Disasters and Terrorism

In a 2008 training document of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) containing definitions of terms used by the agency, nearly 11 full pages were devoted to various definitions and descriptions of what is meant by the term “disaster”.  The first definition offered, though, and the meaning which seems to come up most frequently, in slightly varied forms, is very similar to one that was put forward in our discussions on this topic: “An event that requires resources beyond the capability of a community and requires a multiple agency response”. (PDF link, last visited 1 May 2012)

Disasters are generally broken down into natural vs. manmade events. The 1988 Robert T. Stafford Act defined natural disasters as, “Any hurricane, tornado, storm, flood, high water, wind-driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, drought, fire, or other catastrophe in any part of the United States which causes, or which may cause, substantial damage or injury to civilian property or persons.“ 

An argument was made in the discussion that a forest fire affecting a million acres but not damaging any manmade structures or causing any deaths wouldn’t be a disaster, but it is not clear under the above definition of natural disaster whether this would be true. If that million acres were commercial timber, then the economic effects might cause the event to be considered a disaster. And having been downwind of large scale forest fires in Québec, I think that an argument could be made that increased morbidity due to heavy smoke cover, even absent any demonstrable increase in mortality, might meet some definition of a disaster.

The scope and severity of a natural disaster is also due, to some extent, to the degree of human development in the location where the disaster occurs. The amount of economic damage done by hurricanes is often due to the degree of real estate development in coastal regions, and Hurricane Katrina would not have had nearly the impact it did on New Orleans had the development of the shipping channels between the city and the Gulf of Mexico not impaired the natural capacity of the Mississippi Delta to absorb the impact of the storm surge. Similarly, landslides and mudslides in places like coastal California or, say, the favelas of Rio de Janeiro would not have nearly the same impact were it not for the amount of human development on high risk hillsides.

Whereas the adverse effects of natural disasters are primarily an effect of their destructive power, manmade disasters tend to have effects which are more toxicological in nature. Well known examples of these are the 1984 Bhopal, India, industrial disaster, the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear disaster, and the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill (the 1980s were clearly bad for more than hairstyles). A much more recent one was the Deep Water Horizon oil spill of 2010. Although the oil spills didn’t result in significant loss of human life, they still had considerable negative impact on local ecosystems.

There are also some disasters which have both natural and manmade components. The 1889 Johnstown flood in western Pennsylvania was principally manmade, because it was due to the failure of a faulty dam, but that failure was precipitated by heavy rains which exceeded the dam’s capacity to withstand the force of the water. Similarly, although last year’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster was precipitated by the earthquake and tsunami, the plant meltdown itself resulted more from a failure of the plant’s designers and management to anticipate and plan for such a contingency, despite the plant’s being sited in one of the most seismically active areas on the planet.

Although Moeller considers terrorism alongside disasters, and although the effects of terrorist acts can certainly be psychologically catastrophic, even if not particularly damaging economically, terroristic activities are distinguishable from disasters by the presence of maleficent intent. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) defines terrorism as a “premeditated threat or act of violence, against noncombatant persons, property, environmental, or economic targets, to induce fear or to intimidate, coerce or affect a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political, social, ideological, or religious objectives” (see above link). Differences aside, both disasters and terrorism are considered potential public health emergencies, and so there is overlap with regard to strategies to mitigate both.

The first essential step in mitigating either disasters or terrorist activities is the development of an emergency preparedness plan.  The purpose of this is not to deal with the emergent situation itself, but rather to prepare for the eventuality and provide a basic framework for development of a response. Moeller lists five elements of emergency preparedness:

1.       Consider the full spectrum of possible accidents.

2.       Estimate their likelihood of occurrence.

3.       Analyze their potential consequences.

4.       Identify significant structures, systems, and components designed to mitigate the consequences.

5.       Identify a subset of accidents and related scenarios that need to be formally considered.

He also calls for estimates of potential doses to the public, in the case of toxicological events, and a system of review in the event that the plan is called into play, in order to refine and improve the plan for future events.

The emergency response plan, though related, is primarily concerned with the actions to be taken in the event of a disaster or terrorist attack. Moeller distinguishes between national/regional plans, which focus on responsibilities and mobilization procedures for relevant agencies, and local plans, which are more detailed and definitive and include specific countermeasures. He identifies four phases of the response plan – pre-event phase, warning phase, response phase, and recovery phase.

With regard to countermeasures, these are actions which are effective at reducing population exposures, safe, practical, and defined. The most well known countermeasures are evacuation, sheltering, and protective prophylaxis. Additional countermeasures could include those such as boiling or filtering water if there has been contamination of the water supply, or washing produce if contamination is a possibility.

For all of these, communication of plans to relevant parties is essential to proper coordination between response agencies. Also, good communication can help to ensure that the risks to the public are minimized, which is the principal goal of such measures.

REFERENCES

Moeller, D.W. Environmental Health, Fourth Edition. Harvard University Press. 2011.