BMJ  2005;330:1471 (25 June), doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7506.1471

Paper

Evacuation decisions in a chemical air pollution incident: cross sectional survey

¹ Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 2PR, ² Public Health Development Unit, Plymouth Teaching Primary Care Trust, Plymouth PL1 2AD, ³ Chemical Hazards Unit, Health Protection Agency, Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital Trust, London SE14 5ER, ⁴ Met Office, Exeter EX1 3PB, ⁵ Southwest Peninsula Health Protection Unit, Devon Team, Dartington TQ9 6JE

Objective To compare the health outcomes in sheltered and evacuated populations after a chemical incident in a plastics factory.

Design Cross sectional survey.

Setting Urban area in southwest England.

Participants 1750 residents from the area exposed to the chemical smoke, of which 472 were evacuated and the remaining 1278 were advised to shelter indoors.

Main outcome measure Number of adverse health symptoms. A case was defined by the presence of four or more symptoms.

Main results 1096 residents (63%; 299 evacuated, 797 sheltered) provided data for analyses. The mean symptom score and proportion of cases were higher in evacuated people than in the sheltered population (evacuated: symptom score 1.9, cases 19.7% (n = 59); sheltered: symptom score 1.0, cases 9.5% (n = 76); P < 0.001 for both). The difference between the two groups attenuated markedly at the end of two weeks from the start of the incident. The two main modifiable risk factors for the odds of becoming a case were evacuation (odds ratio 2.5, 95% confidence interval 1.7 to 3.8) and direct exposure to smoke for more than two hours on the first day of the incident (2.0, 1.7 to 2.3). The distance of residence from the factory or level of exposure before intervention (first six hours) had little effect on the odds of a person becoming a case.

Conclusions Sheltering may have been a better protective action than evacuation in this chemical incident, which is consistent with the prevailing expert view. Although this study has limitations, it is based on a real event. Evacuations carry their own risks and resource implications; increased awareness may help to reduce unnecessary evacuations in the future.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Staying in was safer than evacuation in a chemical incident
BMJ 2005 330: 0. [Full Text] [PDF]

Evacuation decisions in chemical incidents benefit from expert health advice

Peter J Baxter
BMJ 2005 330: 1474-1475. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Morgan, O., Murray, V., Snashall, D. (2008). Occupational medicine, public health and disasters: a shared agenda?. Occup. Environ. Med. 65: 367-368 [Full text]  
• (2006). Chemical fire drill survives reality check ...this time. Occup. Environ. Med. 63: 26-26 [Full text]  
• Baxter, P. J (2005). Evacuation decisions in chemical incidents benefit from expert health advice. BMJ 330: 1474-1475 [Full text]  

Online poll

Find out more here>> and here>>