Najmedin Meshkati, University of Southern California

The Los Angeles fires are a national disaster of epic proportions. City officials, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and President-elect Donald Trump have traded accusations about what caused this crisis. But as an engineering professor who lives in Los Angeles and has studied extreme events and natural and human-caused disasters for over 40 years, I believe an event with so many lives lost and damages estimated at hundreds of billions of dollars demands a more substantive response.

Many problems have been cited as alleged root causes of this massive wildfire outbreak. They include mismanaged water resources, misallocation of firefighting resources, fire department funding cuts, poor risk management, reignition of past fires, and climate-driven dry conditions. Rumors and conspiracy theories have also abounded. https://www.youtube.com/embed/E2_KvbLgHlY?wmode=transparent&start=0 Damage from the Los Angeles wildfires, estimates at $135 billion or more as of mid-January, could affect homeowners insurance rates across the U.S.

I have served as a member or adviser to national- and state-level investigations of events including gas leaks, oil spills, nuclear reactor accidents, refinery explosions and, most recently, aviation mishaps.

In my view, the Los Angeles fires call for a similar investigation that is technically sound, multidisciplinary, unbiased, apolitical and independent. U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff of California has called for convening such a review.

To quote a saying often attributed to Albert Einstein: “Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.”

Natural events + human responses

Natural disasters such as wildfires, earthquakes and tsunamis often serve as triggers. Devastating on their own, these events can have far more catastrophic aftermaths that are shaped by human choices. Nature delivers the initial blow, but a complex interplay of human, organizational and technological factors can either mitigate or worsen the consequences.

I believe human operators and first responders constitute society’s first and the very last layer of defense against death and destruction in the crucial moments following natural disasters and technological systems failures – serving as our immediate shield, intermediate mitigator and ultimate savior.

Advertisement

I saw this when I served on a National Academy of Sciences committee that studied the 2011 Fukushima nuclear accident in Japan. The explosions and radioactive releases at the Fukushima Daiichi plant were triggered by an earthquake and tsunami, but a Japanese high-level review concluded that this event was a “manmade disaster” – one born of human and organizational failure at the utility and governmental levels.

The fate of the Onagawa Nuclear Power Station, just 39 miles from Fukushima, was also notable. Although Onagawa was closer to the earthquake’s epicenter and faced an even more powerful tsunami, the reactors there – which were identical in type and age to Fukushima’s and subject to the same regulations – emerged almost unscathed. This stark difference demolished any argument that Fukushima’s failure was inevitable, an act of God or purely nature’s fault.

High-level commissions have reviewed similar disasters in the United States. For example:

– The President’s Commission on the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in 1979 produced the landmark Kemeny Report, which concluded that the accident was primarily caused by human factors, including inadequate operator training and confusing procedures, rather than equipment failures alone. The report strongly criticized the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which regulates the nuclear power industry, and recommended a complete restructuring of the agency. It also called for better safety measures, operator training and emergency preparedness in the nuclear industry.

– Independent commissions investigated the explosions of the Challenger space shuttle in 1986 and the Columbia space shuttle in 2003. They identified similar systemic issues behind these incidents, even though they occurred 17 years apart, and provided overlapping recommendations to improve NASA’s safety culture and decision-making processes.

– Two national reviews – one by a blue-ribbon commission and the other by the National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council – investigated the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill. This disaster killed 11 workers, seriously injured 16 others and released an estimated 134 million barrels of oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

Both reports concluded that BP’s poor safety culture and practices, along with technical failures, lax regulation and inadequate inspections, had contributed to the well blowout. Both commissions made recommendations for improving the safety of offshore drilling. https://www.youtube.com/embed/I9aSUQmwUgA?wmode=transparent&start=0 President Barack Obama announces the formation of an expert commission to analyze causes and lessons from the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, May 21, 2011.

Analyzing the Los Angeles fires

Based on my research and experience, I believe only a high-level independent investigative commission can fully unravel this disaster’s interconnected causes. Government agencies, regulatory bodies and legislative committees inevitably fall short in such investigations. They are constrained by jurisdictional boundaries and bureaucratic interests. Their efforts remain too narrow and inward-focused. And, crucially, they lack true independence.

Advertisement

Gov. Newsom has directed the Los Angeles water and public works departments to review why hydrants ran dry, which hampered firefighting efforts. But this inquiry focuses narrowly on water supply issues in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood. It does not address other blazes like the Eaton fire near Pasadena, which has caused even more damage.

The most straightforward way to set up a high-level review of the Los Angeles wildfires would be for the Trump administration and Congress to direct the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and the National Research Council to establish an independent commission. The National Academies are private, nonprofit organizations created by President Abraham Lincoln in 1863 to provide the nation with independent, objective advice on complex problems. The National Research Council is the National Academies’ operating arm.

Typically, such studies are led by a prominent person of national distinction or a renowned scholar, and are carried out by a panel of national experts from academia, business, the public sector and nongovernmental organizations.

The National Academies have a reputation for producing independent, rigorous and nonpartisan studies. They screen members thoroughly for technical expertise and conflicts of interest. All of their studies go through formal peer review, which helps ensure that they are scientifically accurate and credible.

When the federal government requests a study from the academies, Congress provides funding through a relevant federal agency. For the Los Angeles fires, the federal sponsor might be the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Could a study proposed and sponsored by Congress and the Trump administration be balanced and nonpartisan? In my view, if the National Academies produced it, the answer is yes. The academies have a strong track record of reviewing complex issues, including disaster planning, response and recovery, risk assessment and wildfires. And their recommendations have improved public policy. https://www.youtube.com/embed/raMmRKGkGD4?wmode=transparent&start=0 In a televised 1986 hearing, physicist Richard Feynman, a member of a presidential commission that investigated the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger, demonstrates the commission’s finding that critical seals on the shuttle became brittle at low temperatures. The report showed that NASA and its key contractor knew this flaw existed and could cause a catastrophic failure, but still approved the launch. The explosion killed all seven crew members.

Lessons for future disasters

I see the Los Angeles fires as a stark warning to communities nationwide. There is a widening gap between intensifying climate-induced extreme events that are becoming Earth’s new normal, and municipal planning, preparedness and response capabilities.

Advertisement

Meeting these unprecedented challenges requires a paradigm shift in public policy. To protect public safety, officials and planners will have to proactively confront scenarios that may recently have seemed unthinkable.

For example, while Southern Californians are accustomed to wildfires, Los Angeles County agencies were unprepared to fight several major fires simultaneously. Flooding in North Carolina from Hurricane Helene in September 2024 is another example. Rainfall totals across the southern Appalachians reached levels that would only be expected once in 1,000 years based on past records.

To be prepared for such events, government agencies at all levels will need to reimagine their approaches to hazard assessment, risk management and emergency response. I believe a balanced and thorough investigation of the Los Angeles fires could help communities across the U.S. reframe their thinking about planning for emergencies.

Najmedin Meshkati, Professor of Engineering and International Relations, University of Southern California

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement

Cape Canaveral, FL – January 16, 2025 – In a remarkable achievement for commercial spaceflight, Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket successfully reached orbit during its inaugural NG-1 mission today, marking a significant milestone for the company and the industry. The rocket’s second stage performed flawlessly, completing two successful burns with the BE-3U engines, achieving its intended orbital parameters.

Dave Limp, CEO of Blue Origin, expressed his pride in the team’s accomplishment, stating, “New Glenn achieved orbit on its first attempt! We set out with ambitious goals, and while we lost our booster during descent, we gained invaluable insights from today’s mission.” Limp highlighted the importance of New Glenn in supporting critical missions for customers, including NASA’s Artemis program, which aims to establish a sustained human presence on the Moon.

New Glenn

The New Glenn vehicle is pivotal for Blue Origin’s future launches, including the Blue Moon Mark 1 cargo lander and the Mark 2 crewed lander, which will serve NASA’s lunar objectives. In addition, the company is seeing strong demand, with various vehicles in production and a growing list of customers like NASA, Amazon’s Project Kuiper, and AST SpaceMobile.

Jarrett Jones, Senior Vice President of New Glenn, remarked on the significance of the day, saying, “Today marks a new era for Blue Origin and for commercial space. We’re ramping our launch cadence and are incredibly grateful to everyone at Blue Origin, our customers, and the space community for their unwavering support.”

The launch, which took place at 2:03 a.m. EST from Launch Complex 36, signals the beginning of a formidable era in Blue Origin’s operations as it seeks to connect its missions with emerging national security objectives through certification from the U.S. Space Force.

Blue Origin plans to conduct further missions with New Glenn, expanding its role in the growing landscape of space exploration and resource utilization. The company is focused on learning from today’s endeavor and aims to return for another launch attempt this spring.

Stay tuned for more updates on Blue Origin’s ambitious journeys ahead!

Related Link:

Advertisement

https://www.blueorigin.com/news/new-glenn-ng-1-mission

The science section of our news blog STM Daily News provides readers with captivating and up-to-date information on the latest scientific discoveries, breakthroughs, and innovations across various fields. We offer engaging and accessible content, ensuring that readers with different levels of scientific knowledge can stay informed. Whether it’s exploring advancements in medicine, astronomy, technology, or environmental sciences, our science section strives to shed light on the intriguing world of scientific exploration and its profound impact on our daily lives. From thought-provoking articles to informative interviews with experts in the field, STM Daily News Science offers a harmonious blend of factual reporting, analysis, and exploration, making it a go-to source for science enthusiasts and curious minds alike. https://stmdailynews.com/category/science/

Please leave this field empty

Want more stories
“Your morning jolt of Inspiring & Interesting Stories!”

Sign up to receive awesome articles directly to your inbox.

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.

Please check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Jill Hopke, DePaul University

The decision by Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, to end its fact-checking program and otherwise reduce content moderation raises the question of what content on those social media platforms will look like going forward.

One worrisome possibility is that the change could open the floodgates to more climate misinformation on Meta’s apps, including misleading or out-of-context claims during disasters.

In 2020, Meta rolled out its Climate Science Information Center on Facebook to respond to climate misinformation. Currently, third-party fact-checkers working with Meta flag false and misleading posts. Meta then decides whether to attach a warning label to them and reduce how much the company’s algorithms promote them.

Meta’s policies have fact-checkers prioritizing “viral false information,” hoaxes and “provably false claims that are timely, trending and consequential.” Meta explicitly states that this excludes opinion content that does not include false claims.

The company will end its agreements with U.S.-based third-party fact-checking organizations in March 2025. The planned changes slated to roll out to U.S. users won’t affect fact-checking content viewed by users outside the U.S.. The tech industry faces greater regulations on combating misinformation in other regions, such as the European Union.

Fact-checking curbs climate misinformation

I study climate change communication. Fact-checks can help correct political misinformation, including on climate change. People’s beliefs, ideology and prior knowledge affect how well fact-checks work. Finding messages that align with the target audience’s values, along with using trusted messengers – like climate-friendly conservative groups when speaking to political conservatives – can help. So, too, does appealing to shared social norms, like limiting harm to future generations.

Heat waves, flooding and fire conditions are becoming more common and catastrophic as the world warms. Extreme weather events often lead to a spike in social media attention to climate change. Social media posting peaks during a crisis but drops off quickly.

Advertisement

Low-quality fake images created using generative artificial intelligence software, so-called AI slop, is adding to confusion online during crises. For example, in the aftermath of back-to-back hurricanes Helene and Milton last fall, fake AI-generated images of a young girl, shivering and holding a puppy in a boat, went viral on the social media platform X. The spread of rumors and misinformation hindered the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s disaster response.

What distinguishes misinformation from disinformation is the intent of the person or group doing the sharing. Misinformation is false or misleading content shared without active intention to mislead. On the other hand, disinformation is misleading or false information shared with the intent to deceive.

Disinformation campaigns are already happening. In the wake of the 2023 Hawaii wildfires, researchers at Recorded Future, Microsoft, NewsGuard and the University of Maryland independently documented an organized propaganda campaign by Chinese operatives targeting U.S. social media users.

To be sure, the spread of misleading information and rumors on social media is not a new problem. However, not all content moderation approaches have the same effect, and platforms are changing how they address misinformation. For example, X replaced its rumor controls that had helped debunk false claims during fast-moving disasters with user-generated labels, Community Notes. https://www.youtube.com/embed/xgJ-xwXZ0zA?wmode=transparent&start=0 A report found a surge of climate change misinformation on X in the wake of Elon Musk’s acquisition of the social media platform on Oct. 27, 2022.

False claims can go viral rapidly

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg specifically cited X’s Community Notes as an inspiration for his company’s planned changes in content moderation. The trouble is false claims go viral quickly. Recent research has found that the response time of crowd-sourced Community Notes is too slow to stop the diffusion of viral misinformation early in its online life cycle – the point when posts are most widely viewed.

In the case of climate change, misinformation is “sticky.” It is especially hard to dislodge falsehoods from people’s minds once they encounter them repeatedly. Furthermore, climate misinformation undermines public acceptance of established science. Just sharing more facts does not work to combat the spread of false claims about climate change.

Explaining that scientists agree that climate change is happening and is caused by humans burning greenhouse gases can prepare people to avoid misinformation. Psychology research indicates that this “inoculation” approach works to reduce the influence of false claims to the contrary.

Advertisement

That’s why warning people against climate misinformation before it goes viral is crucial for curbing its spread. Doing so is likely to get harder on Meta’s apps.

Social media users as sole debunkers

With the coming changes, you will be the fact-checker on Facebook and other Meta apps. The most effective way to pre-bunk against climate misinformation is to lead with accurate information, then warn briefly about the myth – but only state it once. Follow this with explaining why it is inaccurate and repeat the truth.

During climate change-fueled disasters, people are desperate for accurate and reliable information to make lifesaving decisions. Doing so is already challenging enough, like when the Los Angeles County’s emergency management office erroneously sent an evacuation alert to 10 million people on Jan. 9, 2025.

Crowd-sourced debunking is no match for organized disinformation campaigns in the midst of information vacuums during a crisis. The conditions for the rapid and unchecked spread of misleading, and outright false, content could get worse with Meta’s content moderation policy and algorithmic changes.

The U.S. public by and large wants the industry to moderate false information online. Instead, it seems that big tech companies are leaving fact-checking to their users.

Jill Hopke, Associate Professor of Journalism, DePaul University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement