"Officials are sometimes reluctant to communicate information to the public until the situation becomes clearer, out of a fear that public knowledge may make things worse. Experience and research show that when there is a credible threat, it is better to get information to people who can do something about it rather than to withhold it. Opening up an ongoing information flow as incident unfolds -- literally telling the story of the emergency as new facts disclose themselves -- allows initial directives to be modified as circumstances change. No one would expect directives for protective action to remain static when the emergency itself does not remain static. The public will listen to the emergency story unfold and will modify their actions as facts become clear and situations change. In many after action reviews of major emergencies, the economic, political and moral costs and liabilities of not providing information when it could have been released are often assessed as being very high". (PPW, Protecting America's Communities, 2004, 8)