|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Scientists say that, contrary to popular belief, bodies do not pose a risk of infectious disease. The mass graves, however, could simply worsen the suffering of survivors. [...]
But they do not expect such diseases to come from unburied bodies - diseases and putrefaction are caused by different microorganisms.
"Someone who died without cholera isn't suddenly going to generate it," says Jean-Luc Poncelet of the Pan-American Health Organization, a WHO regional organisation, which in September 2004 published a scientific review of the health risks posed by bodies after disasters (New Scientist print edition, 2 October 2004). Even in people who died with infections, he says, the germ also dies quickly, certainly after several days of decomposition.
"People repeat so often that bodies have to be disposed of to protect public health, that people assume it must be true," says Oliver Morgan, an epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.
This causes problems, Morgan says, when disposing of bodies takes resources away from survivors - as when hospital wards are converted into morgues, as has been reported in Sri Lanka.
Dead bodies can release faecal bacteria into water, which can cause problems if people drink the water. But removing dead bodies will not stop this: flooded sewers and the living release also faecal bacteria, usually in closer proximity to survivors. Better, says Poncelet, to concentrate on getting clean water to the living. [...]
And in countries where survivors are paid compensation, such as India, people cannot get it without an identified body and death certificate. After the El Salvador earthquake of 2001, says Yates, mass graves had to be exhumed for this reason.
- Debora MacKenzie, "Dead bodies pose no epidemic threat, say experts," new scientist january 5, 2005
posted January 09, 2005 in print. 20042001