Search

Dr Knowles examines three historical structural disasters: the burning of the Capital Building (1814), the Hague Street boiler explosion (1850), and the Chicago Iroquois Theater fire (1903). The Capital Building burning (henceforth noted as CBB), and the subsequent investigation by engineer Benjamin Latrobe provided numerous insights into the disaster. These are discussed, but Dr. Knowles pays particular attention to the major scrutiny endured by Latrobe. As a major player during the planning and building of the Capital Building, the CBB was painted as his failure (despite indications otherwise). More than anything, the report highlights Latrobe's inability to prevent and evaluate disaster; although an employee directly of the president and senate, he was powerless to enact change. Similarly, the Hague street boiler seemed to be fraught with issues. Yet, those who came to present in the ensuing investigation had no true standing to alter future events. It  again follows this pattern of disaster, difficult investigation, and minimal substantial response by those in power. The Iroquois Theater Fire investigation seemed to finally deviate from this norm. Multiple fire experts, engineers, and public officials involved themselves in the case. However, ultimately, the investigation's findings were not put to use. Some advances occurred, yet so many other technical progressions were ignored.

This article primarily focuses on a French law instituted in 1997 allowing for the acceptance of immigrant residents on the basis of illness. This landmark law deviated from the typical methodologies of achieving residency-- most often through work or familial/marital ties. The article examines this "humanitarian reason" for immigrant inclusion, discussing the historical progression to its creation and how it can be implemented. The article also discusses how and why this criteria came to be-- how the bodily capability of an immigrant could suddenly ascend to such a high level of regard.

This article undertakes reviewing the current approaches to handling mental health in the wake of disasters. It particularly focuses of the current methodologies of research utilized, past methodologies/findings, and how these effect today's approaches to treatment of mental disorders during emergency response. The article begins by discussing the major psychopathology found in populations effected by disasters, including mood disorders such as PTSD and MDD. Other disorders, such as substance abuse and outside symptomologies, are also discussed-- but these first two seem to be the major players addressed here. The work then describes how current comorbidities exist, and how these manifest as pre-disaster risk factors (for example, female disaster survivors are generally more likely to have adverse psychological outcomes, such as PTSD or MDD). Other factors include age, socioeconomic status, and basal trait-level anxiety/depressive symptoms. The report also speaks to during disaster and post-disaster factors as well, as these both have been shown to indicate increased likelihood of developing mental health disorders from a disaster event. Finally, the report delves into current interventions utilized during all three of these time periods (pre, peri, and post), and how these may amplify or diminish the mental health effects of a disaster event. Unfortunately, the paper gives very general guidelines, such as discouraging building in vulnerable locations or testing responses in communities even before disasters occur. For post-disaster preventative measures, however, the report included several key notations-- including implementation of stress debriefings for disaster survivors, and usage of PFA (psychological first aid) to prevent adverse mental health outcomes.