Review: Dual Survival Season 2

The bloom is off of the rose. Season 2 of Dual Survival has run its course, and I have to say, while I sort of liked the first season for various reasons, the second leaves me wondering if I can somehow get the time back I have spent watching it.

The disillusionment started right off of the bat in the first episode. For some reason, they decided it was a good idea to demonstrate how to cauterize a wound using black powder. So Dave Canterbury slashed his own arm, and Cody Lundin dumped on the powder and lit it off. It did cauterize the wound, although I wonder if the procedure caused more additional trauma from burning than it was worth.

Furthermore, the slash was not of a severity that couldn’t be treated with direct pressure and an improvised wound dressing. Not that I am advocating Canterbury maim himself for television, but I am concerned that they may leave the impression that cauterization is the treatment of choice for a wound of such limited severity. On top of which, it ticks me off that in none of their scenarios (in which they play the part of the typical persons) does anyone ever carry a first aid kit. Wouldn’t it be nice to have some CELOX coagulant in a first aid kit? On the off chance you don’t happen to be a black powder hunter with powder horn at the ready?

Overall, the series continues the well-worn format of hypothetical situations used by almost every survival show out there. The pair proceeds through a variety of situations, but there is little of novelty or interest in them. What originally promised to be differing viewpoints of how to tackle a survival problem seems to have degenerated by the last episode of the season to two cranky old men bickering. The differences that arise seem to have little to do with their varying styles and more to do with the personalities involved.

Canterbury is very much the push-on, hard charger type of personality whereas Lundin is innately cautious. I believe that over two seasons, the difference in personalities is causing friction, and indeed, some of the talk-to-camera asides are far less respectful and civil than in the first season.

The difference in style is wearing to the viewer as well. Watching Canterbury make a high risk descent down a steep valley had me half cringing and half hoping he would fall a punishment for his bull-headedness. Frankly, I can do with a little less testosterone and a little more common sense and information.

Lundin’s insistence on bare feet and shorts is becoming similarly annoying. He might get away with this behavior in his home turf in the American southwest, but it strikes the viewer as pig-headed stupidity as he gets his legs and feet damaged in multiple shows in varying terrains. If bare footedness was such an advantage, shoes would not have been invented over 5,000 years ago.

There isn’t a lot of new information in the second season. Follow rivers downstream to find civilization, stay dry, and stay hydrated and so on. Lots of the basics any show of this type has presented, and very few new concepts or ideas.

While I felt the show was, overall, worth watching in the first season, I can’t make the same recommendation for the second season. I really feel that if you took the twelve hours watching this show a would take and instead spent twelve hours practicing any survival skill at all, or even spent it organizing your preps, it would be time far better utilized.

Unfortunately, the show seems to have been renewed for a third season, so I’ll be watching at least twelve more hours of it.

Originally posted July 24. 2011 @ MPN

Review: Man. Woman, Wild

There is yet another survival show out there. I find it interesting in that it takes a step away from the rugged he-man of some shows (Man vs. Wild, for example) or even two men (Dual Survival). This show features a married couple, Mykel and Ruth Hawke. Mykel Hawke is an American, the usual ex-military, ex-special forces type. Ruth Hawke is a television journalist from England, and apparently a survival newbie.

While the show follows the timeworn and familiar format of “we’re stranded in the desert, on an island,” etc. and most of the principles and skills being taught are basic and familiar to anyone that has watched almost any show in this genre, it has some features that intrigue me.

For a start, there is a female involved. Almost all of these shows involve beefy males showing you why they are manly by eating bugs and why you’re a wuss for puking at the thought. Her reactions to some of the situations have a distinct feminine viewpoint that is somewhat refreshing and interesting. Seeing that half the world is female, there is a good chance you might end up trying to survive with one of the fair sex, and it is worthwhile to see how at least one of them copes.

Additionally, we are seeing how a married couple interacts. Not everything is nose rubs and cuddles, and again, the psychology of a male/female pairing working together is interesting. While at times the Hawkes are so cute together it makes you want to puke, you do get a bit of a look at how their marriage dynamic works in a survival situation, good and bad.

Another interesting thing is that unlike many of the survival shows out there, at least one of the presenters is new to survival. Ruth Hawke is presented as someone wanting to learn the skills, and that works on two levels. One is that often things need to be explained at a very basic level to her since her level of knowledge is so low, and thus we get the actual basics without a subtext of assumed knowledge.

Another thing that is refreshing is her reaction to some of the skills she learns (She takes a childlike delight in boiling water with hot rocks), and her disgust at some of things she has to do to survive.

The show also has going for it the fact that unlike some shows,the Hawkes fail. In the initial season, at least one of their ‘missions’ results in failure when they cannot achieve their goals and Mykel Hawke considers them dead, had it been a real situation. In at least one other episode, one of them would likely have died, had there not been a crew on hand to intervene in a medical emergency.

All in all, it is a somewhat different take on the usual hair- chested approach to survival. While it has its faults, it is worth watching for the male/female dynamic and female viewpoint alone.

Next week it's back to our tool series.

Originally posted June 20 , 2011 @MPN

Review: After Armageddon

After Armageddon is a program produced by the History Channel, and presents a hypothetical end of the world scenario (pandemic), as experienced by one family, with commentary from a wide variety of experts. While it was broadcast some time ago, it is available for download from a variety of sources.

The family in question is portrayed with little or nothing in the way of prior preparations, and possess no exceptional skills, other than that the father is a paramedic. It runs through an escalating series of crises, from the beginning of the pandemic through a ‘bug-in’ phase to a bug out scenario and finally a rebuilding scenario.

Interspersed with the dramatizations are commentaries from various experts that give basic survival information, speculate on how various scenarios might develop, and give examples from recent disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. It is nicely balanced between the commentary and the dramatizations, so neither bores the watcher.

There are some incidents portrayed in the dramatization that will make the longer term prepper wince, and I know the overall lack of preparedness by the family made my teeth grind as almost anyone can be better equipped than this family just from what is around the average house, but overall it is a decent show, and likely a good way to introduce family or friends to survivalism and preparedness.

I was also pleased to see that the psychological aspects of coping with such a crisis were not neglected in the show, and there was also some decent discussion about what form a rebuilt society might take.

As this is Preparedness Week, it might be worth sitting down to watch this and role play through the show. Look at each crisis that occurred in the show and assess whether or not your preps are good enough to cope. Dissect each decision that the family makes in the show and see if there was an alternate case of action that would have served them better.

Overall, After Armageddon is a decent exploration of the SHTF scenario. I can recommend it without any caveats except this one:

After you watch the show, get off your butt and make Preparedness Week a real high point in getting further along in your preparedness.

Next week we'll return to the Apartment survival series.

Originally posted May 01, 2011 @ MPN

Review: Apocalypse Man (ure)

For some reason, I’m hitting some programming lately of the prepare-for-the-end-of-the-world variety. I’m not sure of the reason for this ‘surge’ in interest (Hey, any wave at all on a flat pond is a surge, right?) but sadly, some of the offerings are pretty much crap. The History Channel’s Apocalypse Man sits right at the top of the heap.

We are treated to yet another ‘expert’ in survival, an ex- military type named Rudy Reyes. Over the course of the program, he proceeds to swing off of bridges, scamper through deserted buildings, and forage for scraps in the guise of teaching us useful skills for survival.

It’s hard to know where to start with reviewing this, as so much of it is contrary either to my personal philosophy (such as going into a city after a major disaster), or simply unrealistic (no bodies, no survivors). I’ll try, though.

The majority of the show features Reyes alternately sneaking about and climbing up or over something while dropping gems like: “Try not to let obstacles like this stop you…”.

Wow, there’s a revelation.

There is very little in the way of hard information in the show, and some curious omissions. One of which is that the program never shows him obtaining or purifying water that I recall. However, there is some laugh value in places. His comment about finding some cans of food in a basement (“That’s sustainability!”) had me rolling on the floor, howling with laughter.

Much of the airtime is taken up with him rigging a radio beacon, and finding diesel for an emergency generator at a hospital. The last was quite amusing, as he advises you to turn of the breakers so as to not light up the building and advertise your presence to potential hostiles. Apparently the roar of a running diesel generator or the smell of its exhaust fumes is untraceable.

The list of silliness goes on, and if you’re willing to waste an hour, there is lots more advice to make you shake your head.

My problem is that this sort of 'catch the wave' programming is at best useless and at worst, downright harmful. It perpetuates the backpack survivor myth in the worst way. It offers almost no practical advice to someone that wants to begin prepping. Unfortunately, I think as things get a little worse, we’ll see a lot more of this kind of opportunistic programming.

Pesonally, I'm sorry I wasted 42 minutes on this.

Originally posted June