Perspective is essential in assessing these two very different disasters, warns commentator and consultant Nick Cater.

"This is our tsunami" was one official's comment after Hurricane Katrina swept into the United States and left hundreds – possibly thousands -- dead.

Whatever the comment's intent, it suggests an unfounded comparison that recalls the harsh journalistic maxim that the news value of one death on your doorstep is the equivalent of thousands in a distant land. This latest disaster may be a tragedy costly in lives and dollars, but the tsunami was far, far worse in human terms.

True, one similarity exists: as in most disasters, both these events sought out the most vulnerable - old, young, poor, isolated - to kill them in greater numbers, destroy more of their resources and make their recovery tougher than that of the rich and powerful.

Then the differences begin. Hurricanes are a frequent hazard for U.S. Gulf states and Katrina came with plenty of warning so its toll appears far smaller than the hundreds of thousands killed and millions left injured, homeless and destitute by the sudden Indian Ocean tsunami.

Certainly, the disaster relief billions sent to Asia will soon be surpassed by the state aid, private insurance and charity funds available for a smaller crisis in one corner of a wealthy country with good communications, and lacking the conflict that has complicated recovery in Sri Lanka and Indonesia.

Unlike the totally unexpected tsunami and the sometimes disorganised multinational relief operation, the survivors in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama had the hours of warnings from well-funded U.S. meterological and early warning systems, and the advantage of the coordination by a single organisation, the Federal Emergency Management Authority, though the initial response has been poor.

HELP TO EVACUATE

Many of those killed or displaced took too little notice of warnings, having experienced previous alerts that proved less serious in reality. How to refresh communication strategies to ensure urgency among those at risk is a constant challenge for disaster preparedness programmes worldwide.

From the elderly and infirm to the disabled and isolated, other victims and survivors may not have been offered timely, suitable assistance to enable them to leave. The poorest would have been loath to risk their meagre resources by abandoning homes and possessions, even if they had someone who would offer them shelter.

U.S. officials will have to consider what more they could have done to save those lives, perhaps with better targeting of assistance.

Unlike many disasters in the developing world, it seems unlikely that the myth of immediate health threats from corpses will mean that any of the Katrina dead are buried without an effort to identify them.

But another disaster "myth" - of unleashed criminality - looks accurate, with widespread looting among the displaced in the States and in parts of the tsunami zone, though perhaps both reflect more about inequalities in fractured societies than the behaviour of disaster survivors in general.

In the politics and economics of geography, the differences persist. Asia's coastal inhabitants lack choices about where to live, and few can afford insurance to share their risks. By contrast, the people of New Orleans can and should abandon their city's unsustainable location below sea levels, since only multi-billion dollar coastal and river defences prevent its demise.

AVOID SENDING OLD DRUGS

Insurance and reinsurance companies will bear most of Katrina's massive losses and rebuilding costs, encouraging people to remain where nature has declared it untenable, especially with the growing risks of global warming that U.S. President George Bush denies.

Over Katrina, Bush has offered decisive action and positive messages, unlike his shocking early behaviour after the tsunami, when he tried to outflank and undermine United Nations coordination efforts.

Bush used his first media statement to commit significant resources and declare that for charities, cash was the priority. He even gave out the web address of the American Red Cross for online donations, thus hopefully diminishing the usual tide of time-consuming calls and unhelpful gifts of old clothes or out-of-date drugs.

But if the relief effort does not begin to achieve significant results fast, Bush will discover two hard disaster rules: first, that they expose and exploit vulnerabilities in societies - from oil dependency to the lack of relief forces because thousands are at war overseas - and second, that the quality of disaster response can have harsh political and economic consequences.

There is one final difference between Katrina and the tsunami. After the 9/11 terrorism, millions of dollars were sent from all over the world to benefit often some of the world's richest people. While many affected by Hurricane Katrina are among America's poorest, the country's wealth, if fairly shared, should leave absolutely no need for overseas financial contributions to any relief operation.

Meanwhile, Katrina's tsunami comparison has already been reported across the U.S. and around the world.

It seems unfortunate but inevitable that in future many will recall these two significantly different disasters as being of similar impact, complete with the implication that, like that crude news maxim, in today's world, one American life is worth thousands of any other country's inhabitants.

Any views expressed in this article are those of the writer and not of Reuters.