Which method of record duplication is considered the least desirable for emergency planning?

In the context of emergency planning, carbon copies are considered the least desirable method of record duplication due to several inherent limitations. First, carbon copy documentation relies on the use of carbon paper, which can degrade over time and may not produce clear or legible copies, especially under adverse conditions. Furthermore, carbon copies are often susceptible to physical damage, such as tearing or smudging, which can compromise the integrity of critical information during an emergency situation.

In contrast, handwritten notations may demonstrate a more personal touch or immediate engagement with the material, though they can be challenging to duplicate consistently. Photocopying offers a more reliable method of creating clear and durable duplicates, ensuring the visibility and accessibility of information. Microfilming, while potentially less common today, allows for the preservation of documents in a compact format, often with better long-term durability compared to carbon copies.

The choice of a record duplication method for emergency planning should prioritize clarity, durability, and ease of access, all areas where carbon copies fall short compared to the more effective alternatives.