http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...79804.html

So what exactly is the UN good for?

UN? huh-yeah
What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing
Uh-huh

With plenty of rasons to criticize th UN, I just dont see this as one of them...

Quote:suggestions that Nepalese troops brought the bacteria into the country (which had been cholera-free for decades), it concedes that the disease began infecting large numbers of Haitians only when it entered the water supply via their camp's dysfunctional septic disposal system.

...

The Artibonite River and its surrounding canal system provided "optimal conditions" for the bacteria to spread, it reads. Many Haitians ignored basic hygiene rules, and lacked immunity to cholera. And hospitals in the region were quickly overwhelmed.

"The introduction of this cholera strain as a result of environmental contamination with faeces could not have been the source of such an outbreak without simultaneous water and sanitation and health care system deficiencies," concludes the report.

the UN seems negligent in not providing adequate sanitation for their workers in a region that itself is very vulnerable, that has to be weighed against the fact that there was a pressing need for help in Haiti. What is not discussed is how frequent incidents like this are, and whether or not NGOs or missionaries have a better or worse record regarding the spread of disease. Regardless, this should be a warning for all such organizations for paying attention to the sanitation of their camp before the sanitation of the locals.

(05-06-2011 09:05 AM)I45owl Wrote:  With plenty of rasons to criticize th UN, I just dont see this as one of them...

Quote:suggestions that Nepalese troops brought the bacteria into the country (which had been cholera-free for decades), it concedes that the disease began infecting large numbers of Haitians only when it entered the water supply via their camp's dysfunctional septic disposal system.

...

The Artibonite River and its surrounding canal system provided "optimal conditions" for the bacteria to spread, it reads. Many Haitians ignored basic hygiene rules, and lacked immunity to cholera. And hospitals in the region were quickly overwhelmed.

"The introduction of this cholera strain as a result of environmental contamination with faeces could not have been the source of such an outbreak without simultaneous water and sanitation and health care system deficiencies," concludes the report.

the UN seems negligent in not providing adequate sanitation for their workers in a region that itself is very vulnerable, that has to be weighed against the fact that there was a pressing need for help in Haiti. What is not discussed is how frequent incidents like this are, and whether or not NGOs or missionaries have a better or worse record regarding the spread of disease. Regardless, this should be a warning for all such organizations for paying attention to the sanitation of their camp before the sanitation of the locals.

Regardless, When does an organization do more harm than good? If there was a poster child for that, this would be it.

(05-06-2011 09:05 AM)I45owl Wrote:  With plenty of rasons to criticize th UN, I just dont see this as one of them...

Quote:suggestions that Nepalese troops brought the bacteria into the country (which had been cholera-free for decades), it concedes that the disease began infecting large numbers of Haitians only when it entered the water supply via their camp's dysfunctional septic disposal system.

...

The Artibonite River and its surrounding canal system provided "optimal conditions" for the bacteria to spread, it reads. Many Haitians ignored basic hygiene rules, and lacked immunity to cholera. And hospitals in the region were quickly overwhelmed.

"The introduction of this cholera strain as a result of environmental contamination with faeces could not have been the source of such an outbreak without simultaneous water and sanitation and health care system deficiencies," concludes the report.

the UN seems negligent

FIFY