Common Misconceptions of Disaster Response and Effect on Health. When a major disaster strikes, people are often motivated to donate aid and time. Perhaps due to misrepresentation in the media, many individuals have misconceptions as to what form of aid is the most beneficial in the aftermath of most natural disasters. If requests for specific supplies are not heeded, or little forethought has been given to what is actually needed within the disaster area, external assistance can actually cause a great deal of disruption and consume precious internal resources. It is essential to bear in mind that any and all external assistance will require both storage space and manpower at the disaster site in order to effectively catalogue, assign, and distribute supplies equitably. In the early rescue period after a disaster, experience has shown that the local governments and citizens are masters at improvisation in order to meet the challenges of the first 72 hours. In many cases it is best to postpone large donations of supplies until the local authorities request specific items or a representative may be sent to the disaster site on a fact finding mission to assess the community's needs. Another common misconception in the aftermath of a disaster is that any and all medical assistance is needed immediately. This often manifests itself with every individual with first aid training rushing to a disaster scene leading to a sporadic and uncoordinated rescue effort. Again, it has been observed that the local population is largely capable of providing initial rescue needs. It is true that some communities may lack the ability to provide certain medical specialities. In this case, external assistance would be required and greatly appreciated. It is thus important for disaster stricken areas to quickly and concisely request what medical services and aid is needed. Common inappropriate medical assistance include medications unsuitable for trauma care, generally trained health workers unfamiliar with the special needs of disaster victims, and extremely sub-specialized surgical teams whose skills are applicable only to a small patient load. In these situations the external aid does not correspond with true local needs but rather represents either a convenient surplus on hand or the remote appreciation that donors have of the actual situation. In the aftermath of a large scale natural disaster, rumours quickly abound regarding epidemics of uncommon and exotic diseases. While it is true that poor sanitary conditions and inadequate personal hygiene increases the risk of illness, post disaster epidemics occur only if the pathogens are common to the local area. Furthermore, by diverting valuable medical resources in order to prevent the occurrence of a low risk event, both the care of urgent patients and the public health of the community may be unnecessarily compromised. Any mass vaccination programs that are initiated in the post disaster phase should be based upon epidemiological observation of local risk factors and not on hearsay nor public alarm. In many cases, the most effective method of controlling and preventing disease outbreaks in the aftermath of a catastrophe, is to quickly rejuvenate community health programs that were ongoing before the disaster struck. Despite frequent media coverage of widespread looting after a large disaster with dazed and confused victims, studies show that individuals rarely panic or engage in anti-social behaviour. Observation reveals that in many different cultures, survivors of a major catastrophe are able to quickly organise into community groups in order to actively participate in the rescue phase. It has been shown that where search and rescue remains the primary focus of the first 24 hours, the bulk of the work is usually performed by local volunteers. During the initial rescue and recovery operations, it has been observed that increased interaction and co-operation occurs across previously impenetrable class and social barriers. In many cases, local volunteers develop an instant camaraderie and tend to distrust or even ostracise external groups. Finally, in managing a disaster site or in organising the recovery operation, research as far back as the 1940s show that the public deals best with the entire truth. Individuals are able to more efficiently cope with a problem only if they have a complete understanding of the situation at hand. Despite this, governments and authorities consistently and unilaterally decide to withhold fragments of information or downplay risks in order to avoid mass panic. This serves only to perpetuate the urban legend that in an emergency, people are helpless and dependent only on external handouts.