuse.

“The only absolute predictor of future violence is past history of violence. And there is no question that there is a big connection,” said Dr. Peter Yellowlees, a professor of psychiatry and developer of curricula concerning disaster preparedness responses at UC Davis.

A more sophisticated approach being researched is faulty circuitry between the prefrontal cortex of the brain and the amygdala — the emotional arousal and regulation part of the brain. The amygdala is stimulated when there is a threat or perceived threat to an individual. In normal individuals, the prefrontal cortex sends a chemical message to cease the stimulation in the amygdala But in violent people, the amygdala never receives the message and thus inappropriate aggressive behavior is observed. Another technique that can be used is analyzing actuarials — statistical equations used by insurance companies.

While patterns of behavior are very clear in large groups of people, it is difficult to use these techniques on individuals. Rather, a combination of risk factors are analyzed, and one factor has been more prominent in recent years due to sensationalized media coverage: the desire for recognition and fame.

“To me, the big issue is the glorification of violence that I think goes on in society. Part of that is seen in the media reporting but equally, part of it is the NRA’s inappropriate response to suggest teachers and armed guards have guns in schools,” Yellowlees said. “But again it is just glorifying the gun culture … the exposure to violence that occurs is something that is clearly likely to increase violence in the long run.”

With the limitations of neuroscience, psychology and developing technology, most experts would argue that prevention should take the spotlight rather than prediction. There are multiple ways to reduce risk including better mental healthcare, harm minimization, stricter gun control laws and, ultimately, being better prepared mentally.

Yellowlees described harm minimization as an approach that involves steps taken by a psychiatrist or psychologist to reduce or eliminate the risk of an individual harming themselves or others. Generally if a mental health professional perceives a threat, he or she can contact the police to remove the firearms from that person’s home and get that person treatment, whether it be medication, or in some cases, involuntary institutionalization.

“With respect to the Newtown tragedy, I agree with those who have argued for the importance of prevention,” said Ross Thompson, a distinguished professor in the UC Davis psychology department. “If we had communities where people could obtain affordable mental health services when needed, where parents could obtain support when their children begin to show signs of serious problems, and where there were strong restrictions on gun violence — and restrictions on the kinds of firearms that can be owned — there is good reason to believe that these kinds of mass killings would be reduced.”

Director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the UC Davis Medical Center Garen Wintemute’s research focuses on the nature and prevention of violence, specifically firearm violence, and on the development of violence prevention measures. He is a proponent of stricter gun control laws and more effective ways of preventing individuals with mental illnesses and histories of violence or substance abuse from purchasing firearms.

“As we all think about ‘What do we do?’ my plea is: let’s not focus on how to prevent the next Sandy Hook, because there won’t be a next Sandy Hook,” Wintemute said. “The next one will be different and if we come up with ideas that are specific to those circumstances, we will fail. We need to come up with proposals that will deal with firearm violence broadly.”

NICOLE NOGA can be reached at science@theaggie.org.