Everywhere I turn, the tv, the radio, the internet, I see ads uring American’s nation wide to donate blood for the WTC victims. Are there that many survivors who need blood? It’s my understanding that there are a few 100, maybe 1,000 people who were injured and need blood. Is that enough to create a national shortage?
There’s two ways to respond to that (that come to mind)
-
Perhaps not - given the limited number of survivors found past the known injured, and the long lines of donors we’ve seen on television, maybe it is a less urgent need. A Doper involved in the blood drive could give you a more fact-based response, but living just outside NYC, we have been involved in collecting other needs - water, clothes, batteries, dog food, etc. - and we’ve been told to slow way down, there is too much stuff ending up in warehouses
-
Yes - even if the need is not urgent to the WTC attack, I seem to recall that there was a shortage of blood in our national supply - so even if not needed for the WTC, the need is still there…
I have not found any evidence that there is currently (today) a blood shortage in NY, on the East Coast, or anywhere else. Of course, the reason for that is because of all the blood donated last week; but even so, the day after the attcks, the ABC (America’s Blood Centers) announced that supplies were adequate.
http://4.21.230.152/news/detail.asp?ID=95
I also haven’t found any evidence that the number of burn victims in NY are creating an unusually high ongoing need for blood, that would necessitate concern about blood needs in the next week or two.
I don’t think that any organization that advocates giving blood now (this week) knows what they’re talking about.
BTW, the last time I raised this question, it was determined to be either a rant or a debate, for reasons that were not explained.
Oddly, while the media keeps flouting the number of missing and dead, they don’t seem to be tracking the number of wounded in any detail.
That’s because there haven’t been any. No survivors have been found (in NY, anyway) since Wednesday.
I called my local blood bank and asked if they wanted me to donate blook last week (I’m O negative) and they said no, to wait until November.
They said that all of the people who donated blood last week will have to wait 56 days before they can donate again so there will probably be a shortage sometime in the next few months…
All the more reason that this national blood drive seems odd. It seems like just an emotional, knee jerk reaction, people thinking they are going to help anyway they can. While I admire their nobility, it just doesn’t seem needed.
Not to detract from the validity of the original question, but I think it’s not so much about the need for more blood for the WTC victims at this point, but the need for your everyday American to feel like there’s something they can do to help.
IIRC, I heard on NPR Wednesday morning that the Red Cross already collected 60,000 units of blood in the NYC area, which would suffice for many thousands of wounded. I’m sure they’ve received much more since then.
Hopefully some first-time donors from this massive drive will become repeat donors 
Arjuna34
There may not be a blood shortage now, but the president has made it pretty clear we’re going to attack somebody soon.
And I fully believe there will be more terrorist attacks in the near future, too.
Well, no new wounded, beyond the mostly respiratory ailments that the searchers get at the site.
But there are still ~4,000 people in area hospitals who got out before the collapse. Many are badly burned, the treatment of which often takes a lot of blood.
It seems to be politcal. Like in WWII recycling efforts were not used as much as first believed. But planting victory gardens and collecting rubber tires gave people spirit and a feeling of usefulness.
The press certainly doesn’t help things by distorting things.
I am usually a very vocal supporter of them but it seems here they are just talking for talk sake.
>>But there are still ~4,000 people in area hospitals <<
Do you have a citation for that? The USA Today website says the total of wounded was 2,326.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/11/death-toll.htm
I’m assuming that includes people treated but not admitted to hospitals. And of those that were admitted on Tuesday, not all of them are still in the hospitals, surely. And of those that are still in the hospitals, not all of them have an ongoing need for blood, do they?
I don’t. I heard it on 1010WINS this morning, but damned if I can find it on their website.
And yeah, one hopes the number staying admitted declines from day to day because of discharges. I don’t know what portion have burns; I would presume the percentage would rise as time elapses, since broken bones, etc. would generally get discharged sooner.
Sorry to be cynical, but considering that this country runs on a perpetual blood shortage I don’t think having a little extra is going to kill us.
Last Tuesday morning, the day of the WTC tragedy, I had a postcard in my purse from the local blood bank I usually donate through asking me to come in and give because stocks were low. I haven’t been able to give yet, but I’ve got an appointment for early October.