The University of Pittsburgh received three bomb threats in eight days, and each time, the Cathedral of Learning was evacuated.  Not only is that a big inconvenience to people’s regular lives, but it also makes you wonder: should all bomb threats be taken seriously?In the Pitt case, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that all three of the bomb threats were scrawled on the wall in the men’s bathroom.  Really, is that all it takes? I thought a little more effort was required. Doesn’t a bomb threat have to pass through some criteria to make it seem legitimate such as sending or, at least making a telephone call? But yes, that forced the evacuations each and every time.I guess I do not know what makes an effective bomb threat, so I decided to do some research.  Unfortunately, finding specific statistics on bomb threats proved difficult  because threats are received at multiple levels, and there’s really no single data accumulator for them.  Also, threats are different from actual bombings.  A threat can be very insignificant.  Even the U.S. Department of Justice admits: “data on bomb incidents and bomb threats … are limited.”The one credible statistic I found is from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.  Between 1990-2002, there were 1,055 recorded incidents of bombs placed on school premises.  The report explains that there is no way of knowing how many additional false alarms may have been received.However, of those 1,055 bomb incidents reported by the ATF, only 14 were accompanied by a warning to the school or other authorities. Fourteen out of 1,055 is only less than 2 percent.Another study, conducted by the Hartford Insurance Company estimates that approximately 90 percent of bomb threats are pranks. I tend to believe this is an accurate number, as insurance companies need to know this when quoting competitive insurance prices to schools. I have therefore determined that the majority of threats are hoaxes.  It could be a student who didn’t complete the assignment or study for the test, or, maybe it’s a teacher who wants the day off. That actually happened when a middle school math teacher called in a bomb threat to the school she worked at in Traverse City, Mich.  After she was arrested, she claimed her day off request was denied, so she then called in a bomb threat instead.The most common way to deliver a bomb threat is by telephone.  Schools have developed measures to handle threats by phone.  A checklist of questions, as well as other considerations, such as keeping the caller on the line as long as possible and not hanging up at the conclusion of the call are now regular procedures in many schools.Other methods of bomb threats mentioned in the U.S. Department of Justice report are by letter, face-to-face, email or on a student’s website.  Of course, after the recent Pitt threats, maybe they’ll add bathroom walls to their next report.But, the main question here is: how seriously should a threat be taken?  According to the U.S. Department of Justice, laws throughout the United States tend to treat false bomb threats almost as severely as real bomb threats.  Many local laws make little exception for juveniles.Making a false bomb threat is a federal offense punishable with a penalty of up to 10 years in prison, a $250,000 fine or both.  This penalty also applies to juvenile offenders.  However, according to the ATF, the majority of juveniles are prosecuted under local and state laws, which in the fallout from Columbine and others, are increasingly enforcing severe penalties.The FBI breaks down the threat risks to three different levels.  Not all levels dictate evacuation.  In fact, once the threat is classified in one of the three levels, then appropriate action can be taken based on it.Level one is a low level of threat because it’s vague and indirect.  The information contained within the threat is inconsistent, implausible or lacks detail.  Also, the threat lacks realism, and it seems unlikely the person will carry it out.Level two is a medium level threat as it’s more concrete and direct.  The wording suggests that the threatener has given some thought as to how the act will be carried out.  There’s also a general indication of a possible place and time, and some veiled reference to a book, movie or website that indicates some research regarding the planned threat.Level three is a high level of threat.  This appears to pose an imminent and serious danger to the safety of others.  The threat is direct, specific and plausible.  Also, it suggests concrete steps have been taken. Whether it’s a statement of proficiency with weapons, specification of a particular type of bomb or a certain person under surveillance, this makes a threat seem legitimate.I think the recent University of Pittsburgh evacuations applied level three responses to a level one, or at best, a level two threat. In Pitt’s defense, one of the reasons they may have acted so swiftly in their response is the recent shooting incident at Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic in Oakland.  Administrators were probably guilty of overcompensating.  Making sure a similar tragedy is not repeated so soon is certainly understandable.Point Park already has measures in place because a bomb threat call is received, and that is the most common way threats are made, there are instructions on how to proceed.  One just needs to remain calm and try to obtain as much information from the previously prepared bomb threat checklist as possible. Then, the University Public Safety Dispatch Center will handle the information.  The vice president of operations will make a determination of the level of threat and if evacuation is necessary. It seems any threats that may have been received have been handled efficiently.  Talking to others, no one can ever remember an evacuation due to a bomb threat being necessary at Point Park.  I, for one, would like to keep it that way.