Laserfiche WebLink
<br />16 <br /> <br />cues or no warning at all preceded the flood. This was confirmed by the <br />location of the group in the canyon. Since it was not raining at the <br />lower end of the canyon, a group which did not receive any warning <br />probably received no environmental cues. <br />Because the analysis was based upon actions taken by groups rather <br />than by individuals, it was not possible to control for sex or age. <br />Members of the groups were interviewed based on their willingness to <br />participate. Due to the reliance on second-hand sources, it was dif- <br />ficult to get complete information on the ages of all those in a <br />specific group, especially in cases where the group was composed of <br />unrelated parties. For the non-survivors there was information on <br />individuals. Some interesting facts were not examined because of the <br />method selected; for example, this study does not explain the high <br />percentage of women over 60 who died in the flood. <br />There are inconsistencies in the study which would not exist if <br />primary sources were exclusively used. In most cases, the newspaper <br />articles were confirmed in conversations but the data are not as care- <br />fully derived as they would be if there was control of which individual <br />from a group was interviewed in each case. For those who died, all <br />the information of necessity came from second-hand sources. There is <br />a possibility that changes in perceptions of the flood, after the flood, <br />can alter the account. For example, three different accounts were given <br />for the last actions taken by one of the victims: 1) he was preparing <br />to leave when he was washed away following a warning from a neighbor; <br />2) he was sleeping at the time of his death; and 3) he disbelieved <br />warnings and tried to escape the water by climbing to his roof when <br />his house was swept away. <br />