Member response Japan: Prof Paul Arbon, World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine

.

Comments re. Japan response:

Prof. Paul Arbon, Flinders University (Australia), World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine

March 16

- - -

Some comments from my perspective which I believe reflect the views of the World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine. It should be remembered that Japan is one of the most resilient nations in the world and has been very well prepared for both earthquake and tsunami; having learned from their long history of these events. Communities and health staff are very well drilled and prepared. As a result the death toll from this latest disaster is extraordinarily low. The impact is largely confined to the North-East coastal region. At present we have reports of 13,000 and might expect to see about 30,000 deaths overall. The same event in another part of the world , for example in Indonesia or the Philippines, would have resulted in much more destruction and death. Nonetheless, this is a very significant event with a 9.0 (Richter scale) earthquake occurring a short distance off shore and the resultant tsunami destroying whole communities. The damage to nuclear power facilities is, arguably, the most significant concern at this stage.

The current mass media focus tends to overstate the true impact on the Japanese nation and news reports of petrol queues and empty super markets are being submitted by journalists embedded inside the disaster zone. These reporters have a very local perspective on the situation unfolding in Japan. The rest of Japanese society is responding to these affected areas with all of the professionalism and resources that we would expect. This is an unfolding and complex situation but nonetheless we need to be careful that we are not drawn in by media reports that fail to provide a balanced picture of how the nation is managing. The other main focus of media attention has been on the foreign teams that have responded to assist. Again it should be remembered that these teams are only complementary to the extensive national response and in some instances complicate the coordination of the disaster response. For example, 100,000 Japanese military have been deployed in the disaster zone and the Japanese disaster response effort far exceeds any international response.

WHO is providing regular updates and maintaining contact with the national health services leaders including on issues such as the risk of exposure to nuclear radiation. The potential role of the VIAG and its members is probably very limited and the risk of communicable disease outbreak very low. In the longer term there may well be lessons that can be learned from the management of larger evacuation centres that can be applied to other mass gatherings.

At a more personal level it is timely to remind ourselves that there are some lessons about disaster response that we have learned. If you know anyone among your health professional colleagues who wants to respond please ensure that they only do so as a member of a national government team or as part of the response of a reputable non-government organisation. Medical, nursing and allied health self-responders create very real problems for the coordination and management of disaster response; often creating a secondary disaster. Also, if you want to donate to the disaster relief effort, please only give cash donations to reputable NGOs or government appeals. Do not donate goods or clothing of any kind.

Regards

Paul