Disaster Victim Identification in the 21st Century E-Book

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
• Serie: Forensic Science in Focus
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 610

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022

Beschreibung

A comprehensive examination of all critical aspects of Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) As the frequency of both natural and man-made mass fatality disasters increases worldwide, the establishment of clear standards and best practices within the field of Disaster Victim identification (DVI) is of vital importance. Whereas most countries assign jurisdiction to law enforcement agencies following Interpol guidelines, DVI is the responsibility of the medical examiner and coroner in the United States. Disaster Victim Identification in the 21st Century is the first book of its kind to directly address the needs of DVI practitioners in the United States, covering the full spectrum of DVI from traditional methods such as fingerprints, odontology, and anthropology to advanced DNA identification technology. Approaching DVI from three perspectives--academic, government, and private industry--this comprehensive volume examines the history and current state of the discipline, the ongoing formation of national standards, the various methods of human identification, and the key challenges and future of DVI. In-depth chapters are written by leaders in the field with personal experience in human identification and mass fatality events. * Provides practitioners with practical guidance on planning and taking part in DVI based on current national standards and best practices * Discusses continued improvement in both traditional and emerging DVI methods * Includes non-region-specific case studies and recommendations that can be easily adapted for international use * Examines ethical and legal considerations in DVI, including suggestions for standardizing the victim identification process * Describes the critical role of the Victim Information Center (VIC) in providing the comparative information required to go beyond presumptive identifications Part of the American Association for Forensic Sciences (AAFS) series, Disaster Victim Identification in the 21st Century: A US Perspective is an indispensable resource for forensic scientists, disaster planners, policymakers, medical examiners and coroners, law enforcement and emergency personnel, and upper-level undergraduate and graduate students in forensic sciences and emergency management.

Leseprobe

Published and forthcoming titles in the Forensic Science in Focus series

Published

The Global Practice of Forensic ScienceDouglas H. Ubelaker (Editor)

Forensic Chemistry: Fundamentals and ApplicationsJay A. Siegel (Editor)

Forensic MicrobiologyDavid O. Carter, Jeffrey K. Tomberlin, M. Eric Benbow and Jessica L. Metcalf (Editors)

Forensic Anthropology: Theoretical Framework and Scientific BasisClifford Boyd and Donna Boyd (Editors)

The Future of Forensic ScienceDaniel A. Martell (Editor)

Forensic Anthropology and the U.S. Judicial SystemLaura C. Fulginiti, Alison Galloway and Kristen Hartnett-McCann (Editors)

Forensic Science and Humanitarian Action: Interacting with the Dead and the LivingRoberto C. Parra, Sara C. Zapico and Douglas H. Ubelaker (Editors)

Disaster Victim Identification in the 21st Century: A US PerspectiveJohn Williams and Victor Weedn (Editors)

Forthcoming

Anthropology of Violent Death: Theoretical Foundations for Forensic Humanitarian ActionRoberto C. Parra and Douglas H. Ubelaker (Editors)

The Forensic Evaluation of Burnt Human RemainsSarah Ellingham, Joe Adserias Garriga, Sara C. Zapico and Douglas H. Ubelaker (Editors)

Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Forensic SciencesKatrin Franke and Zeno Geradts (Editors)

An Illustrated Guide to Forensic Skeletal Trauma AnalysisDonna C. Boyd

Disaster Victim Identification in the 21st Century

A US Perspective

EDITED BY

John A Williams

Western Carolina University Cullowhee, US

Victor W Weedn

George Washington University Washington, US

This edition first published 2022© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

The right of John A Williams and Victor W Weedn to be identified as the authors of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with law.

Registered OfficesJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USAJohn Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

Editorial OfficeThe Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print-on-demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of WarrantyIn view of ongoing research, equipment modifications, changes in governmental regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to the use of experimental reagents, equipment, and devices, the reader is urged to review and evaluate the information provided in the package insert or instructions for each chemical, piece of equipment, reagent, or device for, among other things, any changes in the instructions or indication of usage and for added warnings and precautions. While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataNames: Williams, John A. (Physical anthropologist), editor. | Weedn, VictorWalter, editor. | John Wiley & Sons, publisher.Title: Disaster victim identification in the 21st century : a US perspective / edited by John A Williams, Victor W Weedn.Description: Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley & Sons, 2022. | Series: Forensic science in focus | Includes bibliographical references and index.Identifiers: LCCN 2021061393 (print) | LCCN 2021061394 (ebook) | ISBN 9781119652786 (hardback) | ISBN 9781119652809 (pdf) | ISBN 9781119652793 (epub) | ISBN 9781119652823 (ebook)Subjects: LCSH: Disaster victims--Identification. | Dead--Identification.Classification: LCC RA1055 .D53 2022 (print) | LCC RA1055 (ebook) | DDC 363.34/8--dc23/eng/20220301LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021061393LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021061394

Cover Image: © Pgiam/Getty ImagesCover Design by Wiley

Set in 10.5/13.5pt Meridien LT Std by Integra Software Services Pvt. Ltd, Pondicherry, India

Contents

Cover

Series page

Title page

Copyright

About the Editors

Notes on the Contributors

Preface

Series Preface

1 Introduction

1.1 Introduction

1.2 This Book

2 Historical Background

2.1 History of Mass Disasters

2.2 Early History of Mass Disaster Response

2.2.1 The Portsmouth Christmas Fires and 1803 Portsmouth Federal Disaster Relief

2.2.2 The 1835 Great Fire of New York City

2.2.3 1865 Sultana Explosion

2.2.4 The 1871 Fires

2.2.5 American Red Cross (ARC)

2.2.6 1889 Johnstown Flood

2.2.7 1899 San Ciriaco Hurricane

2.2.8 1900 Galveston Storm

2.2.9 1906 San Francisco Earthquake

2.2.10 1911 Triangle Shirtwaist Fire

2.2.11 1912 Sinking of Titanic

2.2.12 1918 Spanish Flu Pandemic

2.2.13 1921–22 Russian (Povolzhye) Famine

2.2.14 1927 Mississippi River Flood

2.3 1930s and 1940s Federal Disaster Relief Legislation

2.3.1 World War II Civilian Preparedness and Emergency Assets

2.3.2 Post WWII Federal Disaster Relief Legislation

2.3.3 Civil Defense Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-920)

2.3.4 Federal Disaster Relief Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-875)

2.4 1950s Federal Disaster Relief

2.5 1960s Beginnings

2.5.1 1960 Hurricane Donna

2.5.2 1961 Hurricane Carla

2.5.3 1962 Ash Wednesday Storm

2.5.4 1964 Great Alaskan Earthquake

2.5.5 1960s Federal Activism in the Wake of the Alaskan Earthquake

2.5.6 1965 Palm Sunday Tornado Outbreak

2.5.7 1965 Hurricane Betsy

2.5.8 Disaster Relief Act of 1966

2.5.9 1968 National Flood Insurance

2.5.10 1969 Hurricane Camille

2.6 Disaster Relief Acts of 1969 and 1970

2.6.1 1971 San Fernando (Sylmar) Earthquake

2.6.2 1972 Hurricane Agnes

2.6.3 1974 Super Outbreak

2.6.4 Disaster Relief Act Amendments of 1974

2.7 National Emergencies Act of 1976

2.8 National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) of 1977

2.9 1979 Executive Orders 12127 & 12148 – Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

2.9.1 1979 Three Mile Island (TMI) Nuclear Accident

2.9.2 1980 Mount St. Helens Volcanic Eruption

2.10 Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 (The Stafford Act)

2.10.1 FEMA under President George H. W. Bush (1989–1993)

2.10.2 1989 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill

2.10.3 1989 Hurricane Hugo

2.10.4 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake

2.11 1992 Federal Response Plan (FRP)

2.11.1 1992 Hurricane Andrew

2.11.2 1992 Hurricane Iniki

2.12 FEMA under President William J. Clinton (1993–2001)

2.12.1 1993 Midwest Floods

2.12.2 1994 Northridge Earthquake

2.12.3 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing

2.13 1996 EMAC

2.14 FEMA under President George W. Bush (2001–2009)

2.14.1 2001 Al Qaeda 9/11 Terrorist Attacks

2.15 Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

2.15.1 2005 Hurricane Katrina

2.16 Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA)

2.17 2008 National Response Framework (NRF)

2.18 2011 National Disaster Recovery Framework

2.18.1 2012 Hurricane Sandy

2.18.2 Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 (SRIA)

2.18.3 2017 Hurricane Harvey

2.18.4 2017 Hurricane Maria

2.19 The Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA)

2.20 2020 COVID-19 Pandemic

2.21 Summary of Federal Disaster Response

2.22 History of Disaster Victim Identification

2.22.1 Scientific Methods of Identification

2.22.2 Military Identification Efforts

2.22.3 FBI DVI Squad

2.22.4 INTERPOL

2.22.5 Other International Guidance

2.22.6 Disaster Mortuary Operations Response Team (DMORT)

2.22.7 National Association of Medical Examiners

2.22.8 Federal Direction

2.22.9 US Standards Setting Efforts

2.23 Conclusion

References

3 Quality Assurance in Disaster Victim Identification: The Case for Standards

3.1 Introduction

3.2 The Need for Standards in MDI

3.3 The Need for Standards in DVI

3.4 History of Standards Development in DVI

3.5 Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC)

3.6 Discussion

3.7 Adoption of Standards

3.8 Conclusion

References

4 Medical Examiners, Coroners, and Public and Private Agencies

4.1 Introduction

4.2 The Medical Examiner/Coroner System

4.3 The US Federal Government and Mass Disasters

4.4 Disaster Mortuary Operational Response Team

4.5 Transportation Disaster Response

4.6 State Reponses to Mass Fatalities

4.7 The Private Sector

4.8 Summary

References

5 DVI Morgue Operations

5.1 Introduction

5.2 DVI Morgue Considerations

5.2.1 Morgue Site Selection

5.2.2 Incident Command System

5.3 Workflow in the DVI Morgue

5.4 DVI Morgue Stations

5.4.1 Non-forensic Stations

5.4.2 Forensic Stations

5.5 Information Resource Center

5.6 Identification and Reconciliation

5.7 Summary

References

6 Forensic Odontology and Disaster Victim Identification

6.1 Introduction

6.2 Methods of Identification of an Individual

6.2.1 Non-Dental Methods of Identification

6.2.2 Dental Identification

6.3 Theoretical Basis for Comparative Dental Analysis

6.3.1 Basic Theory

6.3.2 The 32 Teeth Concept

6.3.3 Logical Direction of Change

6.3.4 Comparison Discrepancies

6.3.5 Concordant Features

6.4 The Antemortem Dental Record

6.4.1 Tooth Numbering Systems

6.5 Laws Governing the Transfer of Protected Dental Information

6.5.1 Electronic Dental Record

6.5.2 Issues Concerning Dental Data

6.6 The Postmortem Dental Record

6.7 The Dental Autopsy

6.7.1 Visible Light Fluorescence

6.7.2 Craniofacial Dissection

6.7.3 Antemortem Radiographs

6.7.4 Postmortem Radiographs

6.7.5 Types of Imaging Devices

6.7.5.1 Film

6.7.5.2 Phosphorus Storage Plates (PSP)

6.7.6 Digital Sensors

6.7.7 Radiographic Sources

6.7.8 Types of Dental Radiographs

6.7.8.1 Intraoral Radiographs

6.7.8.2 Extraoral Radiographs

6.7.9 Radiographic Guidelines

6.8 Intraoral and Extraoral Photographs

6.8.1 Postmortem Photographs

6.9 Study Casts

6.10 Denture Labeling

6.11 Dental Age Assessment

6.12 Characterization of Dental Materials

6.13 Reconciliation

6.13.1 Source Conclusions

6.13.2 Serial Unmasking

6.13.3 Criteria for Comparison and Reconciliation

6.13.4 Reporting

6.13.5 Terminology

6.14 Assembling the Forensic Odontology Team

6.14.1 Leadership Team

6.14.2 Administration Team

6.14.3 Site Assessment Team

6.14.4 Antemortem Team

6.14.5 Postmortem Team

6.14.6 Coding Team

6.14.7 Information Technology Team

6.14.8 Photographic Team

6.14.9 Reconciliation (Comparison) Team

6.14.10 Identification Review Board (IRB)

6.15 Computer-Assisted Dental Identification

6.15.1 Computer Assisted Post-Mortem Identification (CAPMI)

6.15.2 WinID3

6.15.3 UVIS/UDIM

6.15.4 DVI System International

6.15.5 OdontoSearch

6.16 Ethical Considerations

6.17 Demobilization and After-Action Reports

6.17.1 Demobilization

6.17.2 Preservation of Dental Data

6.17.2.1 Preservation of Antemortem Dental Data

6.17.2.2 Preservation of Postmortem Dental Data

6.17.3 Post-Action Follow-Up

6.17.4 Planning and Training

6.18 Conclusion

References

7 Fingerprints and DVI

7.1 Introduction

7.2 Role of Fingerprints in DVI

7.3 The DVI Process and Fingerprints

7.4 Postmortem Fingerprinting Station

7.5 Personnel and Postmortem Fingerprinting

7.6 Postmortem Fingerprinting Process

7.6.1 Inspection and Cleansing

7.6.2 Rehydration

7.6.2.1 Macerated Remains

7.6.2.1.1 Tissue Injection

7.6.2.1.2 Degloving

7.6.2.1.3 Boiling Method

7.6.2.2 Thermal Modification (Charred/burned Skin)

7.6.2.2.1 Tendon Release

7.6.2.2.2 Break and Twist Method

7.6.2.3 Desiccation (Mummification)

7.6.2.3.1 Sodium Hydroxide Reconditioning

7.6.2.3.2 Ammonium Hydroxide Reconditioning

7.6.2.3.3 Detergent Soaking Reconditioning

7.6.3 Collecting PM Prints

7.6.3.1 Digital Capture

7.6.3.2 Powder and Adhesive Lifters

7.6.3.3 Ink and Paper

7.6.3.4 Casting

7.6.3.5 Photography

7.7 Searching/AM Records

7.7.1 Database Searches

7.7.2 AM Purported Knowns

7.7.3 Palm Prints and Footprints

7.8 Conclusion

References

8 DNA Technology and the Future of Disaster Victim Identification

8.1 Introduction

8.2 STRs and Mini-STRs

8.3 Lineage Markers

8.4 Next Generation Sequencing

8.5 Rapid DNA

8.6 Conclusion

References

9 The Victim Information Center and Data Collection: Its Evolving Role in DVI

9.1 Introduction

9.1.1 History of the Family Assistance Center

9.2 Overall Function of the Victim Information Center

9.2.1 Incident Operations

9.2.2 Meeting the Needs of Families and Survivors

9.2.3 Briefings and Communication

9.3 Components of the Victim Information Center

9.3.1 Temporary Reception Center

9.3.2 Call Centers

9.3.2.1 Missing Persons Call Center

9.3.2.2 Air Carrier Call Center

9.4 Accounting for the Victims

9.4.1 Victim Information Program

9.5 Considerations for the Victim Information Center

9.5.1 Equipment and Personnel

9.5.2 Function and Location

9.5.3 Closing the Victim Information Center

9.6 Available Resources

References

10 Ethical and Legal Considerations

10.1 Introduction

10.2 State Authority for Fatality Management

10.3 Federal Medicolegal Death Investigations

10.3.1 Assassination of the President or Other Federal Officials

10.4 Legislatively Mandated Scientific Identification

10.5 Missing Persons Acts and Presumptive Deaths

10.6 Rights of the Dead

10.7 Rights of Others in the Dead

10.8 Constitutional Considerations in Responding to Disasters

10.9 Emergency Powers

10.10 Stafford Act

10.11 Federal Executive Administration

10.12 State and Local Executive Administration

10.13 Military Assistance

10.14 Transportation Incidents

10.15 Terrorist Incidents

10.16 Infectious Epidemics

10.17 National Emergency Family Registry and Locator System/National Call Center

10.18 International Legal Considerations in DVI

10.18.1 The US Department of State

10.18.2 Nation-specific Laws

10.18.3 Obligation to Identify Victims

10.18.4 International Disaster Response Law

10.18.5 International Treaties

10.18.6 International Humanitarian Law

10.18.7 International Human Rights Law

10.18.8 Missing and Disappeared Treaties

10.18.9 International Resources

10.18.10 Aviation and Maritime Deaths

10.18.11 Presumed Deaths

10.18.12 Customs

10.18.13 Telecommunications

10.18.14 International Framework for Risk Reduction

10.19 Ethical Considerations in DVI

10.19.1 Community Resilience

10.19.2 Equal Treatment

10.19.3 Respectful Treatment of the Remains

10.19.4 Respect for the Beliefs of the Deceased

10.19.5 Respect for Loved Ones

10.19.6 Respectful Communications

10.19.7 Haitian Example [184–186]

10.20 Conclusion

References

11 DVI in the Changing Twenty-first Century

11.1 Introduction

11.2 Trend Analysis

11.2.1 Megatrend #1: Population Shift and Megacity Growth

11.2.2 Megatrend #2: Change in Disaster Types that Result in MFIs

11.2.3 Megatrend #3: Massive Technological Advancement

11.2.4 Megatrend #4: Social Media and Social Expectations

11.2.5 Megatrend #5: The Specialization of Ethics

11.2.6 Megatrend #6: A New Dynamic Disaster Management System

11.2.7 Megatrend #7: A New DVI Model

11.2.8 Megatrend #8: Healthcare and the National and International Privatization of Medicine

11.3 Forcefield Analysis

11.3.1 Drivers of Change: Regulation and Legal Factors

11.3.2 Drivers and Constrainers of Change: Politics

11.3.3 Constrainers of Change

11.3.4 A Neutral Context to Gain Insight regarding Driving and Constraining Forces

11.4 DVI Futures in the Twenty-first Century

11.4.1 The Quantum Forensics World

11.4.2 The Modern Crowners World

11.4.3 The Launch-Resistant Forensics World

11.4.4 The Hey Buddy Innovator World

11.5 Future DVI Strategy Performance

11.5.1 DVI Strategies

11.5.2 Stress-Testing Strategies Against DVI Futures

11.6 SWOT Analysis

11.6.1 Strengths

11.6.2 Weaknesses

11.6.3 Opportunities

11.6.4 Threats

11.7 Actionable Recommendations

11.7.1 Refresh the ME/C Mission Statement

11.7.2 Create an Enduring DVI Vision

11.7.3 Envision a Future Smart Independent Regional Forensic Science System and Move Toward Implementing This Model

11.7.4 Develop Alternate DVI Standards

11.8 Closing Thoughts

References

Index

End User License Agreement

List of Illustrations

Chapter 2

Figure 2.1 World population growth (billions)[5].

Figure 2.2 Disaster relief appropriations...

Chapter 4

Figure 4.1 The mass fatality response framework...

Chapter 5

Figure 5.1 Operational workflow in the DVI...

Chapter 6

Figure 6.1 Surfaces of a tooth.

Figure 6.2 Frequency of a Restoration Type on a Maxillary Right First Molar.

Figure 6.3 Distribution of Restorations and Extractions.

Figure 6.4 Examples of explainable discrepancies showing a...

Figure 6.5 An example of a human identification by dental...

Figure 6.6 Examples of written and digital dental records.

Figure 6.7 An example of the UDIM postmortem dental...

Figure 6.8 Examples of Fluorescence properties of...

Figure 6.9 Examples of digital intraoral sensors...

Figure 6.10 An example of the use of intraoral...

Figure 6.11 An example of the use of study casts...

Figure 6.12 An example of the use of denture label...

Figure 6.13 An example of the use of the London...

Figure 6.14 CAPMI 3 Opening Screen (Courtesy of Richard Fioxett).

Figure 6.15 CAPMI 4 Screens showing comparison...

Figure 6.16 WinID3 Showing Antemortem and Postmortem Data Entry.

Figure 6.17 WinID3 Comparison Options.

Figure 6.18 WinID Comparison Screens.

Figure 6.19 WinID for the Web.

Figure 6.20 UDIM.

Figure 6.21 UDIM Comparison Screen.

Figure 6.22 PLASS DVI Screens.

Figure 6.23 PLASS DVI Comparison Screen.

Figure 6.24 Odon to Search.

Chapter 7

Figure 7.1 Example deployable PM Fingerprinting DVI kit.

Figure 7.2 Photograph of a finger that has been injected...

Figure 7.3 Example of degloved skin being printed by...

Figure 7.4 Ink prints of a macerated hand before...

Figure 7.5 Example of burned epidermis following a...

Figure 7.6 Before and after images of a mummified...

Figure 7.7 Use of a digital scanning platform to quickly print PM remains.

Chapter 9

Figure 9.1 Victim accounting...

Figure 9.2 An example of the antemortem main menu...

Figure 9.3 An example of the postmortem main menu...

Chapter 11

Figure 11.1 Dynamic disaster management system (Gavin 2019)....

Figure 11.2 A neutral context to gain...

Figure 11.3 DVI areas of uncertainty.

Figure 11.4 DVI futures in the twenty-first century.

Figure 11.5 Stress test matrix of future DVI strategy performance.

Figure 11.6 SWOT summary.

List of Tables

Chapter 2

Table 2.1 World’s deadliest natural disasters [6].

Table 2.2 World’s deadliest wars [8].

Table 2.3 Deadliest US wars [11,12].

Table 2.4 World’s deadliest non-combat disasters [27].

Table 2.5 Deadliest US disasters [28].

Table 2.6 Deadliest US disasters (FEMA) [29].

Table 2.7 Categorization of US mass fatality incidents...

Table 2.8 Categorization of US mass fatality incidents of 10 or...

Table 2.9 Significant dates in...

Table 2.10 Significant dates in history of INTERPOL [321].

Table 2.11 DVI guidelines produced by the...

Chapter 4

Table 4.1 Role of emergency support function 8 (ESF ...

Table 4.2 Core capability of ESF#8 as it applies to DVI (FEMA 2016).

Table 4.3 DMORT team positions and specialists.

Table 4.4 Selected DMORT deployments illustrating the variety of MFIs.

Chapter 5

Table 5.1 Typical DVI morgue stations.

Chapter 6

Table 6.1 Frequency of a restoration type on a maxillary right first molar.

Table 6.2 Basic information recorded in the forensic dental record.

Table 6.3 Oro-dental photographic views.

Table 6.4 I.O.F.O.S. Levels of identification (IOFOS 2020).

Table 6.5 ABFO categories &...

Chapter 10

Table 10.1 Provisions of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols...

Chapter 11

Table 11.1 Number of fire-related MFI

Table 11.2 The rise in MFI-related shootings in...

Guide

Cover

Series page

Title page

Copyright

Table of Contents

About the Editors

Notes on the Contributors

Preface

Series Preface

Begin Reading

Index

End User License Agreement

Pages

i

ii

iii

iv

v

vi

vii

viii

ix

x

xi

xii

xiii

xiv

xv

xvi

xvii

xviii

xix

xx

xxi

xxii

xxiii

xxiv

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

138

139

140

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

About the Editors

Victor W. Weedn, MD, JD, is a forensic pathologist and attorney, and the Chief Medical Examiner for the State of Maryland. He has worked as a medical examiner, crime laboratory director, research scientist, and professor of forensic science and of law. He founded the military’s DNA identification program and oversaw the Armed Forces Identification Laboratory (AFDIL), which identified the remains of Czar Nicholas II of Russia, the Branch Davidian conflagration victims in Waco, and later the Michael Blassie, the Vietnam unknown of the Tomb of the Unknowns. He pioneered STR and mtDNA analysis and CE and DNA microchip technologies. He was on the prosecution witness list for the OJ Simpson trial. He holds a patent on latent fingerprint technology. He led the establishment of the NAME inspection and accreditation program. He was the 2015–2016 AAFS President and established the AAFS Academy Standards Board. He received the Helpern Award from the Path/Bio Section of the AAFS in 2017. He was detailed to the DOJ as the Senior Forensic Advisor to Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, 2016–2017. He testified to the US Congress in 2018. He currently serves on the NAME Board of Directors, the AAFS ASB Disaster Victim Identification Consensus Body, and the NIST OSAC Medicolegal Death Investigation Subcommittee.

John A. Williams, Ph.D. D-ABFA (retired), is an Emeritus Professor of forensic anthropology at Western Carolina University. He received his doctorate in 1980 in physical anthropology from the Ohio State University. He spent nearly a quarter of a century as a Professor at the University of North Dakota. There he began his academic career working with prehistoric human skeletons. This led to his involvement with law enforcement and his current interest in forensic anthropology. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences and a now retired Diplomate of the American Board of Forensic Anthropology. Over the past four decades he has worked with medical examiners, the FBI, and law enforcement agencies across the United States. In 2003 he moved to North Carolina to create and direct the forensic anthropology program at Western Carolina University. There in 2005 he established the world’s second human decomposition research facility. He has been a member of the Federal agency, Disaster Mortuary Operational Response Team (DMORT), since 1995. In his capacity with DMORT, he has assisted in the identification of mass fatality victims including aircarrier accidents and the 911 terrorist attack. He has also served as an instructor at national DMORT trainings. Since 2016 he has chaired the Disaster Victim Identification Consensus Body of the American Standards Board.

Notes on the Contributors

Kenneth W. Aschheim, DDS, D-ABFO, began his forensic career following the World Trade Center attack in 2001 and is a Diplomate of the American Board of Forensic Odontology. He serves as the Assistant Chief Forensic Odontologist for NYC’s OCME and is a member of DMORT. Dr. Aschheim chairs both the ADA SCDI Forensic Odontology Informatics, and the OSAC Forensic Odontology SAC. He is a board member of the Academy Standards Board, ADA’s Standards Committees, the International Association of Coroners & Medical Examiners, and Interpol’s Forensic Odontology DVI Sub Working group. Dr. Aschheim is an Adjunct Clinical Professor at NYU College of Dentistry, a full-time practitioner, and has co-authored three textbooks on esthetic dentistry.

Jason Byrd, Ph.D., D-ABFE, is a Professor and Associate Director of the William R. Maples Center for Forensic Medicine at the University of Florida’s College of Medicine. He is a Board-Certified Forensic Entomologist and Diplomate of the American Board of Forensic Entomology. Dr. Byrd is the educational program administrator for UF’s Veterinary Forensic Sciences, Wildlife Forensic Sciences, Shelter Medicine, and Forensic Medicine educational programs. He has served as President of the American Board of Forensic Entomology, the North American Forensic Entomology Association, and the International Veterinary Forensic Science Association. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. Dr. Byrd serves as a Medicolegal Death Investigator within the National Disaster Medical System, Disaster Mortuary Operational Response Team, Region IV, and serves as Commander for the Florida Emergency Mortuary Operations Response System.

Taylor Dickerson III, MSFS, began his career in Forensic Science in 2004 at the NYC Office of Chief Medical Examiner’s (OCME) Department of Forensic Biology, where he performed DNA testing and provided expert testimony for a wide range of criminal cases. Mr. Dickerson also supervised the identification of the victims of the 9/11 World Trade Center incident, helped develop the OCME’s Family Assistance Center procedures for mass fatality events, supervised NIJ grant funded work for missing and unidentified person cases, and served as an assistant CODIS administrator. In 2012, Mr. Dickerson joined the Armed Forces Medical Examiner System’s Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory (AFDIL) as Technical Leader of the Current Day Operations Section and contractor through SNA International. He oversees the DNA testing of criminal casework and current military death identifications. Mr. Dickerson served on the DNA committee of the Scientific Working Group on Disaster Victim Identification and is a current member of the AAFS Standards Board Consensus Body for DVI. Mr. Dickerson is also an Adjunct Professor within Pace University’s Forensic Science Program.

Cynthia Gavin, Ph.D., is a strategist, having a diverse background in healthcare, chemical/biological/radiological disaster response, and US military planning. Among her favorite positions, she has provided strategic advisement for the US Army, US Secret Service’s Technical Security Division, and the City of New York Office of Emergency Management and Office of Chief Medical Examiner. Building upon her thirty years of experience, Dr. Gavin has taught for the Harvard School of Public Health and the University of Maryland Baltimore County. She has published several works within the Department of Defense and private sector, some of which include Concepts of Operation development, Return on Investment, Decision Papers and creating a future vision for Disaster Victim Identification.

Bryan Johnson, MSFS, is the Major Incident Management Program Manager for the FBI Laboratory’s Latent Print Unit in Quantico, VA. He has been with the FBI since 2009 as an FBI Qualified Latent Print Examiner and has focused on mass fatality and unknown deceased issues since 2015. He oversees the FBI’s Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) Response Team, who also conducts all fingerprint identifications for the Armed Forces Medical Examiner in Dover, DE, as well as at mass fatality incidents around the globe. He has published in international peer-reviewed forensic science journals on topics pertaining to postmortem fingerprinting and digital capture of postmortem fingerprints. He currently provides regional trainings to agencies across the United States on DVI, postmortem fingerprinting, and has a passion for furthering the science and technology used.

Michal L. Pierce, MS, ASQ CMQ/OE, received her Bachelor of Science in Microbiology from the University of Illinois, followed by a Master of Science in Forensic Science from Sam Houston State University. She joined the Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences (HCIFS) Forensic Biology Laboratory in October 2007 as a DNA analyst, and she served as the QA/Compliance Manager for Forensic Genetics from 2011 to 2013. In 2013, she was appointed as the first Quality Director for the HCIFS. In this position, she oversees the Quality Management Division, which includes quality assurance, safety, training and development, and analytical statistics. Licensed through the Texas Forensic Science Commission as a forensic analyst, Ms. Pierce possesses a professional certification by the American Board of Criminalistics in molecular biology, and she is certified as a Manager of Quality/Organizational Excellence through the American Society for Quality.

Jason Wiersema, Ph.D., is a forensic anthropologist, and the Director of Forensic Anthropology and Emergency Management at the Harris County Institute of Forensic Sciences in Houston, Texas. He earned his PhD from Texas A&M University in 2006, and his certification by the American Board of Forensic Anthropology in 2012. Dr. Wiersema has extensive experience in DVI response, including large-scale human rights and disaster responses in Bosnia, Guatemala, in Thailand after the 2005 tsunami, in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina and in New York City as part of the Investigation of the World Trade Center terrorist attack. He has leveraged this, and his experience as a laboratory-based analyst of over 2000 forensic anthropology cases, in the development and implementation of standards and best practices for medicolegal death investigation generally and for DVI specifically. He is the current Chair of the Medicine Scientific Area Committee of the Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC), and a member of the Forensic Sciences Standards Board. He is past Chair of the Disaster Victim Identification Subcommittee of the OSAC. He is the author of numerous peer-reviewed publications relevant to DVI.

Preface

In 2009 the National Academy of Sciences issued a report critical of the state of forensic science in the United States. One outcome of the report was the formation of OSAC, Organization of Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science. OSAC’s 22 subcommittees are charged with creating standards for the forensic sciences. The formation of standards for Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) is one component of OSAC’s mission. To make these standards reality requires an SDO or Standards Development Organization. In response to this need the American Academy of Forensic Sciences established an SDO, the Academy Standards Board or ASB. DVI is included in the ASB and has its own committee or Consensus Body. It was during the routine work of the DVI Consensus Body that impetus for this book, outlining the current state of DVI in the United States, came about.

December 2021

John A. WilliamsVictor W. Weedn

Series Preface

The forensic sciences represent diverse, dynamic fields that seek to utilize the very best techniques available to address legal issues. Fueled by advances in technology, research, and methodology, as well as new case applications, the forensic sciences continue to evolve. Forensic scientists strive to improve their analyses and interpretations of evidence and to remain cognizant of the latest advancements. This series results from a collaborative effort between the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) and Wiley to publish a select number of books that relate closely to the activities and Objectives of the AAFS. The book series reflects the goals of the AAFS to encourage quality scholarship and publication in the forensic sciences. Proposals for publication in the series are reviewed by a committee established for that purpose by the AAFS and also reviewed by Wiley. The AAFS was founded in 1948 and represents a multidisciplinary professional organization that provides leadership to advance science and its application to the legal system. The 11 sections of the AAFS consist of Criminalistics, Digital and Multimedia Sciences, Engineering Sciences, General, Pathology/Biology, Questioned Documents, Jurisprudence, Anthropology, Toxicology, Odontology, and Psychiatry and Behavioral Science. There are over 7000 members of the AAFS, originating from all 50 States of the United States and many countries beyond. This series reflects global AAFS membership interest in new research, scholarship, and publication in the forensic sciences.

Douglas H. UbelakerSenior ScientistSmithsonian InstitutionWashington, DC, USASeries Editor

CHAPTER 1 Introduction

John A. Williams1 and Victor W. Weedn2

1Department of Anthropology and Sociology, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, NC, USA

2Office of the Maryland Chief Medical Examiner, Baltimore, MD, USA

1.1 Introduction

Mass fatality disasters, both natural and man-made, are increasing in frequency. Extreme environmental disruptions like hurricanes, wildfires, and flooding are on the rise and in the news almost daily. Mass casualty terrorism is sadly also becoming more commonplace. In spite of improvements in technology common carrier crashes continue to take place. The COVID-19 pandemic has shown us that twenty-first-century medicine can be outmatched by a “novel” virus that does not respect national boundaries. The deaths that result from these events place a different set of needs and obligations on those charged with disaster victim identification, or DVI. In the United States during the 1980s the National Funeral Directors Association (NFDA) noticed with concern that there was no national coordinating body with regard to mass fatality events and DVI. The NFDA was the first organization to draw up plans for the handling of mass fatality victims. From their initial efforts came the Federal agency DMORT (Disaster Mortuary Operational Response Team) and the concept of a disaster morgue, marking the beginning of DVI in the United States as it is known today.

Disaster Victim Identification is the comprehensive process of human identification as applied to mass fatality events. Although by definition a mass fatality event is any situation that overwhelms local resources, we generally think of situations in which identification is hampered by the event itself and the process of recovery from the event. Human remains that have been badly traumatized, heavily decomposed, or recovered outside of their normal context are examples that would require DVI.

In 2009, after issues surfaced regarding the scientific basis for the practice of forensic science, the National Academy of Science issued a report on the state of forensic science in the United States. In response to the NAS report a movement to formulate standards within the forensic sciences began. DVI was included and the creation of standards and best practices within the field are ongoing. In 2014, responding to the 2009 NAS report, the US Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) established the Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) to assist with the development of these standards in the forensic sciences. In OSAC’s first iteration a Disaster Victim Identification subcommittee was established to promulgate recommended standards. In 2016, the American Academy of Forensic Sciences created the American Standards Board (ASB) as a standards development organization (SDO). The ASB includes a Disaster Victim Identification Consensus Body to produce American National Standards for DVI. Using the OSAC DVI subcommittee recommendations, the ASB has to date published several standards/best practices that apply to DVI.

Although DVI may be thought of as a police function, and in most countries Interpol guidelines are used, in the United States the responsibility is left to the medical examiner and coroner (MEC), who are generally outside of law enforcement. The most current books on the subject of DVI take a European perspective, and do not directly address needs of practitioners in the United States. While DVI is carried out locally, it is by its nature under a broader governmental umbrella (i.e., based in the office of a coroner or medical examiner). At the US federal level, 15 Emergency Support Functions (ESFs) outline how the public and private sectors should respond to national emergencies. Buried in the scope of ESF#8 is the role of the Public Health Service in disaster response, specifically in mass fatality management and DVI. Here is where standards or best DVI practices would prove highly beneficial in providing guidance to the varied agencies that may be involved in a mass fatality event.

Disaster victim identification has never been a static process. With each mass fatality event (each hurricane, plane crash, terrorist attack) comes different circumstances of recovery, the state or condition of the victim’s remains, and the resulting challenges to victim identification. Even though we learn from each disaster nothing fully prepares us for the next to come. The best that can be done is to plan and train personnel for multiple scenarios, and hope that the planning and training never needs to be implemented.

1.2 This Book

This book approaches DVI from three organizational perspectives. The beginning chapters cover the background of mass fatalities and disaster victim identification, its history and the evolving scope of governmental response. The bulk of the book – the middle chapters – focuses on the nuts and bolts of DVI, the DVI morgue and VIC (Victim Information Center), and the methods used to ensure correct and proper identifications. The concluding chapters examine two less concrete elements of DVI in an MFI (Mass Fatality Incident): ethical considerations and the changing landscape of twenty-first-century MFIs.

To anyone who is a student of the past, mass fatality incidents have a long and varied history not only in the United States but the world at large. From a global perspective, we see that fortunately Americans have been spared from many of the worst recorded losses of life. This is partly due to the relative youth of our nation, its relatively small population density, and a favorable geography that has not been conducive to extreme natural events. Still, the United States has experienced its share of MFIs, as well as other disasters. Until recently, as a nation, the response of the federal government, and state governments, has been at least mainly mitigative. Responses to disasters have been direct and fiscal in nature. It was only in the aftermath of the September 11th terrorist attack that a more proactive approach to disasters and MFIs began to take shape. The 2004 National Response Plan (NRP) and its Emergency Support Functions (ESF) highlighted the need for preparation and coordinated response to all forms of disasters, including MFIs.

Our approach to DVI was further impacted by the 2009 National Academy of Science report on the scientific basis of forensic science. Few MECs have had, or will ever have, the need to respond to an MFI. While DVI is a death investigation process it is not simply an extension of the routine operations of the MEC jurisdiction. Besides differences in the circumstances of death (e.g., the likelihood of extreme fragmentation), the MEC must contend with external inputs from the media, family and loved ones of the victims, and political figures. Conducting a DVI without a guiding framework can easily result in inconsistency, inefficiency, and the possibility of a less than adequate result. It is precisely for these reasons that the NAS report targeted the forensic sciences, of which DVI is one multidisciplinary component. This report, through various stages, led to the creation of the Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) and that in turn to the Academy Standards Board (ASB), leading to the formation of standards in the forensic sciences, including DVI. These standards, which are still being formed and undergoing review, will provide some degree of consistency and accountability in the practice in how MECs and other agencies approach DVI. However, for these standards (best practices) to be effective there must be some overriding effort to bring all of the various partners in DVI into compliance

During the early 1980s the National Funeral Directors Association recognized the need for a coordinated effort in responding to mass fatality events. This private response to a growing concern, in part due to several airline accidents with significant loss of life, led to the formation of DMORT. With DMORT came a team approach to DVI. Following a presidential disaster declaration, it is possible for an MEC to utilize DMORT, alleviating the problems that can arise when a jurisdiction is unprepared for or incapable of responding to the MFI. In addition to a fully operational disaster morgue team, a DMORT deployment comes with a fully outfitted disaster morgue. Since the mid-1990s when DMORT was first commissioned many states have developed their own mass fatality teams (i.e., FEMORS in Florida). Whether the mass fatality morgue is free-standing, as in DMORT, or incorporated into the MEC jurisdictional morgue, it is here that the work of DVI takes place. The mass fatality morgue is designed to be flexible, as are mass fatality teams. Together with logistical and support team members, the forensic science team members go about the process of identifying victims. Although all members of the DVI morgue contribute to victim identification, the majority of positive identification derives from odontology, fingerprints, and DNA. In the decades since the advent of DMORT, DVI has become increasingly technology driven. Where forensic odontologists once examined actual dental radiographs, the work is now accomplished digitally using software applications. Fingerprints can be scanned and uploaded to a regional or national database directly from the DVI morgue using technology no more complex than a personal cellphone. Advancements in rapid DNA processing may soon result in identifications made while the remains are still being processed through the DVI morgue stations. Together these advancements have increased the speed, efficiency, accuracy, and accountability in the identification process.

Prior to the mid-1990s the US approach to the DVI was a relatively uncentralized mix of federal and local deployed assets. On the heels of highly visible airline crashes and the terrorist attack of 2001 came DMORT, FEMA, and an ever-changing bureaucracy of the NRP and NRF (National Response Framework). The question to consider is whether our plan for the disasters of the late twentieth century is still valid for the first quarter of the twenty-first century. Currently, the MEC jurisdictions that must handle DVI vary from large urban ones with self-sufficient morgue capabilities for even the largest MFIs to small rural ones with few assets and little training to handle mass fatalities. Federal assets, like DMORT, were designed for the MFIs of the mid-1990s, i.e., transportation accidents. This model of morgue deployment has far less utility in handling other disasters, like that occurring on our southern border with the undocumented deaths of immigrants crossing illegally into the United States. Can the MEC system meet the challenges of a changing role for DVI? Add to this the contrast upgrading of technology, like rapid DNA testing, and the disparity between MEC jurisdictions becomes even more pronounced. DVI, whether we retain the DMORT model, or some form of it, or move to a novel approach, it must be adaptable for it be relevant to the needs of the twenty-first century and the ever-changing theater of mass fatality disasters.

Interlaced throughout the chapters of this book are references to law, domestic and occasionally international. The complexity of an MFI response would be far more difficult to approach if it were not for various legislative actions like the Stafford Act, FEMA, and the National Response Framework. These mandate and make possible our ability to respond to mass fatalities and carry out DVI. State responses are more varied but also contribute to the framework of DVI. In the end, though, it is the MEC jurisdiction and its legal requirement to establish cause of death, and, in so doing, identify the deceased, upon which DVI rests.

How the dead should be treated falls under the umbrella of ethical conduct. Every person should have the right to be identified and be treated with dignity after death. A statement attributed to William Gladstone makes this point: “Show me the manner in which a nation cares for its dead and I will measure with mathematical exactness, the tender mercy of its people, their respect for the law of the land and their loyalty to high ideals.” If the recent work treating the victims of COVID-19 in New York City by DMORT are an indication, despite our country’s differences, on this we as Americans still agree.

CHAPTER 2 Historical Background

Victor W. Weedn

Office of the Maryland Chief Medical Examiner, Baltimore, MD, USA

2.1 History of Mass Disasters

There have always been natural cataclysms, such as hurricanes, floods, droughts, wildfires, mudslides, avalanches, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions. Undoubtedly, the great disasters have been recorded, because there was simply insufficient population amassed in prehistoric times. The flood myths, of which there are hundreds from around the world and the Noah and Gilgamesh stories are most famed, probably are just myths based upon the common human experience of flooding. The story of Atlantis was likely based upon a parable in Plato’s writings, although it is possible that he had known of the volcanic eruption at Thera (present-day Santorini island) in 1646 BCE, which destroyed the Greek city of Akrotiri and may have resulted in as many as 20,000 fatalities, although there is some evidence that many of the inhabitants fled [1].

Perhaps the most famous disaster recorded in ancient history was that of the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 AD, which destroyed the Roman villages of Pompeii, Herculaneum, Oplontis, and Stabiae and is thought to have resulted in approximately 1,000 deaths [2].

The Bible refers to earthquakes, floods, wildfires, plagues, and famines. Notable ancient earthquakes include the 115 AD earthquake (magnitude 7.5) that killed 260,000 in the Byzantine city of Antioch (now Turkey), the 526 AD earthquake (magnitude 7.0) that killed 250,000 also in Antioch, and the 1138 AD earthquake (magnitude 7.1) that devastated the Syrian city of Aleppo that killed 230,000 [3].

With the exception of the Black Death of the bubonic plague that was responsible for the death of approximately 50 million or one-half of the fourteenth-century European population, the deadliest disasters are relatively recent phenomena due to population growth (Figure 2.1) [4].

Figure 2.1 World population growth (billions)[5].

Table 2.1 lists the deadliest natural disasters (prior to the COVID pandemic). Deaths from natural disasters have seen a large decline over the past century. Annual deaths from natural disasters have decreased by 75 percent over the past 100 years, to an average of 60,000 over the past decade, approximately 0.1% of global deaths [7]. Death tolls are highest in low- to middle-income countries without the infrastructure to prepare, respond, and protect their citizens.

Table 2.1 World’s deadliest natural disasters [6].

Table

Year

Disaster

Location

Deaths

1

1931

China floods

China

1–4 million

2

1887

Yellow River flood

China

0.9–2 million

3

1556

Shaanxi earthquake

China

830,000

4

1970

Bhola cyclone

Bangladesh

500,000

5

1881

Haiphong typhoon

Vietnam

300,000

6

1920

Haiyuan earthquake

China

273,400

7

526

Antioch earthquake

Turkey

250–300,000

8

1976

Tangshan earthquake

China

243–655,000

9

2010

Haiti earthquake

Haiti

230–316,000

10

1975

Typhoon Nina

China

229,000

The deadliest natural disasters are dwarfed by military wars (Table 2.2). Between 90,000 and 146,000 died acutely from the bombing of Hiroshima, and between 39,000 and 80,000 died from the bombing of Nagasaki [9,10]. Far fewer Americans have died in wars (Table 2.3).

Table 2.2 World’s deadliest wars [8].

Rank

Years

War

Location

Deaths

1

1939–1945

World War II

Worldwide

56–85 million

2

1850–1864

Taiping rebellion

China

20–100 million

3

184–280

Three Kingdoms War

China

36–40 million

4

1206–1368

Mongol conquests

Eurasia

30–40 million

5

1616–1683

Ming-Qing transition

China

25 + million

6

1519–1632

Spanish conquest of Aztecs

Mexico

24.3 million

7

1914–1918

World War I

Worldwide

16–30 million

8

1937–1945

Second Sino–Japanese war

China

20–25 million

9

755–763

An Lushan rebellion

China, Vietnam

13–36 million

10

1370–1405

Conquest of Timur

Eurasia

8–20 million

Table 2.3 Deadliest US wars [11,12].

Rank

Years

War

Deaths

1

1861–1865

American Civil War

750,000

2

1941–1945

World War II

405,399

3

1917–1918

World War I

116,516

4

1961–1975

Vietnam War

58,220

5

1950–1953

Korean War

54,246

6

1775–1783

American Revolutionary war

25,000

7

1812–1815

War of 1812

15,000

8

1846–1848

Mexican-American War

13,283

9

2003–2011

Iraq War

4,497

10

1899–1902

Philippine-American War

4196

Most early mass fatality incidents were of natural disasters, but there were a few noncombat manmade disasters, particularly the collapse of the wooden amphitheater at Fidenae (8 miles north of Rome) in 27 AD that killed 20,000 spectators and the collapse of the upper tier of the Circus Maximus in Rome in 143 AD that killed 1112 spectators (Table 2.4) [13]. In general, manmade disasters are a feature of modern times and generally track technologic progress [14–26].

Table 2.4 World’s deadliest non-combat disasters [27].

Rank

Year

Location

Deaths

Railroad

1

2004

Sri Lanka tsunami train wreck

1700 +

2

1917

Ciurea, Romania rail disaster

600–1000

3

1917

Saint-Michel-de-Maurienne, France derailment

675–800

Air carrier

1

1977

Tenerife runway collision

83

2

1985

Japan Airlines Flight 123

520

3

1996

Charkhi Dadri mid-air collision

349

Maritime

1

1987

MV

Doña Paz

, Philippines

1562–4386

2

1948

SS

Kiangya

, Shanghai

2750–3920

3

2002

MV

Le Joola

, Senegal

1863

Smog

1

1952

London

4000–6000

2

1880

London

2200

3

1956

London

1000

Structural collapse

1

1975

Banqiao Dam, China

171,000

2

27

Amphitheater, Italy

20,000 +

3

1979

Machchhu Dam, India

5000–10,000

Industrial

1

1984

Bhopal India chemical disaster

3787–19,000

2

1942

Benxihu, China colliery disaster

1549

3

2013

Rana Plaza, Bangladesh collapse

1134

Nuclear

1

1957

Mayak nuclear waste explosion

200–6000

2

1986

Chernobyl disaster

95–4000 +

3

1957

Windscale fire

33

Explosions

1

1629

Wanggongchang, China

20,000

2

1769

Bresda, Italy

3000

3

1948

Hsuan Huai, China

3000

Building fires

1

1863

Church of the Company, Chile

2000 +

2

1893

Theater fire, China

1995

3

1845

Theater fire, China

1670

It is sometimes difficult to categorize a mass fatality incident as natural or manmade; e.g. is the 2005 flooding of New Orleans due to inadequate levees or due to Hurricane Katrina?

If we confine our attention to the United States, Table 2.5 lists the deadliest non-military disasters in US history according to one online source (prior to the COVID pandemic). However, a FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) listing of the deadliest US disasters (prior to the COVID pandemic) is quite different (Table 2.6). Listings of disasters are problematic due to differences in how far back they go, what constitutes a disaster, and the uncertainty in the number of fatalities for many of the disasters. Listings of costliest disasters also is different than listings of deadliest disasters [30].

Table 2.5 Deadliest US disasters [28].

Rank

Year

Disaster

Location

Deaths

1

1900

Galveston hurricane

Galveston, TX

6000–12,000

2

1899

San Ciriaco hurricane

Puerto Rico

3389

3

1906

San Francisco earthquake

San Francisco, CA

3000 +

4

2001

September 11 terrorist attacks

NYC, Pentagon, Shanksville, PA

2996

5

2017

Hurricane Maria

Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, East Coast

2982

6

1928

Okeechobee hurricane

Puerto Rico, Florida

2823

7

1941

Pearl Harbor attack

Honolulu, HI

2467

8

1889

Johnstown Flood

Johnstown, PA

2209

9

1893

Cheniere Caminada hurricane

Louisiana

2000

10

1865

Sultana steamboat explosion

Arkansas

1700

Table 2.6 Deadliest US disasters (FEMA) [29].

Rank

Year

Disaster

Location

Deaths

1

1918–1919

Influenza pandemic

US

500,000

2

1775–1782

Smallpox

US

130,000

3

1957

Influenza epidemic

US

69,800

4

1968

Influenza epidemic

US

38,800

5

1878

Yellow Fever

Mississippi valley

13,000

6

1900

Galveston hurricane

Galveston, TX

8000

7

1849–1851

Cholera epidemic

Midwest

11,000

8

1980

Heatwave/drought

Central/East

10,000

9

1988

Heatwave/drought

Central/East

10,000

10

1853

Yellow Fever

New Orleans, LA

7790

If we categorize the US disasters that have resulted in greater than 200 deaths, according to one online source, then we find that there are a similar number of natural (41) and manmade disasters (46) (Table 2.7).

Table 2.7 Categorization of US mass fatality incidents of 200 fatalities or greater [31].

Man-made

No.

Natural

No.

Military strikes

10

Tornados

8

Terrorism

4

Hurricanes

13

Building fires

5

Floods

5

Aircraft crashes

5

Blizzards

6

Ship sinkings

6

Heat waves

3

Explosions

9

Wildfires

5

Other

7

Earthquakes

1

Total

46

Total

41

A study by the New York City Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of mass fatality incidents in the US from 2000 to 2016, where a mass fatality was defined as more than ten deaths, similarly found that the number of natural disasters (56) was roughly equal to the number of manmade disasters (81) (Table 2.8) [32]. Tornados, hurricanes, and floods were the most common natural disasters; transportation, mass shootings, fires, and structural collapses were the most common manmade disasters. The average number of deaths per incident was 62, but this was skewed by the WTC terrorist attack and Hurricane Katrina – when these were excluded the average number of deaths per incident dropped to only 29; 89% of the disasters involved less than 50 fatalities.

Table 2.8 Categorization of US mass fatality incidents of 10 or greater from 2000–2016 [33].

Man-made

No.

Natural

No.

Transportation

47

Tornados

25

Mass shooting

12

Hurricanes

13

Fires

10

Floods

8

Collapse

10

Blizzards

4

Asphyxiation

1

Mudslides

3

Stampede

1

Wildfires

3

Total

81

Total

56

2.2 Early History of Mass Disaster Response

Communities have always had to cope with catastrophes as best they could, but planned and coordinated response and actions taken to mitigate future catastrophes are a development of modernity.

Commentators have called the 1755 Great Lisbon Earthquake “The First Modern Disaster” [34,35]. When the quake struck in 1755, Lisbon was a great and wealthy city with a population of 275,000. It struck on All Saints day during the morning when thousands were attending Catholic mass ceremonies. This earthquake, calculated to have had a magnitude of at least 8.5, was associated with a tsunami sea wave and numerous fires that combined to destroy 85% of the city and cause an estimated 50,000 fatalities. The quake lasted for about five minutes, collapsing buildings and creating massive fissures in the earth, but then was followed by a tsunami that flooded the city. Hundreds who had fled to the docks to escape the carnage in the city were washed away. All churches were destroyed, but the red-light district was spared. The catastrophe had a strong impact on European culture and influenced philosophers such as Voltaire, Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant.

King Joseph I, who suffered a nervous breakdown after the catastrophe, placed his prime minister, Sebastião de Melo, later the Marquis de Pombal, in charge of responding to the disaster. Allegedly, the Marquis, when asked what was to be done, he replied, “bury the dead and heal the living.” This was the first organized disaster response in history. Firefighters were sent to extinguish the fires, the military was sent to prevent looting, and citizens were ordered to remove the bodies. Over the objections of the church, many of the bodies were loaded onto barges and buried at sea. Pombal sent a query to all parishes in the country about the earthquake which provided the earliest known seismologic data. In less than a year, the city was cleared of debris. With funding from the king, the city was rebuilt based upon the plan of their Chief Engineer, Manuel da Maia. “Pombaline” buildings were built to withstand future earthquakes, based upon tests of wooden scale models and simulations of earthquakes by marching troops around them.

Prior to the formation of the United States the English colonies could not expect relief from the English king or Parliament, who often had little knowledge or interest of calamities across the Atlantic in America, and most relief was from voluntary private donations of labor, goods, and money – notwithstanding the £20,000 sterling issued for the 1740 Great Fire of Charleston [36,37]. This was the experience of the American society and expectation for governmental disaster relief at the founding of the country.

2.2.1 The Portsmouth Christmas Fires and 1803 Portsmouth Federal Disaster Relief

Hours after Christmas Day of 1802, a fire broke out behind the New Hampshire Bank building in Portsmouth, New Hampshire [38,39]. A large portion of the town burned, with 120 buildings lost and damages estimated at $300,000 ($6.8 M 2019 USD). There were no fatalities. A committee of five men was appointed to receive and distribute donations for relief. They raised over $45,000 from all over the country. Most property owners had no insurance, and private charity provided the only relief. Afterward, the New Hampshire Fire and Marine Insurance Company was founded. The city sought to widen streets and use brick and “fireproof” materials for all future buildings.