Category: Disaster

Introduction

The mere mention of term disaster is likely to cause shrills of fear run down the spines of many people. This is predominantly due to the consequences that are associated with disasters. People affected by disasters go through extremely tough times, trying to come to terms with the effects. Indeed, areas that experience disasters can be likened to the grounds used by military combats while fighting. Consequently, the victims are likely to go through difficult post traumatic stress that is not easy to overcome. For that reason, governments and well wishers should always endeavor to come to their aid. On the other hand, such people should not continue brooding for a long time, but should instead pick up their broken pieces and go on with life. This notwithstanding, could there be any chance of disasters being of any benefit to the people affected? It has often been argued that, disasters are eye openers and that they caution people to be wary of likely future emergencies. The victims, in some situations, get an opportunity to rebuild and restructure their properties in a better manner. Nevertheless, disasters are known to cause more harm than good.

Effects of Disasters

Conventionally, the term disaster has been used specifically to refer to a shocking accident, event or incident, (regardless of the cause) and usually leads to traumatic experiences. It is an unexpected occurrence that happens in ones life and could be experienced both outwardly or inwardly, whose implications irretrievably affects ones life, leaving him/her emotionally aggravated by disturbing memories with constant worries about the future. When a disaster strikes, many nations have been known to call for outside help. This however depends on the intensity of the damage incurred. (Lindell & Prater 2003).

Different analysts and authors use diverse approaches to categorize the impacts of a disaster. However, these effects are commonly categorized into three groups as follows; short-term effects, immediate effects and long- term effects. Short term effects of a disaster refer to the immediate loss and lasts for only a short time before complete recovery is achieved. However, it is also important to note that these effects are also directly and indirectly felt. The direct loses include, loss of property, destruction of infrastructure, destruction of business, loss of manpower, destruction of communication and displacement or dislocation. Indirect effects include the psychological trauma experienced by disaster victims.

However, depending on the intensity of the disasters, short-term effects could be extended to become immediate effects. Profits are reduced as most businesses fail to operate at that particular time. For instance, the September 9/11 terrorist attack in U.S was followed by an economic slowdown and so was the Katrina disaster. It is usually very tricky to separate the immediate effects from the short-term effects. This is because the time lapse in both cases is very minimal. However, these effects overlap from one stage to the other.

On the other hand, long-term effects include irreversible consequences. When a disaster strikes, people are usually exposed to health hazards. This may lead to permanent incapacitation or even death. These effects depend on their cause which could either be natural (e.g. Katrina), biological, geological (e.g. Haiti), technological (as in spills from chemicals) and Complicated emergencies such as wars. The susceptibility of a community depends on the level of urbanization, size of the population, environmental developments and climatic conditions. The long-term effects of a disaster are feared the worst, as they could paralyze a nations development and other life undertakings. Long-term effects also include economic as well as psychological consequences. Psychological impacts have been analyzed over time, and have been ascertained to be very severe. This means that, a great percentage of people who have been affected by disasters have reported serious symptoms of stress and other diagnosable psychological disorders. The common conditions include Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, anxiety, agitation, withdrawal and depression. Many people who survive devastating disasters experience unexplained and nonspecific distress, chronic sickness among other health complications. Other common diseases in disaster stricken areas include diarrhea, skin diseases, respiratory complications and vector borne diseases like malaria. When these effects are exacerbated, the productivity of the individuals is likely to go down. Those who suffer permanent injuries usually suffer worst traumas. Since the majority of people vulnerable to disasters are those who are active in life, the productivity of a nation is also likely to be affected.

According to research, disasters can completely paralyze the communication and transport system of a nation, among other necessary social infrastructure. This may put business to a halt, and thus increase the nations expenditure in catering for the circumstances, which could be in form of medical or reconstruction costs. Hurricanes and earthquakes are known to destroy numerous properties which could result to a long term economic turmoil. With many financial resources being destroyed, the gross domestic product of a nation is also likely to fall down. Efforts to rebuild an economy destroyed by such disasters are likely to last for a very long time and can strain a countrys resources, forcing it to over-rely on foreign aid.

Discussion

In reality, disasters cause more harm than good. This is because; their negative consequences supersede the positive impacts. Basically, victims of disasters are usually adversely affected, and this impact could be felt long after the disaster. Psychosocial studies reveal that, the victims of any disaster are affected by the situation differently. At first, some may appear to be confused and may have impaired attention and emotional reactions such as grief depression. These effects are later magnified into abnormal behavior such as loss of sleep, drug abuse, appetite problems and spiritual superstitions. These signs are usually transitory although they can last for a longer time in some people.

The socio-demographic loss in some areas can be unrecoverable. When structures such as health facilities and residential areas are destroyed, it may take a very long time to recover them. More often than not, individuals go through various stages of development before they can attain a decent standard of living. Business operational susceptibility is also usually very high in instances where there is no infrastructure. For instance, business managers have indicated that, very little work can be done in the absence of electricity, fuel energy and telephone communication.

Moreover, the political reactions following disastrous events can be very dangerous as they can escalate to humanitarian infringement of rights or crimes against humanity. People who have suffered a major disaster are usually very vulnerable, and any kind of social activism can result to political unrest. After the disaster, many victims tend to think that it is the right time for them to air out their grievances. Such reactions are usually fueled by the fact that the victims are exposed to a very poor quality of life as in the temporary housing. These houses could also be far from work, school and healthcare facilities causing more aggravation. This may eventually result into community conflicts. Since the victims are likely to have suffered serious property loss, they usually experience the problem of affordability of houses, shortage of food supply and inadequate space. Consequently, going through such conditions cannot be compared to the purported benefits of a disaster. Therefore, stating that disasters are beneficial to the people affected, is both uncouth and inhuman.

Conclusion

According to research, disaster victims go through a traumatizing experience, and their lives never remain the same again. Basically, the psychological impact is very hard to overcome. Even those who say that they have managed to get over a disaster never live their lives the same way they used to. Any type of disaster can be very traumatizing as they usually occur abruptly, when least expected. In addition, people lose lives and property. Although some people argue that the economic loss can be regained, this can only happen after a very long time. On the other hand, emotional trauma has an immense impact on individual victims of disaster, and is the major reason why disasters can and should not be regarded to be good, even with the little benefits that they may bring.

Reference

Lindell K. Michael and Prater S. Carla; Assessing Community Impacts of Natural Disasters. Natural Hazards Review. Pp 177  128: 2003.

Introduction

Over two decades ago, the world witnessed the most serious nuclear accidents in the history of mankind. The accident occurred on 26 April 1986, when an explosion occurred as a result of a technical mistake from the nuclear power plant. This accident changed many peoples lives as huge amount of radioactive elements were released into the atmosphere. The released radioactive materials formed huge clouds with disastrous impact all over Europe, with extensive impact being realized in the immediate surroundings where the accident occurred. Currently, these areas form major parts of Russia, and its neighbors Ukraine and Belarus, whose people are still experiencing the biggest wrath of the scientific mistake of the 20^th century.

In fact, it is estimated that the accident contaminated 125,000 sq. miles of the three countries, with accurate long term impact yet to be realized in the global arena (Cheney 5). This is because the genetic changes associated with nucleotides can never be shown in the people affected but in many of their generations to come, usually more than three. To further aggravate the matter, it was estimated that 40% of the area contaminated was initially under agricultural use, while the rest was basically natural land composed of natural forest, water bodies and some urban centers (Cheney 6).

Overview of the Accident and its Impact

The April of 1986 saw one of the most serious accidents in the history of nuclear power. This accident happened in Unit 4 of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine, formerly under the larger Soviet Union. The Chernobyl reactor vessel exploded after some technical error which led to series of fire for a period of over 10 days (Dyatloy 16). This fire caused huge amount of radioactive materials to be released into the atmosphere.

Some of the most common radioactive materials that emerged from the cloud of radioactive smoke were iodine, and caesium radionuclide materials. This smoke was felt in the larger part of Europe. The complexity of Chernobyl accident impact is mainly represented in the lifespan of many of the radioactive elements. For example, radioactive caesium- 137 is considered one of the most dangerous elements since it not only contributes to the external dose of an animal but also internal part of the bodies. Its longer lifespan (half-life of 30 years) does not make things easier either. This is why until today the element can be detected in soils and even some foods in larger parts of Europe, particularly crops grown in the Soviet Union (Karpan 41). The other common element is the radioactive iodine- 131; known to be the lead contributor to thyroid doses. However, it has a shorter lifespan as compared to radioactive caesium. The most affected region of Europe was the former Soviet Union, currently occupied by Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine.

Between 1986 and 1987, a total of 350 000 emergency workers that comprised of army, staff from the power plant, police, and firemen were all initiated into the rescue program (Karpan 42). 70% of the rescue workers were deployed in the mitigation programs that organized the people affected within the range of 30 km radius. As time went by, the number of people adversely affected by the radioactive elements was estimated to be about 600000, with the most affected ones from the immediate region where the explosion took place (Karpan 42).

The governments of the three countries have resorted to classify the areas that were affected into various levels, depending on the effects. The region is currently occupied by well over 5.million people (Fesenko 345). These areas have been classified as contaminated. Out of this number, about 400 000 people have been considered to be living in the most affected regions, classified as areas of strict radiation control (Fesenko 345). Over 115000 people of the total highly affected individuals who were evacuated immediately after 1986 from the region surrounding the power plant, defined as exclusion zone to other areas that were not contaminated (Fesenko 346). The subsequent evacuation in later years saw 220000 affected group moved to other areas.

The Actions Undertaken to Control Impact on Health

In an effort to help control the health impact of Chernobyl disaster, the governments of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine combined forces to treat and control more health consequences. This was after several children and adolescents under 18 years of age were found to be the most affected group (Chernobyl Forum 15). Many of them were treated and continuously monitored to ensure they were safe and less prone to more infections. For long term treatment and mitigation initiatives, different classes of affected people were identified:

• The first is the group of workers at the plant, both before and after the accident (these included even the rescue workers)
• The former residents of the region that was contaminated. This group was evacuated to other safe regions, but after already inhaling the radioactive materials
• The residents of the contaminated regions that were never evacuated because it was assumed that they were not adversely exposed to danger (Chernobyl Forum 11).

Factory workers at the time of the accident as well as rescue team were the most affected groups as they were the immediate people to come face to face with highly concentrated radioactive elements. This is because they were the immediate people at the accident scene. They were totaled at 1000 people and were the immediate people who came at the scene of the accident, making some of the most fatal cases of the health impact of the accidents (Chernobyl Forum 5). To help the affected groups cope, emergency measures were taken, with the affected group getting more access to wider range of healthcare services (Belarus Foreign Ministry 3). Other long-term measures have also been taken are rehabilitation of the contaminated areas to reduce more possible health problems to the residence. It is noted that these rehabilitation programs are still on going to date.

These mitigation measures were spearheaded by the national authorities of the respective countries, supported by the international community under the banner of World Health Organization. This significantly helped reduce the health consequences associated with the accident. For example, the people who were exposed to the radioactive elements ingested contaminated foods that were grown in the region of the accident (Yablokov 14). This is considering the fact that 40% of the affected region was under agricultural use. According to the Belarus government report, those diagnosed with thyroid doses exhibited different levels of the element ingestion, attributed to the level of closeness the person was with the factory, and what type of food they ate (Yablokov 16). For instance, Yablokov (16) states that when people from Pripyat City, situated just immediately next to the power plant at Chernobyl were tested after being subjected to iodine tablets treatments, the rate of poisoning reduced significantly. It was established that children who consumed milk produced locally around the region of accident showed high level of thyroid doses, indicating that animals too ingested the radioactive elements through fodder (Yablokov 16). This is the reason why so many children in the region were diagnosed with thyroid cancer.

The process of decontamination, especially during the early years after the accident, proved successful in minimizing the external doses. This was followed by remediation process in later years. The pasture land of the affected areas was excluded from use to feed the livestock. The governments therefore regulated the fodder for animals, effectively adopting the clean fodder programs for the three countries (Chernobyl Forum 21).

Research and Development

The Chernobyl accident provoked the need for research on what can lead to such events and their impacts. Even though it is unclear how many deaths occurred from this accident, various researches have been conducted to establish the possible consequences of such an accident. Some people believe that thousands of lives have been lost since the accident occurred. But because there is no express data to back-up the claims, it has remained more of a speculation than a fact. In fact, confusion that has emanated from this lack of clear and authentic information about Chernobyl mortality is largely as a result of the fact that since the accident, several people have died from several illness that have been found not to be linked to the disaster or radiation from the nuclear reaction. The general agreement is that given the nature of the disaster and the impact it created, many people including the local residents believe that most of the cancer related diseases are as a result of this accident. This belief is backed by the documented evidences of deaths that occurred within the same year of the accident.

Deaths as a result of acute radiation syndrome were considered one of the biggest set-back to the rescue team. There is well documented information about mortality within the first year of the accident. Out of this statistical information, it was revealed that majority of these deaths came from acute radiation syndrome (Yablokov 49). It was reported that about 130 members of emergency operation team were diagnosed with the syndrome, which lead to their deaths (Yablokov 50).

Another serious output of the accident on diseases and mortality was as a result of cancer related problems. However, the researchers nightmare has been to accurately measure the number of deaths that have been caused by this particular accidents cancer-related incidents. A group of experts from an international community have strived to study the actual impact of this accident. They have therefore come up with their projections that are expected to be used for future public health planning for the victims. According to this group, the 600,000 people exposed to higher degree of radiation, comprised of liquidators, those who involved themselves in evacuation exercise, the evacuated lot, and inhabitants of the most contaminated regions had the highest chance of dying from cancer-related illness (Chernobyl Forum 11). In addition, researchers have predicted that there is possibility of an increased four thousand fatal cancers in addition to over one hundred thousand fatal cancers predicted to come from the entire population of the region (Fesenko 346).

These predictions were made on the basis of other past experiences of studies on some other separate populations exposed to the similar radiation. For example, the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been used to predict the possible outcome of the Chernobyl accident (Fesenko 346). However, many experts have disputed the applicability of this form of prediction due to the fact that the people posses different lifestyle, environmental surroundings and different levels of exposure.

The International Cooperation on Chernobyl Disaster Mitigation

The Chernobyl accident signified a unique unity that the international community can achieve within the shortest time possible. It led to the cooperation of people from around the world, who manage to come together at individual levels, groups, organizations of medical practitioners, scientists, and many other people came together to do something that would help reduce the impact, specifically helping the affected people recover from the problem (Belarus Foreign Ministry 5).

This international cooperation has assisted the affected people cope with the consequences caused by the disaster. Additionally, such unity showed how international community can come together in such incidences and bring the needed change to the possible future occurrences. The experience gained here can be used to solve other disasters in other countries. It is critical to note that the findings from the forum are part and parcel of the larger efforts to overcome the impacts created by the disaster. This is important because the findings were based on the environmental, health, social, medical, and economic aspects (Belarus Foreign Ministry 4)

In 2003, Chernobyl Forum was created to help gather knowledge and much information about the disaster. After it operated for close to two years, the forum had gathered many other organizations under its umbrella. These included International Atomic Energy Agency, World Health organization, United Nations Development Program, and many other organizations that had developed interests to come in with a helping hand in knowledge gathering initiatives.

The Initiative to Mitigate Social Impact

The Chernobyl accident exposed the entire population of the regions of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine to several sociological changes. The psychological setup of many people changed as a result of this problem. In fact, many did not want to give birth anymore as there was a general belief that their offspring would be affected by the change in genetic make-up that was believed to be one of the causes of the problem (Fesenko 348). This belief led to many stillbirths, abortions, and problems in delivery which caused many children to develop adverse health complications. In other words, birth rates have been lower in the contaminated regions as a result of many interrelated reasons. The first is the belief that children born in the region immediately and sometime after the accident would have natural defects out of genetic transformation. This is what many feared as hereditary impact of the accident. The other reason is the fact many people had moved away from the region to escape any further defects associated with the accident. This phenomenon changed the social contact between the formerly knit family and friends.

To help the affected families, children recuperation programs were initiated through the establishment of rehabilitation centers in many European countries like Germany, Spain, and Canada. This helped them gain stable mental conditions as they were warranted to get safe access to medical, counseling and many other social support services to help them adapt and cope.

However, the classification of people from the regions affected as sufferers or Chernobyl victims did not help in salvaging the little psychological stability needed to make positively greater mental stability (Mycio 39). The branding of these individuals has been associated with the fact that most rehabilitation programs were in foreign countries around Europe. Basically, this kind of branding of the victims has been criticized by some social workers who believe that such entitlement had a gross impact on the people of this region as they could not think of themselves as able people. According to Mycio (44), peoples perception can influence how they act and even how they perceive themselves, eventually perpetuating the problem further.

Therefore, the need to develop more rehabilitation centers within the most affected regions of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. So far, there is some progress in terms of children rehabilitation programs in the foreign nations (Belarus Foreign Ministry 5). The requirements that only countries with special agreements with the governments of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine are to be considered as members of the rehabilitation teams have been enforced. Still, there is serious need to concentrate more into local rehabilitation programs as this will be more accommodative to the victims than being attended to in foreign nations.

The Environmental Consequences

The environmental impact of Chernobyl has been termed as the most serious nuclear accident problem, with adverse long term effects. It involves areas such as radioactive elements released into the environment, the transfer of radionuclide, the radiation-related impact on plants and animals, impact on shelter as well as soil contamination.

Radionuclide substances were released from the explosion of unit 4 for a period of 10 days, leading to massive smoke of elements. Some of the substances released into the environment comprised of radioactive gases, aerosols, and some particles of gas petroleum fuel. Among the total gases released into the atmosphere, noble gases constitute 50% and slightly more than 70% of the total 200,000 sq. kilometers affected was in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine (Mycio 44). The effect was worsened by the rain that pounded the region when the mass of aerosols moved through the atmosphere. The rain helped spread the depositions to as far as 100km away from factory (Mycio 45).

Although most of the radioactive elements that were deposited had a short time span, the destructions they caused within their shortest half-life period was enough to raise eyebrows. Of the most concern was the release of iodine substances, known to take very long period before decay.

Containment of Urban Regions Contamination

Urban areas that were highly contaminated had great environmental impacts in the long run due to human occupation. Several surfaces like lawns, parks, highways, roofs of several buildings as well as walls were highly affected (Fesenko 348). During dry seasons, trees, bushes and lawns were so affected with chemical contaminations drying them up. The chemicals mainly contaminated the soils during wet seasons (Fesenko 349). Highly concentrated carbon elements were found deposited around buildings, where the rain had deposited them.

These chemical deposits in urban areas led by Pripyat City were enormous. However, long term initiatives initiated by the governments helped reduce the overall impact of its dangers (Fesenko 349). The most prominent urban countermeasure was settlement decontamination in the early years after the accident. This was mainly prominent in the first year of the disaster, when there was a need to protect the public from external exposure to radioactive elements.

Protection of Forest Contamination

After the Chernobyl accident, several forested lands were contaminated in the region surrounding the factory plant. Vegetation and animals have shown signs of huge amount of uptake of radiocaesium (Dyatloy 89). This was perpetuated by the continuous recycling of this element within the forest ecosystem which comprises of micro and macro-environment. In fact, high uptakes of these chemical elements were detected in the mushrooms, berries, and in game meat. Unfortunately, these contaminated wild foods were highly consumed by humans and animals (Dyatloy 89). It is even noted that high level of contamination continues to worry many in the region as the elements are recycled in the forest ecosystem. This is particularly rampant in some areas in Belarus, which had the highest section of the forest land contaminated. It is expected that the problem is likely to continue for some decades to come as decaying of some radioactive elements take longer. Relatively, the significance of forest in carrying on with the radiological activities and exposing the population is expected to continue for awhile in the affected countries.

The first initiative to protect the forested land was to ensure there was adequate legislation on the use of forest resources. Because forest ecosystem has resilience and the ability to recycle and spread the radioactive elements to ineffective level, they governments of the three countries faced difficulties when they attempted to communicate the initiatives to the public (Dyatloy 174). The lack of sufficient communication, coupled with huge financial costs had made the whole process of forest protection unattainable. The public could not trust the government, hence spreading the fear of greater negative impact awaiting the people.

The ensuing demand by many countries outside Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine was that they carry their own investigations on how they could deal with such problems, especially when they wanted to increase communication with the public on matters associated with forest resource protection. In summery, the best approach to minimizing public-state mistrust during such disasters is to improve every communication efforts with stakeholders.

The lessons learnt in the process of mitigation suggest that there is always the need to apply the restrictions to the use of various activities carried out in forest land during such disasters in a wider context. This is because the only countries that applied the restrictions were the most affected nations of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. The confusion was when the rest of European countries relied solely on data from these three countries. Notably, the initial data suggested that it was only specific nations forests that were affected. However, more investigations in later times suggests that the larger part of Europe suffered significantly in terms of their forest resource contamination

In fact, the Chernobyl accident has provided a unique lesson on how to deal with communication issues, especially that which involve natural resource destruction and mitigation process.

The Containment of Aquatic Environment Contamination

The water bodies around the accident region were contaminated by the radioactive elements. This is probably due to the easy spread of elements carried by water, the contaminated water bodies affected many parts of Europe, subsequently interfering with aquatic life and all those mammals dependent on it. The earlier levels of contamination was basically as a result of direct deposition of radionuclide elements on water surfaces, comprised of rivers, lakes, seas, and oceans (Karpan 7). The seriousness of the contamination was more evident in the first few weeks of the accident, where there were a lot of radioactive elements in drinking water. This was particularly serious in Kyiv Reservoir where the level of contamination threatened the lives of many who depended on it (Yablokov 213).

Although the level of concentration of contaminated water bodies went down significantly after some time due to dilution and physical decay of radioactive elements, the deposited sediments are still posing the strongest long term risks to the ecosystem (Fesenko 349). For example, aquatic animals like fish that were taken from the rivers and lakes around the region tested high concentration of radioactive elements in the long run, forcing the authority to ban their consumption. This presence of contaminated fish was detected in places as far as Germany and other Scandinavian countries. The water bodies in Ukraine, for example were particularly most affected of all the regions. It is predicted that the fish from this region will remain contaminated for longer period of time, estimated to go for as far as decades to come.

Conclusion

The necessary countermeasures have been recommended to prevent any occurrence of such a problem. The first problem that was realized after the accident was lack of proper information to the population that lived around the plant. It was noted that there was no adequate information on the mass media on how people would avoid being at more risk for as long as 2 years or adequate measures to help out in any associated future problems.

Generally, the main objective of remedial measures is to avoid any further problems associated with such problems in the future. Other than adequate information to the population, other recommendations that have been made are based on the perspective of human mitigation. In other words, the best way to prevent more adverse effects of such an accident is to ensure there is more vigilance towards the needed safety measures in factories. The other precaution is to avoid settlement of people around these areas such that the possible impact is reduced. This is one approach that can help reduce the number of affected people. Again it is important to avoid areas that are known to carry a lot of significant environmental resources, agricultural land and any other resource that if destroyed would significantly destroy the ecosystem.

In summery, future efforts to prevent the impacts of a similar disaster is to invest more in public information, considering the misconceptions that surrounded the Chernobyl disaster. This will also help the public adopt sustainable approaches to managing disaster, through individual or group initiatives.

Works Cited

Belarus Foreign Ministry. Chernobyl Disaster: Why are the consequences still observed? And why is the international assistance still critical? Belarus Foreign Ministry, 2009. Web.

Cheney, Glenn. Journey to Chernobyl: Encounters in a Radioactive Zone. Chicago. Academy of Chicago. 1995.

Chernobyl Forum. Environmental Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident and Their Remediation: Twenty Years of Experience. Chernobyl Forum Expert Group Environment. Vienna. International Atomic Energy Agency, 2006.

Dyatloy, Anatoly. Chernobyl. How did it happen? Moscow. Nauchtechlitizdat. 2003.

Fesenko, Sergey. Twenty years application of agricultural countermeasures following

Chernobyl Accident: Lessons Learnt. Journal of Radiological Protection, 2006, Vol 26, No. 4, pp 344-349.

Karpan, Nikolaj. Chernobyl Vengeance of Peaceful Atom. Chernobyl. IKK. 2006.

Mycio, Mary. Wormwood forest: A natural history of Chernobyl. Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press. 2005.

Yablokov, Busby. Chernobyl: 20 Years On. Aberystwyth, UK. Green Audit Press. 2006.

Disasters strike when least expected, and when they happen, communities should be readily prepared to respond appropriately. Disaster preparedness involves predicting, preventing (where possible), mitigating their impact on the affected populations, responding, and coping with the consequences of catastrophes. In other words, authorities and other stakeholders should have elaborate measures in place to prepare for disasters and reduce their effects. Therefore, in a bid to plan comprehensively, various models of disaster management are applied depending on the underlying circumstances. The objective of disaster management is to design a realistic and executable coordinated planning that minimizes duplication of functions and optimizes the overall effectiveness in response to catastrophes.

The National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF) by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is the generally accepted model used to guide recovery efforts by supporting the affected states, communities, territories, and local jurisdictions. The NDRF has six recovery support systems focusing on community planning and capacity building (CPCB), the economy, health and social services, housing, infrastructure, and natural and cultural resources. FEMA uses the Incident Control System (ICS), which is management system designed to enable effective and efficient domestic incident management by integrating a combination of facilities, equipment, personnel, procedures, and communications operating within a common organizational structure (FEMA, 2018, para. 2). The ICS is designed to facilitate planning, intelligence and investigations, operations, logistics, command, and finance and administration. Therefore, by the time a disaster strikes, the involved parties are adequately prepared and equipped to minimize the impacts on communities. This paper is an assessment of disaster preparedness in Nassau County, New York. It also discusses the countys preparedness to respond to COVID-19.

Nassau Countys Disaster Preparedness

The Office of Emergency Management (OEM) is tasked with disaster preparedness in Nassau County. This department has 20 full-time civil servants working in various areas of expertise, such as planning, operations, training, human resources, logistics, and finance, among other related fields, but it does not have section chiefs. The OEM seeks to support emergency response plans that have already been established by various authorities including Homeland Security, State Police, and the Fire Department. Therefore, OEMs work is to support the various agencies involved in disaster preparedness. The OEM has an Operations Center where all county decision-makers, including the towns Homeland Security, police, fire, MTA, PSEG (electric company), TSA, Department of Health, and the local cable, among other stakeholders, meet for planning whether for marathons, fire incidents, the collapse of buildings, or a hurricane.

Therefore, when a disaster occurs, all the involved stakeholders converge at the Operations Center to initiate the response protocols and make urgent and critical decisions on the best way to contain the incident and minimize its impacts on the affected populations. Nassau County has a Citizens Alert system, which is used to communicate to all residents by sending a warning about impending disaster coupled with advising people on what to do under such circumstances. The system uses various channels of communication, including social media and mobile phones. However, planning for disaster response involves different aspects to ensure that the community is fully equipped on how to handle various occurrences.

As such, the OEM works in partnership with other agencies to create awareness in the communities. For instance, the Citizen Corp Council-Nassau is involved in training, education, and volunteering to ensure that every individual is prepared to respond to crime, public health issues, terrorism and other disasters. The Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) provides on-going education to individuals and communities in the region on the best ways to respond during crises. CERT members support first-line responders when a disaster occurs. Similarly, the Contingency Planning Exchange, Inc. (CPE), which is a professional association, keeps the community informed about emerging disaster management techniques through various educational programs.

The Medical Reserve Corps, an elaborate network of volunteers, Works to improve the overall health and well-being of their communities by engaging in appropriate public health initiatives throughout the year (Long Island, 2020, para. 6). The Pet Safe Program ensures that animals are secured during disasters by preparing owners through education, while the Police Information Network increases public awareness and safety by releasing critical and timely information. Additionally, other agencies, such as the Red Cross, are involved in the collaborative efforts to ensure that people are sufficiently prepared to respond to disasters and minimize the impacts should any catastrophe occur. Therefore, Nassau County has established the needed systems for disaster preparedness, but some areas could be improved as discussed in the next section.

Nassau County Preparedness for COVID-19

The countys response to the novel COVID-19 is in tandem with guidelines issued by the State of New York. While frontline responders, especially the medical teams, are working hard to ensure extensive testing and appropriately caring for the affected, the County has rolled out several initiatives to support locals and minimize the impacts of the outbreak. One of the strengths of the current system is effective communication. The first step has been the widespread creation of awareness about the disease, how it spreads, and how it can be prevented. With the help of Senator Anna. M. Kaplan, the County has created the Nassau Coronavirus Update, which is a daily newsletter providing important information and resources that are available to the locals (Kaplan, 2020). In addition, the Nassau County Health Department has established a hotline to ensure constant communication with various stakeholders, such as schools, care workers, and providers, together with delivering important information. Another strong point is the concerted collaboration with other agencies and stakeholders. Schools have been closed in accordance with Governor Cuomos executive order.

Additionally, the county is also working closely with members of the society to ensure that stores do not hike prices, and such incidences should be reported through [email protected]. (Long Beach Island, 2020). The authorities have also partnered with Island Harvest, which runs various food banks around the county in a bid to support locals who have been adversely affected by the outbreak. Similarly, the countys Veterans Services Agency continues to offer critical services to the relevant individuals as a way of mitigating the effects of the disease. For instance, Nassau Countys Vet Mart provides food to deserving veterans, and in case, one is not in a position to get to the center, volunteers deliver the items at the doorstep. The Nassau County Executive, Laura Curran, has created a Coronavirus Economic Advisory Council to evaluate the countywide impact of the outbreak on businesses (NYSCA, 2020). These actions are consistent with FEMAs Incident Command System (ICS).

However, one of the areas that need improvement is the issue of contact tracing. According to CDC (2020), in contact tracing, public health staff work with a patient to help them recall everyone with whom they have had close contact during the timeframe while they may have been infectious (para. 4). However, in Nassau County, this issue is not executed comprehensively, hence the need for improvement. However, the county is set to benefit from the initiative by former New York City Mayor, Mike Bloomberg, which seeks to form an a tracing army of volunteers tasked with tracing individuals that have interacted with people who test positive for the disease (Failla, 2020). Volunteers that will be involved in the contact tracing exercise could benefit from FEMA courses on disaster assistance, the CDCs COVID -19 contact tracing training, and other resources available online, such as the COVID-19 contact tracing resources.

As a counselor, educator, and a leader in my community, I could play a central role before, during, and after disaster response. Before a disaster happens, I could educate those around me on how to be prepared to respond effectively if a catastrophe occurs. During the disaster, I would continue creating awareness by advising people on the best way to respond. After the crisis, I would counsel those affected and help them resume their normal lives using the knowledge that I have gained through my learning.

Conclusion

Nassau County has responded to the COVID-19 remarkably by rolling out various initiatives in line with its OEM protocols. The county is working closely with other stakeholders to ensure that all the necessary measures are put in place to combat the pandemic. Communication has been effective to sensitize the communities about the disease and how it could be prevented. However, the issue of contact tracing should be improved, but plans are underway to recruit volunteers to facilitate the exercise. Overall, Nassau County has responded appropriately to the COVID-19 pandemic.

References

CDC. (2020). Contact tracing: Part of a multipronged approach to fight the COVID-19 pandemic. Web.

Failla, Z. (2020). COVID-19: Building tracing army Of thousands will be new phase of pandemic response. Daily Voice. Web.

FEMA. (2018). Incident command system resources. .

Kaplan, A. M. (2020). Coronavirus (Covid-19) community resources. The New York State Senate. Web.

Long Beach Island. (2020). COVID-19 coronavirus update. Web.

Long Island. (2020). Emergency preparedness.

NYSCA. (2020). COVID-19 Blog: Counties Innovating in Response to COVID-19. Web.

The Atlantic hurricane occurs from June 1 to November 30. It peaks sharply from late August to September, in most cases the season is at the highest point around September 10. Tornadoes are least active in June but most active in September. Tropical cyclones are formed in the Caribbean Sea, Atlantic Ocean, and the Gulf of Mexico, they are characterized by torrential downpours, whipping winds, floods, and power outages. Loss of property is experienced during storm landfall.

The intensity of a hurricane is measured on a scale of 1 to 5 using Saffir-Simpson. One represent the least severe and 5 is the strongest. A cyclone wind traveling at a speed of 39 to 73 mph is a tropical storm (Ghose, 2019). Increase in the wind speed to about 74 to 95 mph forms grade 1 hurricane. Category 2 and 3 wind storms are sustained at 96 to 110 mph and 111 to 129 mph respectively. Grade 4 wind intensity is 130 to 156 mph and finally, the highest is at grade 5, which is 157 mph.

This year hurricane season is accompanied by the LaNiña climate pattern, six storms including Tropical Storm Fay in North Carolina have been spawned already this year. Tropical Storm Cristina, which sustained 65 mph affected the Eastern Pacific region followed by Tropical Storm Edouard (Ghose, 2019) Tropical Fay caused heavy rain and gusty wind in southern New England and the mid-Atlantic coast. Tropical Bertha and Arthur stormed the eastern U.S shoreline in May while the Atlantic region was hit by Cristobal in June. Cyclone Dolly affected the United States and Mexico on June 20, it was a grade 3 hurricane although it did not create a landfall. The two storms to be experienced next are Hannah and Gonzalo.

Reference

Ghose, T. (2019). Hurricane season: How long it lasts and what to expect. Live Science. Web.

Southern Europe flash floods are the most recent significant event. The October 23, 2019, flash floods caused havoc in Italy and Spain, killing dozens of people while many others were missing. A social scientist would describe flash floods as a natural disaster caused by an enormous amount of water collected quickly, which forces water bodies such as rivers and oceans to overflow their banks (Chen & Yang, 2020). Thus, people need to learn about the cause and effects of flooding and apply the knowledge to protect themselves.

Floods have occurred for many years and have been causing devastating effects on humanity. Terry et al. (2020) note that the world has experienced increased flooding over the past three decades, although more than 90 percent of deaths and economic losses have occurred in Asia. Moreover, the climatic change caused the sea-level rise and various calamities, increased storm surges, and flooding, especially in the coastlines. A biographers explanation would link the events cause with the increased moisture and temperature brought inland by the reversing strong winds resulting in massive and widespread stormy clouds (Rozario, 2019). Currently, the global population is witnessing excessive heating leading to the frequency of extreme and irregular weather patterns.

Moreover, many cities in my community are now trying to implement disaster mitigation strategies to minimize deaths and the loss of property. More than ever, the authorities have allocated funds for the scientific study of disasters such as locating and timing earthquakes and Satellite-Based Sensors which sense and measure vibrations. Nevertheless, many people in Southern Europe were affected by floods when they occurred, but they still offered help to victims severely affected by the neighborhoods flash floods. Generally, the calamity raised awareness because individuals are now more conscious that natural disasters are likely to occur at any time, thus, upgrading surveillance and willingness to help each other.

References

Chen, Z., & Yang, G. (2020). Multiscale variability of historical meteorological droughts and floods in the middle Yangtze River basin, China. Natural Hazards Review, 21(4), 04020036.

Rozario, K. (2019). The culture of calamity: Disaster and the making of modern America. University of Chicago Press.

Terry, J. P., Winspear, N., & Goff, J. (2020). Is Bangkok at risk of marine flooding? Evidence relating to the historical floods of AD 1785 and 1983. Natural Hazards, 1-18.

The purpose of this fire disaster plan is to guide the given skilled nursing facility on fire emergency procedures to protect the lives and property of staff, residents, and visitors. Disaster planning in this skilled nursing facility is the responsibility of the facility Administrator. The Administrator delegates authority to the members of the Administration, who then assign responsibilities to other staff members. The Administrator, or the senior administrative employee in the Administrators absence, is responsible for making decisions concerning the location of the disaster, the number of residents to be evacuated, and the emergency plan implementation. The fire disaster plan is developed by the Michigan Disaster Preparedness Guidelines (2012).

Surveillance

Pre-emergency measures should be taken to ensure the preparedness of the facility for the disaster and the staffs ability to identify key signs of the emergency. For external fires, these measures include:

1. Monitoring local alert systems and regional news for evacuation instructions.
2. Monitoring residents and staff members to identify conditions related to smoke exposure.
3. Establishing partnerships with organizations responsible for addressing fire emergencies in the immediate and surrounding communities.

Pre-emergency measures for internal fires include:

1. Assessing the potential vulnerabilities of the facility.
2. Ensuring that the facility emergency warning system is available and functioning.
3. Ensuring that all staff members are trained to identify the signs of fire, report the emergency, and respond to the emergency according to their assigned roles.

Every member of the facility staff is responsible for taking measures to prevent the internal fire emergency. Below, there is a list of hazards and the rules that should be applied to them:

• Smoking:

1. Allow smoking only in the permitted place and time; stop those who violate this rule.
2. Cover trash cans to prevent careless smokers from throwing fresh cigarette butts inside.
3. Empty trash cans daily.

• Chemicals:

1. Store chemicals properly in ventilated areas.
2. Do not smoke while using chemicals.

• Electrical system:

1. Do not overload electrical outlets.
2. Repair defective elements of the electric system, such as plugs that heat up or frayed wires, in a timely manner.

• Oxygen:

1. Forbid smoking in the areas where oxygen is used or stored.
3. Do not rub residents with alcohol or oil before or during their receiving oxygen.
4. Unplug unnecessary electrical appliances while using oxygen.

Response

The response to the fire emergency should be initiated as soon as one notices the signs of the emergency  fire or smoke. Upon the detection of these signs, one should follow the instructions:

1. Rescue individuals in immediate danger and move them to the closest safe place.
2. Activate fire alarm and call 9-1-1 to report a fire.
3. Contain the fire by closing doors.
4. Extinguish the fire if possible.

A fire extinguisher should be used only by a person who is trained to use it and only when its capacity in extinguishing the fire is certain. When using a fire extinguisher, one should follow the instructions:

1. Pull the safety pin.
2. Aim the fire extinguisher at the base of the fire.
3. Squeeze the trigger handle to release the agent.
4. Sweep the stream from side to side, pointing it at the base of the fire.
5. Use the extinguisher while standing near the door to be able to leave the room if the fire becomes uncontrollable.

Evacuation is necessary only when the lives of residents, visitors, or staff members are in danger. The Administrator is responsible for giving an order to evacuate. Individuals should be evacuated from the facility using evacuation routes, with which every member of the staff should be familiar. The ambulatory residents should be evacuated first; wheelchair should be evacuated next, and totally dependent residents should be removed in the last turn.

Communications

During the fire emergency, the primary means of communication is the telephone. Therefore, no employee should use the telephone for purposes other than responding to the fire emergency as long as the response continues. According to the Michigan Disaster Preparedness Guidelines (2012), all relevant staff should be promptly notified of the fire emergency. Hence, the Administrations should have 24-hour contact information for all key staff, including home telephone, pager, cell phone, and email, as well as a telephone tree system or emergency notification software (Michigan Disaster Preparedness Guidelines, 2012, p. 3). Contact information should be checked regularly to make sure that key staff members can be reached in case of an emergency.

Security

In order to ensure security during the fire emergency, it is necessary to attempt to contain the fire. If the fire is small, it can be contained by being covered with a thick blanket. In order to inhibit the spread of fire, it is necessary to close doors and windows after leaving the immediate danger areas. Once a person who noticed the signs of the fire disaster notified the Administrator of the emergency, the Administrator should rapidly appoint staff members responsible for responding to the emergency.

Education

All employees should be familiar with evacuation routes, the location of alarms and fire extinguishers, and emergency phone numbers. To familiarize the employees with this information, the facility may use posters. Employees and residents should also be trained to use the emergency warning system and fire extinguishers. Apart from that, each shift should participate in fire drills once per quarter, and the drills should take place at varied times. Every training session and fire drill should be documented to reveal issues that should be included in the improvement plan for the fire emergency education program.

Reference

Michigan Disaster Preparedness Guidelines. (2012). Web.

Introduction

The coast of the United States in general and Texas in particular experiences tropical storms on a regular basis. Hurricanes hit the Texas coastline, often causing property damage on different scales and, sometimes, fatal casualties. However, some of the hurricanes in the history of the Lone Star state mandate special attention due to the unprecedented magnitude of destruction and death they brought. If one searches for the worst hurricane to hit the United States, one should look no further than the Great Storm of 1900 that nearly wiped Galveston, Texas, off the map. More recently, devastating Hurricane Harvey of 2017 had also caused widespread destruction, property damage, and multiple deaths. Comparing and contrasting these two natural disasters and their effects on each other illustrate how different technological and organizational advances help in countering natural disasters. The impact of Hurricane Harvey when compared to that of the Great Storm reveals the effectiveness of the warning system and advantages of modern communications combined with historical experience, although property damage still stays extensive.

Main body

The most apparent criterion to access the damage caused by a natural disaster is the number of fatal casualties  and in this respect, the Great Storm of 1900 remains the deadliest in American history. Precise estimations of the casualties differ due to the imperfection of the statistics. However, there is a consensus that no less than 6,000 people lost their lives when the hurricane hit (Weller et al. 1). Others raise the estimate as high as 8,000 deaths, but, in any case, the Great Storm of 1900 remains, by far, the deadliest hurricane in American history (Weller et al. 1). One may attribute these unprecedented casualties to the magnitude of the event  according to some estimations, the Storm of 1900 was no less than a five-category storm (Weller et al. 1). Still, the vast numbers of the dead suggest that the storms power cannot be the only explanation, and other factors likely contributed to the death toll as well. The most important of those was the fact that the hurricane struck the coastline unprepared due to the absence of an early warning system.

When compared to the Great Storm of 1900, Hurricane Harvey of 2017, for all its damage, still reveals a much more positive picture in terms of fatal casualties. According to the report by the National Hurricane Center, this time, the number of deaths amounted to dozens rather than thousands. Hurricane Harvey had caused 68 direct death in Texas, mostly in Harris country, where the damage was the worst (Blake and Zelinsky, p. 46). With 68 dead, Harvey was the deadliest hurricane in Texas in almost a century  specifically, since the cyclone of 1919 (Blake and Zelinsky, p. 1). Still, even these casualties are approximately 100 times lower than those in suffered the Great Storm of 1900. These comparatively low casualties speak of the efficiency of the early warning system. National Hurricane Center began providing direct support to emergency managers on 22 August  approximately two days before the hurricane hit Texas  and continued providing it until 30 August (Blake and Zelinsky, p. 13). Hence, Texas was much better prepared for Hurricane Harvey than it was for the Galveston Hurricane, and lower casualties speak for the effectiveness of the warning system created between 1900 and 2017.

One of the reasons why Texas was able to meet and endure Hurricane Harvey without such catastrophic casualties was the rapid advance in communications throughout the 20th and early 21st centuries. To begin with, Texans of 2017 had extensive access to telephone communications, which provided for the better and more effective sharing of relevant information. However, Hurricane Harvey is also notable as one of the first large-scale hurricanes where the Internet and, specifically, social networks played a prominent role (King, p. 22). Even though the state government advised the citizens to use traditional lines of communication like 911, these were quickly overwhelmed by the sheer number of calls (King, p. 22). Under these circumstances, the people turned to social networks to obtain or distribute information (King, p. 22). As one can see, the Texans of 2017 had means of communication vastly superior to those available to their predecessors in 1900. Even with 911 lines overwhelmed, they still had a way of sharing information almost instantaneously, which contributed to decreasing the overall risks and casualties. Thus, comparing the Great Storm and Hurricane Harvey reveals immense progress in communication technologies.

Another factor that contributed to much better preparedness in 2017 than in 1900 was the historical experience. While early warning systems and communications are crucial, none of these will matter if they fail to convince the people to evacuate in time. In this respect, the Galveston Hurricane of 1900 played an unexpectedly positive role. When interviewing those who have evacuated in time to escape Hurricane Harvey, Weller et al. established that the knowledge of the 1900 storm was one of the factors that influenced their decision to leave (p. 6). The most frequently mentioned reasons to go were having a secure place or the desire to protect family members, but the Great Storm had its shape of mentions as well (Weller et al , p. 6). People cited their knowledge of the Storm of 1900 as a reason to leave just as frequently as the fact that they lived alone, in a low place, or had a handicapped family member (Weller et al, p.  6). Hence, one of the reasons why Hurricane Harvey had a much smaller body count than the hurricane in Galveston was the Hurricane in Galveston itself  or, more accurately, the historical memory of it.

Another critical impact to compare is the property damage associated with both hurricanes, and the Great Storm of 1900 appears catastrophic in this respect as well. Naturally, it would be wrong to access its damage in the prices of its time and then compare it face-to-face with the material damage dealt by Hurricane Harvey. The US dollars of 1900 and 2017 have different purchasing power, and the accurate comparison of property damage in both cases has to account for this fact. Fortunately, Weinkle et al. calculated the property damage for 197 hurricanes from 1900 to 2017 and normalized it in 2018 US dollars. According to them, the damage caused by the Galveston Hurricane of 1900 amounted to $138.6 billion in current prices (Weinkle et al.). This fact makes the Great Storm not only the deadliest but also one of the costliest hurricanes in the history of the United States, second only to the Miami Hurricane of 1926 (Weinkle et al.). Considering this, one may conclude that the hurricane of 1900 in Galveston was virtually unprecedented in terms of both human casualties and property damage.

Hurricane Harvey proved less harmful in this respect as well, but the damage was still extensive. In 2018 prices, the losses incurred due to the hurricane amounted to no less than $62.2 billion (Weinkle et al.). While this number is more than two times lower than the tremendous damage of the Great Storm, it is, nevertheless, one of the costliest hurricanes in American history as well. In the rating of the most devastating hurricanes from 1900 to 2017, it occupies the 8th position  a clear enough testimony of its magnitude (Weinkle et al.). Thus, comparing the hurricane of 1900 in Galveston and Hurricane Harvey in terms of property damage reveals that material consequences of large-scale tropical storms remain disastrous regardless of the time period.

Conclusion

As one can see, comparing the Great Storm of 1900 in Galveston, Texas, and Hurricane Harvey illustrates considerable advances in saving peoples lives, while the property damage still amounts to dozens of billions of dollars. The Great Storm of 1900 caused from 6,000 to 8,000 fatal casualties and became the most deadly hurricane in American history due to the combination of its power and unprepared population. Hurricane Harvey, on the other hand, resulted only in 68 direct deaths in Texas, which testifies for the significant advances in the early warning and timely evacuation. One of the factors contributing to the significant reduction in body count is modern communication technologies ranging from telephones to the Internet and social networks. Another essential factor is the Galveston Hurricane itself, as the historical memories of it motivated Texans to evacuate in a timely fashion. However, in terms of property damage, the two hurricanes demonstrate no striking difference, and the losses still amount to dozens of billions of dollars in 1900 as well as in 2017.

References

Blake, Eric C., and David A. Zelinsky. National Hurricane Center Tropical Cyclone Report: Hurricane Harvey. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

King, Larry J. Social Media Use During Natural Disasters: An Analysis of Social Media Usage During Hurricanes Harvey. University of Central Florida.

Weinkle, Jessica, et al. Normalized Hurricane Damage in the Continental United States 19002017. Nature Sustainability, vol. 1, 2018, pp. 808-813.

Weller, Susan C., et al. Should I Stay or Should I Go? Response to the Hurricane Ike Evacuation Order on the Texas Gulf Coast. Natural Hazards Review, vol. 17, no. 3, 2016, pp. 1-12.

The development of a disaster preparedness plan is a priority for all states, and Miami, Florida, is no exception to the rule. The initiative intended to deal with events that can threaten the health of communities is known as the Public Preparedness Plan Program, and it combines all activities aimed at addressing such hazards (Public Health Preparedness, n.d.). However, to ensure the proper work of this program, it is vital to consider various elements. They include its accessibility and understanding by citizens, appropriate management of information, informatics tools that can be used, and the advantages and disadvantages of crowdsourced social media for this purpose.

Accessibility of the Plan and Its Understanding by Citizens

The first component of the plan assessment is the accessibility of data for healthcare specialists and citizens. From this perspective, the program of Miami, Florida, seems to be quite efficient. On the website, one can easily find information on emergency management and public preparedness (Emergency management, n.d.). It is divided into sections facilitating the search for specific details and ensuring the provision of comprehensive instructions for each particular case of emergency. They include evacuation, community work, healthcare facilities, preparation for various events, and the actions during disasters (Emergency management, n.d.). Hence, all types of necessary data are accessible to communities and their members.

Moreover, the presented information covers all possibilities regarding emergencies related to specific occasions and promotes its understanding by people. They can easily find detailed instructions on how to act in each particular situation. Thus, for example, in the case of a disaster, the website recommends following the directions such as finding a shelter, taking care of pets, reporting damage, recovering, and others (Emergency management, n.d.). All these categories are divided into steps that one should take while pursuing the goal (Emergency management, n.d.). Therefore, the method of presenting data to citizens enhances their understanding of problems and corresponding actions.

Management of Information in the Plan

The next parameter for the assessment of the Public Preparedness Plan is the management of information. From this point of view, the websites section devoted to emergencies and strategies applicable to them also seems to be efficient. It states that the plan prepares community members to deal with various events, including hurricanes, floods, wildfires, severe weather, disease outbreaks, and biological terrorist attacks (Public Health Preparedness, n.d.). Another fact that contributes to the proper use of the plan is the involvement of numerous participants such as volunteers, healthcare providers, organizations, and region and state partners (Public Health Preparedness, n.d.). Thus, the principal factors enhancing the efficiency from the perspective of management are the participation of different organizations and individuals and the coverage of all possible emergencies.

Informatics Tools for Incorporation in the Plan

According to the analysis of the plans accessibility, its understanding by communities and their members, and the management, it seems to be optimal. Nevertheless, it can still be improved with the help of informatics tools. They are primarily related to the adoption of new technologies in monitoring natural hazards (Ogie & Verstaevel, 2020). These methods include satellite and remote sensing, risk modeling and simulation, and land planning and management (Ogie & Verstaevel, 2020). Their inclusion in the program will be beneficial for informing citizens in a timely manner. However, these technologies need to be regularly updated so that communities could improve the situation with emergencies with the help of modern tools.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Crowdsourced Social Media

Another technique allowing to manage natural disasters and other emergencies that imply the threat to the health of people is the use of crowdsourced social media. However, it is not necessarily a positive phenomenon since it includes both advantages and drawbacks. Its positive effect is related to the provision of extensive information on the upcoming emergencies and, therefore, timely warnings for communities (Ogie et al., 2019). Moreover, it allows organizations involved in the program to monitor public opinion regarding such crises (Ogie et al., 2019). In this way, crowdsourced social media is an invaluable source of data for both researchers and citizens.

Nevertheless, the situation becomes less optimistic when it comes to assessing the disadvantages of this approach. They are connected to the lack of credibility, which consequently leads to losing trust in such sources (Ogie et al., 2019). As a result, people can remain uninformed about the danger to their health and lives. Another circumstance that adds to the negative side of the matter is the inaccuracy of data published by various organizations and individuals (Ogie et al., 2019). This case is quite the opposite of the one with the lack of trust since it misleads people in making decisions on the actions they need to take. Therefore, the problems are connected to the credibility of information and its perceptions by communities.

Conclusion

To sum up, the Public Preparedness Plan Program in Miami, Florida, is efficient in terms of its accessibility and understanding by communities and people as well as regarding the management of data. The only changes that can be made are related to the need to regularly update informatics tools for emergency predictions and adopt new techniques to monitor these events. As for the use of crowdsourced social media, it can be applied to disasters but only with caution since it lacks credibility and undermines the trust of citizens.

References

Emergency management. (n.d.). Miami-Dade County. Web.

Ogie, R. I., Clarke, R. J., Forehead, H., & Perez, P. (2019). Crowdsourced social media data for disaster management: Lessons from the PetaJakarta.org project. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 73, 108-117. 

Ogie, R. I., & Verstaevel, N. (2020). Disaster informatics: An overview. Progress in Disaster Science, 7, 1-11. 

Public health preparedness. (n.d.). Florida Health Miami-Dade County.

The Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear disasters represented the most significant dangers of such power plants. The Chernobyl accident released higher radiation levels due to its design and the human error involved. In comparison, the Fukushima reactor was impacted by a tsunami leading to lower radiation levels in the surrounding area (Loveland et al., 2017). The fallouts impact poses a danger to animal and plant life because of the half-life of the released isotopes. Longer exposure to radiation may lead to the burning of the skin or other chronic illnesses such as cancer or cardiovascular diseases in animals. It may also lead to contamination of the environment rendering it uninhabitable for both animals and human beings.

Concepts and Theory

Nuclear decay refers to the ejection of smaller particles of an atomic nucleus in unstable atoms, which results in the formation of stable species. This type of decay includes gamma emission, electron capture, alpha and beta emission, and positron emission. Apart from that, fission refers to the splitting of atoms into separate complete ones (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2017). In this case, the process produces energy by bombarding the atom with neutrons, usually done in nuclear applications. However, the process of fission can continue uncontrollably and requires intervention to slow down the process posing a danger. On the other hand, nuclear fusion refers to the joining or combination of smaller atoms into a larger one (Loveland et al., 2017). This process is difficult to attain due to the huge amount of energy required to commence the reaction, but ultimately results in stable atoms.

Components of Radiation

Radiation refers to the distribution of matter in the form of energy after a nuclear reaction occurs. This may be through pure energy, such as electromagnetic radiation, or particle radiation. In the Chernobyl case, plutonium, iodine-131, strontium-30, and cesium-137 were released into the atmosphere. The highly radioactive nature of these components caused immediate danger to human populations requiring intervention to prevent extensive exposure. However, strontium-30 and cesium-137 posed the greatest threat based on their longer half-life of approximately 30 years (Loveland et al., 2017). This means that it would take longer for these components to decay from the atmosphere. Furthermore, the inferno that ravaged the Chernobyl site further dissipated the radioactive material wider across the country. This shows the destructive effect of these components once released and enter air circulation.

Radioactive components include alpha and beta particles, gamma rays, and neutrons. The large size of alpha and beta particles makes it impossible for them to penetrate through matter. However, they can cause extensive damage when exhaled or ingested into the body. On the other hand, neutrons lack a charge, hence, can travel easily through various matter (Jadiyappa, 2018). Their penetrative effect makes them particularly dangerous since they can affect internal organs in the body. Therefore, gamma rays and neutrons represent the most dangerous aspects of radiation components.

Ecological Effects of Radiation on the Earth

Animal life covers the largest affected group when exposed to radioactive material in the atmosphere. In human beings, it may lead to the destruction of living cells or the mutation of DNA, turning them into cancerous ones. Components such as radioactive iodine, despite its shorter half-life, may be absorbed by thyroid glands leading to the development of cancer. However, other radioactive components such as cesium with longer half-lives affect larger sections of the human body (Loveland et al., 2017). The risk of cancer thus increases over an affected individuals lifespan with regard to prior exposure levels. Additionally, other animals may experience mutations in their bodies affecting their normal functioning. These may include defects such as extra eyes or missing body parts.

On the other hand, radiation also affects the environment, including plant life and water sources. Plant cells may be damaged, leading to inhibited growth and development. Additionally, the exposure of soil and water sources to radiation reduces their fertility, affecting the ability of new plants to thrive (Jadiyappa, 2018). As a result, this may distort the mutually dependent functions that the environment uses to maintain life on the Earth. As evidenced by the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters, extensive damage can still be felt today. Ultimately, affected areas become inhabitable, with food sources reduced becoming dangerous for both human and animal consumption. High-level exposure events can pose a danger to life on the planet since the radiation can spread through the air to cover large sections.

Conclusion

The Fukushima and Chernobyl nuclear disasters continually show the dangers posed by radiation to the earth. While nuclear power contributes significantly to the world today by providing an unlimited energy source, it must be handled carefully. The exposure of animals and plant life to radioactive material can distort cells and mutations. In human beings, these mutations may lead to the development of cancer cells and the destruction of living ones. The environment can also decline in productivity, inhibiting its ability to support life due to contamination. Consequently, the concepts of nuclear energy require adequate understanding to prevent the occurrence of disasters.

References

Jadiyappa, S. (2018). Radioisotope: Applications, effects and occupational protection. In R. A. Rahman, & H. E.-D. Saleh (Eds.), Principles and applications in nuclear engineering: Radiation effects, thermal hydraulics, radionuclide migration in the environment (pp. 19-48). BoD  Books on Demand.

Loveland, W. D., Morrissey, D. J., & Seaborg, G. T. (2017). Modern nuclear chemistry (2^nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (2017). Radiation basics. 

Introduction

Hazards and natural disasters have until recently caused uncountable losses to property and life, with some calamities giving losses in hundreds of billions of dollars. An example is the most damaging flood in United States history, known as the 2005 Great New Orleans Flood or the Katrina. It is estimated that the damages incurred in 2005, by insurance industries, rose to hundreds of billions in United States Dollars. Among the Insurances that gave these figures, include Risk Management solutions, which is one of the leading United States insurance industries. Risk management has been a major concern for multinational industries as well as small-scale businesses. However, this has not been the same in natural disasters, which in most cases come unexpected. The level of progress in calculating risks, as well as loss prevention and management has improved, especially when the risks in question are unnatural. Nonetheless, adequate progressive steps are yet to be taken when dealing with natural disasters like, floods, earthquakes and the likes. These calamities are usually unexpected, and may cause unimaginable amount of damages to properties and lives (ConsumerAffairs 1).

Having said that, it is quite imperative to note that loss prevention is still essential to limiting the level of damage in natural disasters. For instance, Government response to the 2005 hurricane Katrina was intensely criticized for lack of leadership, mismanagement, delays in response, and state of chaos the transpired later, among others. It is believed that if more was done to improve loss prevention, then it is highly unlikely that such levels of losses could have occurred. This paper will try to define loss prevention, relate it to Hurricane Katrina and finally try to bring out the effects of Hurricane Katrina on loss prevention.

Loss prevention

Loss prevention refers to the act of taking positive measures to abate or put a stop to risks that have been identified and when left unchecked, may cause great damages or losses. Loss prevention measures are virtually carried out in almost every institution to avert any unnecessary expenditure as well as for safety purposes. Natural disasters such as floods, earthquakes, lightening, and such like, require immediate response as loss prevention measures. This requires relevant departments and personnel on whose shoulder loss prevention lies to work within their limits to ensure that the least possible damages and loss of lives is incurred. To do this, they require organization, funding, training, preparedness as well as the goodwill in executing such tasks. As it appears, this was not the case or at least according to those who criticized loss prevention process in 2005 (Smolka 1).

Several institutions in the modern world have put in place acceptable loss prevention programs to help raise awareness on safety. Governments throughout the world have provided funding thereby allowing the various states to endow much of their resources and time on loss prevention tasks to mitigate on injuries, losses as well as improve their ways of responding to emergencies. One gets the feeling that, the mentioned number of deaths, at around 1800, with hundreds of thousands displaced as well as a loss tuning to hundreds of Billions, loss prevention was greatly affected. This left a lot to desire of loss management mechanisms, as well as government preparedness to tackling such calamities. Significant improvement in the governments response and loss prevention mechanisms is required to help manage such risks in the future (Smolka 1).

Hurricane Katrina

Also known as, the 2005 Great New Orleans Flood, Hurricane Katrina is considered as one of the deadliest and costliest natural disaster to have occurred in the United States. It is also considered among the five most deadly hurricanes ever to occur in United States soil. It was the sixth strongest hurricane to occur in the Atlantic Ocean and the deadliest in terms of actual hurricane deaths, since Hurricane Okeechobee, which occurred in 1928. Moreover, property loss was nearly three times that of Hurricane Andrew that occurred in 1992. Clearly, this was a deadly natural disaster, which required a well-networked loss prevention mechanism. This risk was unimaginable, let alone the cost of loss prevention and rescue mechanism. Figures given by the United States records confirmed that 1836 people lost their lives in the initial hurricane floods alone; this brings to focus what should have been done to reduce this number, as well as property loss (ConsumerAffairs 1).

This disaster is said to have formed in the Bahamas by 23^rd August of 2005, and then crossed to southern Florida, having caused several casualties. It then strengthened at the Gulf of Mexico before moving to Louisiana six days later. Storm surge caused severe damage to gulf coast, Mississippi beachfronts as well as Texas and significant deaths in Louisiana and New Orleans. The floods went inland for about 12 miles, with boats ramming into buildings and severe destruction of properties witnessed (Barr 2). The levee system, which had been made for hurricane protection, failed to contain this intense flood in New Orleans, causing significant damages and deaths thereby prompting lawsuit against the designers and builders of the levee system. Lawsuits took shape against the federal agency but they could not be held responsible financially due to sovereign immunity (ConsumerAffairs 1).

Further investigations on response mechanisms from the federal states as well as the local government prompted resignation of FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) director. In addition, the New Orleans Police Department superintendent also resigned. On the contrary, National Weather Service, Coast guards, and the National hurricane center were commended for their dealings, which gave accurate forecasts and lead times (Amanda 1). In essence, leads and forecasts were given at their correct times, but the response, leadership, and planning for loss management was greatly affected. Six years down the line, thousands of displaced residents of Louisiana and Mississippi still live in provisional housing as the Army Corps of Engineers try to address reconstruction in the areas (Barr 2).

Effects of Hurricane Katrina on Loss Prevention

Hurricane Katrina greatly affected efforts to salvage lives and properties due to its magnitude and slow response, the following are some of the effects of Hurricane Katrina on loss prevention.

Alteration of Disaster prevention landscape by Hurricane Katrina affected Loss prevention

It is observed that climate, imminent catastrophes as well as cities, among others, are continually altering the disaster prevention landscapes. This makes it increasingly difficult to lay out mechanisms for loss prevention. For instance, the Army Corps Engineers, designed a levee system in New Orleans, most probably based on their perception of the hurricane strengths they expected. However, the pending Hurricane was unknown, the magnitude at which it hit the city was unimaginable and in that respect, loss prevention failed, even though plans had been made to abate the catastrophe. Clearly, it can be seen that something failed (levee system), and deciding on the best corrective measures and loss prevention was not obvious. It then meant that other course of actions had to be taken to assist in rescue operations (The World Bank 42-100).

Policies designed for loss prevention are usually based on a given expectation of the disaster. These policies are formulated based on already marked disaster prevention landscapes, it therefore means that if these landscapes are altered, risk is increased and the focus is diverted. When this happens, there is a high likelihood of witnessing risky behaviors (The World Bank 42-100).

Arguments that Hurricane Katrina was caused by Climate Change greatly affected loss prevention mechanisms

Global warming due to Climate change has overtaken debates in recent discussions, with it s repercussions varying from one researcher to another. Hurricane Katrina is argued to have occurred due to climate change. This is quite instrumental in distracting concentration from loss management policies, in the process mispricing the risks, and facing its consequences, as was seen in Hurricane Katrina. The ambiguity of understanding global warming and its effects have been the main undoing of loss prevention. This is because, when predicted risk is ambiguous, then there is likelihood of underestimating or overestimating disasters and in most cases, when dealing with natural disasters, like Hurricane Katrina. It is therefore quite understandable that even though the forecasts were accurate and leading times available in abundance, the kind of preparation and response for loss prevention was unsatisfactory (The World Bank 42-100).

Hurricane encouraged Overestimating/or Underestimating risks

Residents of riskier areas tend to overestimate risks, while those in low risk areas underestimate. Risk level for inhabitants of New Orleans, and Louisiana, was quite different from those in Bahamas, and Texas. This is because, according to their risk levels, Hurricane was overestimated in some areas than others. Since resources are dispatched based on risk levels, it is quite possible that loss prevention was distracted in allocation of personnel and rescue equipment. In addition, response time is very important as it provides a faster evacuation routes before the condition worsens (The World Bank 42-100).

Economic and Insurance costs of Hurricane Katrina depended highly on response and loss prevention mechanism

Hurricane Katrina greatly affected loss prevention measures since its associated consequences depended greatly on how quickly response would overtake the situation. Unfortunately, the longer it took to drain the warm polluted stagnant water, the less chance it had to achieve its loss prevention objectives. In essence, Loss prevention depended on how fast water could be drained, and rescue attained. This was quite difficult as it took a longer time for water to drain, moreover, its infiltration on the wooden residential houses and properties led to more damages (Smolka 1).

Furthermore, the kind of loss prevention measures that had been put in place in the form of a levee system did not perform its task as was required. It had been designed for category three, strength, while what befell the city was a category four or five. This greatly affected loss prevention measures as it meant a new beginning for the rescue group. Shortcomings in response and preparedness for Hurricane Katrina were exacerbating more failures in loss prevention, negating the efforts made in loss prevention. Loss prevention was therefore; affected by the Hurricane, especially due to the magnitude of the disaster, slow response from federal government, poor maintenance on disaster management facilities and alterations on disaster prevention landscapes, among others (Smolka 1).

Summary

Hurricane Katrina, which occurred in New Orleans, was one of the deadliest to happen in the United States history. Its death toil of 1836 was the deadliest for a natural disaster since Hurricane Okeechobee that occurred in 1928. Moreover, property loss was nearly three times, that of Hurricane Andrew, which occurred in 1992. Loss prevention measures were greatly affected given that response and preparedness was sluggish. Poor maintenance of disaster management systems was instrumental in negating loss management mechanisms. For instance, the levee system that had been put in place to handle hurricane was well short of its needs as it gave way to the Katrina floods, which in turn inflicted severe damages to properties and significant loss of lives (Caruso 1).

Arguments that climate change could have caused hurricane Katrina were on the rise, and this diverted attention from loss prevention policies, which needed to be followed to reduce the repercussions effectively. Moreover, frequent occurrences of natural disasters led to alterations of disaster prevention landscapes, inflicting a heavy blow on disaster estimation, preparedness and loss prevention (Shah 1). Overestimation of risks involved in Hurricane Katrina as well as its underestimation also carried the day in affecting loss prevention and allocation of resources for immediate response. It is therefore quite clear that loss prevention mechanisms were well below its desired levels in dealing with Hurricane Katrina (Caruso 1).

Conclusion

Hurricane Katrina was one of the costliest and deadliest in the history of United States. Slow response, mismanagement, lack of leadership, poor maintenance of disaster management facilities as well as alteration to disaster prevention landscapes, among others, greatly affected loss prevention mechanisms. Several lives were lost and billions of dollars in damaged properties encountered, these would have abated, if an effective loss prevention mechanism had been initiated. This leaves a lot to desire on loss prevention measures in the future, especially when dealing with natural disasters such as flooding, earthquakes and the likes (Shah 1).

Works Cited

Amanda, Ripley. Hurricane Katrina: How the Coast Guard Got it Right. Time Magazine. Web.

Barr, Stephen. Coast Guards Response to Katrina a Silver Lining in the Storm. Washington Post. Web.

Caruso, Kevin. Hurricane Katrina.com: Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Katrina! Web.

ConsumerAffairs. Katrina Loss Put at more than $100 Billion. ConsumerAffairs. Web.

Shah, Anup. Hurricane Katrina. Global Issues. Web.

Smolka, Anselm. Financing the risk from natural disaster. The environment Times. Web.

The World Bank. Natural Hazards, Unnatural Disasters: The Economies of Effective Prevention. NHUD-report. Web.