Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T05:27:24.799Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Maximum Time-to-Rescue After the 1908 Messina-Reggio Calabria Earthquake was 20 Days: Hints for Disaster Planning?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 February 2017

Natale Gaspare De Santo
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Second University of Naples, Naples, Italy
Carmela Bisaccia
Affiliation:
Mazzini Institute, Naples, Italy
Luca Salvatore De Santo*
Affiliation:
Cardiac Surgery, Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy Cardiac Surgery Unit, Clinica Montevergine, Mercogliano, Italy
*
Correspondence: Luca Salvatore De Santo, MD, FESC Department of Medical and Surgical Sciences University of Foggia Viale Luigi Pinto 1, 71122 Foggia, Italy E-mail: luca.desanto@unifg.it

Abstract

Introduction

Maximum time-to-rescue has been studied accurately for many earthquakes in the years 1985-2004. No study is available for historical quakes.

Hypothesis/Problem

This study aimed to evaluate long-term survivors (from the fifth day after the quake) of the Messina-Reggio Calabria earthquake (1908; Italy), which is considered, historically, to be the worst seismic event in Europe.

Methods

Accurate readings of 11 national newspapers from the fifth day after the quake looking for rescued persons and transferring, to an ad hoc form, all data relating to each rescued person.

Results

The maximum time-to rescue was 20 days. There were 225 survivors, among them 51 children (22.6 %). For 23 out 225 rescued persons, there was evidence of availability of foods and drinkable fluids while under the rubble.

Conclusion

The maximum time-to-rescue under the debris following this historical earthquake far exceeds that of all other quakes that occurred in the years 1985-2004. The long survival under debris was probably due to the lack of an order to stop search and rescue. Recent strategies reducing the time for search and rescue carry the risk of missing survivors.

De SantoNG, BisacciaC, De SantoLS. Maximum Time-to-Rescue After the 1908 Messina-Reggio Calabria Earthquake was 20 Days: Hints for Disaster Planning?Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(3):249–252.

Type
Original Research
Copyright
© World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Conflicts of interest: none

References

1. Colletta, P. Storia del reame di Napoli dal 1734 sino al 1823. Volume 1 and 2. Capoluogo Canton Ticino, Tipografia Elvetica; 1834;Vol. 2:216-223.Google Scholar
2. Lopez, M, Leon, N. Babies of the earthquake: follow-up study of their first 15 months. Hillside J Clin Psychol. 1989;11(2):147-168.Google Scholar
3. Sever, M, Erek, E, Vanholder, R, et al. The Marmara Earthquake: epidemiological analysis of victims of nephrological problems. Kidney Int. 2001;60(3):1114-1123.Google Scholar
4. Sever, M, Erek, E, Vanholder, R, et al. Lessons learned from the Marmara Disaster. Time period under the rubble. Crit Care Med. 2002;30(11):2443-2449.Google Scholar
5. Pocan, S, Ozcan, S, Us, MH, et al. Crush syndrome and acute renal failure in the Marmara earthquake. Mil Med. 2002;167(6):516-518.Google Scholar
6. Tanaka, K. The Kobe earthquake: the system response. A disaster report from Japan. Eur J Emerg Med. 1996;3(4):263-269.Google Scholar
7. Handelman, S. Soviets buried by quake survive 35 days. Toronto Star. January 13, 1989:pA1.Google Scholar
8. Goddard, J. Buried for 27 days. Haiti earthquake survivor’s amazing story. The Telegraph. March 28, 2010.Google Scholar
9. Basu, M. Nepal earthquake. Teenager pulled live from rubble on day six Nepal’s tragedy. CNN. May 1, 2015.Google Scholar
10. Macintyre, AG, Barbera, JA, Smith, ER. Surviving collapsed structures entrapment after earthquakes: a “time-to-rescue” analysis. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2006;21(1):4-19.Google Scholar
11. Von Colmers, F. Über die durch das Erdlebn in Messina am December 28, 1908 verursachten Verletzungen. Bericht uber die arztl. Tatigkeit in Rothem-Kreutz-Lazareth der Deutschen Hilfsexpedition zu Syrakus. Archiv für klin. Chirurgie. 1909;90:701-747.Google Scholar
12. D’Antona, A. Relazione sui feriti del terremoto Calabro-Siculo. Clinica Chirurgica dell’Università di Napoli, Stabilimento tipografico S. Morano, Napoli; 1909:p1-36.Google Scholar
13. D’Antona, Rizzo L, Damascelli, D. Relazione sui feriti del terremoto Calabro-Siculo accolti a Napoli. Atti XXI Congresso Società Italiana di Chirurgia, 1909. Edizioni Medico Scientifiche, Roma; 1909:p.237-276.Google Scholar
14. Caminiti, R. Resoconto dei feriti del terremoto curati in Calabria. Gazzetta Internazionale di Medicina. Igiene Interessi Professionali. 1910;14:266-269.Google Scholar
15. Better, OS. History of the crush syndrome: from the earthquake of Messina, Sicily 1908 to Spitak Armenia. Am J Nephrol. 1997;17(3):392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Eknoyan, G. Emergence of the concept of acute renal failure. Am J Nephrol. 2002;22(2-3):226-230.Google Scholar
17. Vanholder, R, Sever, MS, Erek, E, Lameire, N. Rhabdomyolysis. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2000;11(8):1553-1561.Google Scholar
18. Yokota, J. Crush syndrome in disaster. Japan Medical Association Journal. 2006;48:341-352.Google Scholar
19. Sheng, Z. Medical support in the Tashgan earthquake: a review of the management of mass casualties and certain major injuries. J Trauma. 1987;27(10):1130-1137.Google Scholar
20. Statheropoulos, M, Agapiou, A, Pallis, GC, et al. Factors that affect rescue time in urban search and rescue (USAR) operations. Natural Hazards. 2015;75(1):57-69.Google Scholar