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.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@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.
This chapter examines the practice of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR), the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACtHRP) and that of the ECOWAS Court. The analysis centers on comparable cases from their jurisprudence, where human rights claims have been filed due to health injuries allegedly caused by toxic exposure. The chapter addresses inter alia the role of the precautionary principle as a framing technique, applicable causal inquiries, the evidentiary practice of these fora and their deferential standards of review. It extensively criticizes the causal inquiry of the ECtHR, where causal links between toxic emissions and health injuries are apparently assessed based on non-scientific, intuitive proxies. From IACtHR jurisprudence the Human Rights and the Environment Advisory Opinion will also be discussed with respect to the causality-based jurisdiction the court announced.
Major adverse climatic events (MACEs) in heavily-populated areas can inflict severe damage to infrastructure, disrupting essential municipal and commercial services. Compromised health care delivery systems and limited utilities such as electricity, heating, potable water, sanitation, and housing, place populations in disaster areas at risk of toxic exposures. Hurricane Sandy made landfall on October 29, 2012 and caused severe infrastructure damage in heavily-populated areas. The prolonged electrical outage and damage to oil refineries caused a gasoline shortage and rationing unseen in the USA since the 1970s. This study explored gasoline exposures and clinical outcomes in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy.
Methods
Prospectively collected, regional poison control center (PCC) data regarding gasoline exposure cases from October 29, 2012 (hurricane landfall) through November 28, 2012 were reviewed and compared to the previous four years. The trends of gasoline exposures, exposure type, severity of clinical outcome, and hospital referral rates were assessed.
Results
Two-hundred and eighty-three gasoline exposures were identified, representing an 18 to 283-fold increase over the previous four years. The leading exposure route was siphoning (53.4%). Men comprised 83.0% of exposures; 91.9% were older than 20 years of age. Of 273 home-based calls, 88.7% were managed on site. Asymptomatic exposures occurred in 61.5% of the cases. However, minor and moderate toxic effects occurred in 12.4% and 3.5% of cases, respectively. Gastrointestinal (24.4%) and pulmonary (8.4%) symptoms predominated. No major outcomes or deaths were reported.
Conclusions
Hurricane Sandy significantly increased gasoline exposures. While the majority of exposures were managed at home with minimum clinical toxicity, some patients experienced more severe symptoms. Disaster plans should incorporate public health messaging and regional PCCs for public health promotion and toxicological surveillance.