22 August 2024: Due to technical disruption, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working to restore services and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
This journal utilises an Online Peer Review Service (OPRS) for submissions. By clicking "Continue" you will be taken to our partner site
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/pdm.
Please be aware that your Cambridge account is not valid for this OPRS and registration is required. We strongly advise you to read all "Author instructions" in the "Journal information" area prior to submitting.
To save this undefined to your undefined account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your undefined account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
To identify and describe the key communication and health protection issues surrounding a flooding emergency.
Methods:
A telephone questionnaire was used to assess health and safety information sources, information recalled, and behavioral responses among residents of the town of Feilding, New Zealand following a major floodin February 2004. This was supplemented by key informant interviews and a newspaper content analysis.
Results:
A total of 154 adult residents were surveyed (76% of those successfully contacted and eligible). Of the respondents, 79% recalled being provided with health and safety information from authorities. The majorsources were: radio (41%), pamphlets (23%), and newspapers (20%). The regional newspaper had extensive coverage of this flooding emergency but “health” only was mentioned in 46 (7%) of the 664 flood-related articles.
Of those who recalled receiving information from authorities, most (89%) perceived that it was adequate. Nevertheless, 18% actively sought out information (mainly about water safety and availability). In the post-flood period, 73% of all respondents boiled water; however, only 4% maintained boiling water or bottled water use for the necessary nine-week period. Some forms of emergency preparations did not change substantially from before the flood, compared to four months afterwards (e.g., having a radio with batteries increased from 62% to 68%). Perceived health concerns around the flooding were low, though 59% were concerned about the risk ofwater contamination. Actual self-reported, health consequences from the flood were rare, as only two (1%) people out of 154 reported flood-related health problems.
Conclusions:
Health and safety information generally was communicated successfully and was regarded as appropriate by the population of this floodaffected town. Nevertheless, there are further improvements needed in the emergency response by both residents and authorities.
On 08 May 2003, a tornado categorized as an F-3 on the Fujita Tornado Scale (the “F Scale”) struck an Oklahoma City, Oklahoma commuter bus carrying 24 passengers. The driver evacuated several passengers before the tornado struck. The tornado rolled the bus, and pelted it with debris.
Methods:
A case-series investigation of tornado-related injuries was conducted among passengers who were evacuated to a ditch and those who remained on the bus when the tornado struck.
Results:
Nineteen of 24 passengers sought care for injuries at hospital emergency departments (injury rate= 79.2%).While a greater number of passengers who were outside the bus when the tornado struck (11) sought care for injuries than did those who remained on the bus (8); passengers outside of the bus suffered fewer injuries than did those who remained on the bus (median number of injuries 3 versus 4), and their injuries were lesssevere (median injury severity score (ISS) 1 versus 4).
Conclusion:
For persons caught in motor vehicles during tornado events, this study supports currently accepted recommendations to immediately evacuate and lie in a low-lying area away from motor vehicles if other shelter is unavailable. However, generalizing the experience of bus passengers to automobile drivers might be inappropriate because buses lack the safety features that might protect automobile drivers from tornado-related injuries.