Persistent cough, shortness of breath, eye irritation, headache and fatigue. The symptoms seem like any seasonal flu, but in areas affected by forest fires, volcanic eruptions or industrial collapses, this condition has a different origin: the air itself.

When a natural disaster drastically alters air quality—whether due to volcanic ash, smoke from forest fires, gases released by landslides, or suspended particles after earthquakes that damage industrial infrastructure—thousands of people begin to present acute respiratory symptoms that, at first glance, are confused with the common flu.

The key difference is in the cause. There is not a virus circulating from person to person, but rather direct exposure to particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10), toxic gases and chemical compounds suspended in the air that people breathe for hours or days after the event.

Why does it look like the flu?

Environmental health specialists explain that irritation of the respiratory tract caused by fine particles generates an inflammatory response similar to that of a viral infection: the body reacts with cough, congestion, fatigue and, in some cases, a mild fever. However, unlike the flu:

The role of fine particles

Various public health organizations have pointed out that exposure to ultrafine particles – capable of penetrating deeply into the lungs and even reaching the bloodstream – is one of the main factors behind these conditions.

After large-scale forest fires, for example, a sustained increase in emergency consultations for respiratory and cardiovascular problems has been documented in the weeks following the event, even in areas far from the focus of the disaster, blown by the wind.

Recommendations before the exhibition

Health authorities usually agree on a series of basic measures to reduce risk during post-disaster contamination episodes:

You may also be interested in:

· Learn about 5 natural anti-allergy remedies before resorting to drugs · How to protect pets in case of extreme heat · Natural remedies to relieve a sore throat: what the evidence says