Causes and Effects of Accidents and Catastrophes - Literature review Example

Accidents and Catastrophes Accidents or hazards may be classified as natural or man-made (Bradford, 2008) and have been seen to vary with increasing degree of seriousness. Quarantelli (n.d) and Bradford (2008) identified ‘incidents’, ‘community (or routine) emergencies’, ‘disasters’ and ‘catastrophes’, with the degree of seriousness and required attention increasing in that order. However, to have a better understanding of what catastrophes are there is a need to understand how accidents can be generally described. Moreover, there is a necessity for clear differentiation between the different forms of accidents. Bradford (2008) described an accident as ‘an unplanned event which result in unacceptable consequence’, ’a damaging event’, ’an industrial mishap’ and so on. The same source described an incident as ‘an event …which requires a response from … the statutory emergency response agencies’. Bradford (2008) further described an emergency as ‘an unexpected event that places life and/or property in danger and requires an immediate response through the use of routine community resources and procedures‘; and disasters are described as causing an extensive destruction of human, material and environmental losses as a result of serious disruption of the functional parts of the society in a manner that supersedes the society’s capacity to cope with such situations. Quarantelli, (n.d a) clearly described disasters in terms of organizational activities and this was reinforced by Bradford (2008). According to his paper, disasters are distinct from every day emergencies in the following ways: 1) Dealing with disasters requires the effort of several organizations at once. For instance, Quarantelli, (n.d) cited the case of an airline crash studied by the Disaster Research Centre of the University of Delaware, United States. It reported that the disaster scene witnessed about 68 fire departments converging at the site. 2) Organizations involved partially lose their independence and ability to act freely. The possibility that the organizations be instructed and coordinated by agencies that are not necessarily concerned with routine or every day emergency activities is highly likely. 3) Organizations tend to adopt a totally ‘different performance standards’. Activities are at this time viewed with the intention of ensuring that the critical and immediate problems are solved not putting in mind whether the normal organizational practice are put into practice. 4) Organizations tend to adopt a more ‘closer than usual’ relationship especially when it has to do with both the private and public sectors. With the occurrence of certain disasters that were actually categorised as being more than the normal disasters, there were intensified efforts at classifying the higher-than-normal disasters. Thus, researchers eventually adopted the nomenclature of catastrophes. These have the capacity to cause total breakdown that most community activities disappear and there is virtually nowhere to turn to for help (Kreimer and Arnold, 2000; Bradford, 2008). Quarantelli, (n.d a) further outlined the following traits identified with catastrophes disasters: 1) Virtually all of the everyday activities within the affected community or communities are seriously affected and the possibility of a total halt to these activities is highly likely. 2) A major part of the buildings and other structures within the community or territory is seriously destroyed. For instance about nine out of every ten residential apartments were seriously damaged during Hurricane Hugo. The effect of the Tsunami was also widespread across the parts of Asia that witnessed it. The resulting housing problem in catastrophes is usually massive and individual solutions by affected people is often impossible since most of the other places where individuals can opt for temporary accommodation are likely to be affected as well (e. g. relatives houses and other public places). 3) The damage is so extensive that even the usual work activities of the local officials are totally paralysed and there is almost zero assurance that this will pick up again immediately after the occurrence of the catastrophes. The local workers are themselves affected by death, injury, or loss of logistics or structural facilities needed for their operations. 4) Since the area of coverage of catastrophes is usually extensive, nearby communities are incapable of rendering any meaningful help as they are also affected by the same event. 5) The level of coverage by the mass media is also another differentiating means. Disasters only enjoy the attention of the media within the immediate community while some major disasters may be attended to by those outside the community, though this may span for only a couple of days. For catastrophic events media coverage is at the national level and takes a longer time span. 6) Disasters attract local political attention whereas catastrophes enjoy the attention of the government at the higher levels (mostly at the national level). Modern day threats (terrorism) in the UK and their likely impacts - a review of July 7, 2005 London Bombing For over 30 years Britain had been facing terrorist campaign especially from the Irish terrorist (Clarke, 2007) and one can say that the nation is well equipped to handle terrorism. However, Clarke (2007) revealed that terrorist attacks have taken a new dimension out rightly with the Al Qaeda and other similar groups coming on stage. One might be fooling himself to depend solely on the previous methods of dealing with such menace. In Clarke (2007)‘s words the threats are ‘global in origin, reach and ambition. The networks are large, fluid, mobile and incredibly resilient’. The terrorist groups are so much organised and it seem difficult to disrupt their networks and resilience for a very long period. The seriousness of this issue can possibly be seen in the July 7, 2005 suicide bombing attack on the London transportation system. That was after the populace has gained a level of security confidence in the party just re-elected (Phythian, 2005). Rubin et al (2005) reported the result of that 31% of the sample of Londoners indicated that they were stressed and 32% were reluctant to travel after the incident. Moreover, Ansari (2005) reported that British Muslims were as threatened as well. This was in anticipation of a likely retributory attack on them as everybody had accused the Al Qaeda for this event. The paper indicated that even among the Muslim community there was a total condemnation of this act. Though the ancient city recovered in no time from the initial shock of the blasts, Ansari (2005) indicated that there is still more to be done because of this attack. He recommended that Britain need to put an arrangement in place to cater for the victims that survived during the attack. Moreover, intelligence activities should be stepped-up to investigate this act and forestall any of such occurrences in the future (Phythian, 2005). Chernobyl disaster, Hurricane Katrina and the tsunamis - consequences, lessons and implications for legislation Bradford (2008) highlighted three major steps in adequately planning for accidents as follows: 1) Identification of hazards that will likely be peculiar to the particular environment in question. 2) Anticipate the probability of its occurrence in the future 3) Estimate the geo-physical and economic consequences as well as the likely population influence and prepare ahead (even if it requires legislation). The three events discussed here are treated based on these. Chernobyl disaster: According to the report of the World Nuclear Associations (WNA, 2008) the Chernobyl accident in the Ukraine in 1986 was a consequence of a flaw in the design of a nuclear reactor by Russian designers. Moreover, the operators were naïve about safety measures and were not very careful about it. The resultant effect was the deaths of about 28 people within four months of exposure to the radioactive substances and heat. The most pathetic is the ripple effect that continued for a long time after then. For instance, data obtained spanning for over 20 years after the incidence shows that there are indications of ‘excess of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease risks’, incidences of cancer, blood diseases, genetic instability etc as a result of exposure of victims and evacuation workers, fire fighters and other volunteers (Tsyb, 1997; Zapponi & Bazyka, 2005). To handle the effects of such unforeseen circumstances, the paper suggested immediate and specialized care for those under the risk of exposure to the radiation, controlled access to contaminated areas, immediate environmental impact control and assessment and so on. Consequent upon this explosion, WNA (2008) spelt out all the programs embarked upon to reduce the re-occurrence of such. Some of the highlighted activities bother on skill improvements for nuclear reactor designers and workers, regulation of nuclear plant construction and activities, and programs to alleviate the dilemma of the exposed victims. Hurricane Katrina: In case of Katrina report has it that about 1330 people died because of the hurricane while, 2096 people were missing (Gibson and Hayunga, 2006). The hurricane was more of a revelation of the adequacy, in terms of preparedness, to handle such catastrophes. Obviously, the results just mentioned can adequately answer the question of preparedness. Gibson and Haying (2006) highlighted three major areas to learn from and make adjustments. The authors reported the proceedings of the AARP conference that held to specifically address this issue. . The conference was able to identify the three areas as: 1) Planning and communications: The conference concluded that planning in anticipation of such an occurrence was inadequate at all levels. The solution was that individuals, initial help providers and the governments at all levels adopt new strategies by planning in anticipation of such tragedies occurring again. Planning should be viewed as a collective responsibility. In regards to communications, the conference participants were referenced as indicating that most people (especially the aged) do not know where and how to get information that will likely bail them out of their respective predicament during the hurricane. The conference stressed the need to make information source accessible to potential victims and emergency help providers. 2) Identification of individuals who need assistance and the type of assistance needed. The provision of assistance, especially medical help is undermined by the fact that most of the associated structures and facilities are also affected during catastrophes. However, there is a need to prepare for future occurrences by proving adequate medical status tracking devices. These should be disaster proof. Principally, means of providing early information on the impending catastrophic event is needed so that early and proper evacuation can be accomplished well ahead of time. 3) Provision of a means of moving and relocating people in an adequate manner: The means of evacuating during hurricane Katrina was reported to be inadequate and prone to causing more accidents. Maintaining the health of individuals and the overall health of the resettled people was reported to be a major challenge during Katrina. In terms of the legal implication, the California Centre for Environmental Law and Policy (CCELP, 2007)’s white paper revealed the incapability of the American legal system to handle such crisis. It claimed that a number of irregularities were observed in the delivery of judgments and handling of related legal matters. This was the main aim of organising the Workshop on Disaster Law and the Legal Academy by CCELP in June 2007. The white paper report was presented later in the year. The meeting witnessed the gathering of academic scholars in the field of disaster laws with the intention of proffering solutions to this legal problem and charting a new course for necessary adjustments and modifications to the erstwhile inadequate legal system. The tsunamis: Athukorala & Resosudarmo (2006) reported about 350, 000 deaths because of tsunamis; one of the worst records of catastrophic events. Several areas were affected according to this paper. Many of these included villages, provinces, and other settlements that were totally or extensively wiped out. The UN Secretary General was reported to have referred to the tsunamis as the worst of such that the UN had to deal with in about 60 years of existence. However, the economy was not greatly affected as reflected in the GDP figures of the affected countries. This was because most of the commercial nerve-centre was far from where they can suffer any serious effect. The authors assessed the way the outcome of the disaster was managed and brought out certain conclusions as lessons to be learnt. In agreement with the authors who worked on the two disasters discussed earlier, public enlightenment on occurrences of disaster and likely individual actions is necessary. Control and mitigating regulations and programs are also suggested. More important are the regulations controlling activities at the coastal areas. These control measures should of necessity be a ‘part of national development strategies‘. UK disaster management plans, legislation and reconstruction strategies According to Bradford (2008), the UK health and Safety Executive (HSE) was founded in 1974 to attend to increased potential for accidents. However, the Flux borough cyclohexane explosion of the same year forced the HSE to step up actions on drafting a policy that will prevent or control accidents of similar nature. An advisory committee set up as a result presented the following 3-point strategy: identification, control and mitigation. Furthermore, Bradford (2008) stated that identification requires that the HSE be notified of plants dealing with any of the potentially harmful substance listed by HSE in quantities above the specified minimum. Control ensures that operators assess the site processes to anticipate likely sources of accidents and ensure proper preventive means are put in place. Mitigation is an attempt at restricting the population form settling around these potentially harmful sites, provision of warning signals ahead of any accidents and so on. In Bradford’s account, for proper implementation of the strategies the Notification and Installations Handling Hazardous Substances regulation (NIHHS, 1982) was established to handle the issue of identification. The Hazard Survey regulations were also set up to handle the issue of control. Later on the Commission of the European Communities was put in place and this eventually leads to the European Community directive on controlling such and similar disasters. The bid to implement the directive in the UK gave birth to Control of Major Industrial Accidents Hazards regulations (CIMAH, 1984). The account of Bradford (2008) further revealed that the regulation transformed to the Control of Major Accidents Hazard regulations (COMAH, 1999) in response to the amendments in the European directive. A body consisting of members of the HSE and Environmental agencies across the UK was established to enforce COMAH. In addition to COMAH other UK regulations are Pipeline Safety Regulations (1996), Major Accidents Control Regulations (MACR) - a military equivalent of COMAH, Radiation Emergency Preparedness and Public Information Regulations (REPPIR, 2001) and so on (Bradford, 2008). Besides these, of a major importance is the UK’s Civil Contingencies Act (CCA, 2004) which sets out the responsibilities of civil protection personnel. Bradford (2008) further gave a highlight of the contents of the act, which consisted of two parts. The first part establishes ’a clear set of roles and responsibilities for those in emergency preparation and response’ at the local level. The second part ‘allows for making of temporary special legislation to help’ in dealing with catastrophes. The special legislation is made at levels higher than the local level. References Ansari, H. 2005. “London Terrorist Attacks: the Impact of 7/7 on Muslims”, Real Institute Elcano, Madrid. Athukorala, P. & Resosudarmo, B. P. 2006. “The Indian Ocean Tsunami: Economic Impact, Disaster Management and Lessons“, Asian Economic Paper, vol. 4, pp. 1-38. Bradford, T. 2008. Accidents and Catastrophes. FV2101 Lecture Notes, 2008. California Centre for Environmental Law and Policy (CCELP), 2007. “Disaster Law and the Legal Academy: Curriculum, Research and Law Reform”, Report on a Workshop held at U. C. Berkeley Law School, California, USA, June 25 2007. Clarke, P. 2007. “Learning from Experience - Counter Terrorism in the UK since 9/11”, a paper presented at The Colin Cramphorn Memorial Lecture, April 24 2007. Gibson, M. J. & Hayunga, M. 2006. “We can do Better: Lessons Learned from Protecting Older Persons in Disasters”, proceedings of the AARP Conference, Washington D. C., USA, Dec. 1 2005. Kreimer, A. & Arnold, A. 2000. Managing Disaster Risk in Emerging Economies. ed. Disaster Risk Management Series, no. 2, The World Bank, Washington D. C., USA. Phythian, M. 2005. ‘Intelligence, Policy-making and the 7 July 2005 London Bombings‘, Crime Law & Social Change, vol. 2005, no. 4, pp 361-85. Quarantelli, E. L. n. d. ‘Emergencies, Disasters and Catastrophes Are Different Phenomena’, Disaster Research Centre (DRC), University of Delaware, California, USA. Quarantelli, E. L. n. d. a. ‘Catastrophes are Different from Disasters: Some Implication for Crisis and Managing Drawn from Katrina‘, Disaster Research Centre (DRC), University of Delaware Rubin, G. J., Brewin, C. R., Greenberg, N., Simpson, J. & Wesseley, S. 2005. “Psychological and Behavioural Reactions to the Bombings in London on 7 July 2005: Cross Sectional Survey of a Representative Sample of Londoners”’ BMJ Medical Publications, vol. 331, pg 606. Tsyb, A. F. 1997. ‘The Chenobyl Disaster: Global Impact‘, unpublished paper presented at International Conference on Human Detoxification, Sweden, Sept. 11- 12 1997. World Nuclear Associations (WNA). 2008. ‘Chernobyl Accident’, World Nuclear Associations, London, UK. Zapponi, G. A. & Bazyka, D. 2005. Summary Report of “Risk Assessment of Chenobyl Accident Consequences: Lessons Learnt for the Future”, ed. CCMS Pilot Study Meeting, Kiev, June and Rome, 2005. Read More