What question did this study set out to answer?

To investigate the validity of the conventional assumption that earthquake disasters produce a 1:3 ratio of mortality to morbidity.

March 1, 1985Disasters

Death and injury in earthquakes

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

DADavid AlexanderPennington Biomedical Research Center

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Epidemiological analysis reveals variable mortality-to-morbidity ratios in earthquake disasters, highlighting the need for standardized injury definitions to improve casualty modeling.

Key Points

To investigate the validity of the conventional assumption that earthquake disasters produce a 1:3 ratio of mortality to morbidity.
Evaluated historical earthquake casualty reports to compare observed death-to-injury proportions across events.
Analyzed the relationship between reported casualty ratios and seismic intensity ranges measured on the Richter scale.
A 1:3 mortality-to-morbidity ratio most frequently coincides with earthquake magnitudes ranging between 6.5 and 7.4 on the Richter scale.
Casualty ratios vary considerably across individual disasters, exhibiting high heterogeneity that is exacerbated by the absence of a standardized definition for injury.

Cite This Study

David Alexander (1985) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a11c895a54a38d693fd36de https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.1985.tb00911.x

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Implication

Epidemiological analysis reveals variable mortality-to-morbidity ratios in earthquake disasters, highlighting the need for standardized injury definitions to improve casualty modeling.

Death and injury in earthquakes

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Cite This Study

Death and injury in earthquakes

Discussion

Member takes

Implication

Key Points

Cite This Study

Also Consider

Also Consider