PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 14760291

Joint Regional Exercise ("JREX") 2000.

Edward J Lord·Theodore J Cieslak
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Joint Regional Exercise, 2000 (J-REX 2000) was an ambitious, multi-functional, multi-agency exercise conducted October 12-14, 2000. While the main focus of the exercise was centered in Minneapolis MN, and adjacent Fort Snelling, the exercise also involved National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) participating hospitals in Cleveland, Detroit, Duluth, Indianapolis, Omaha, and Tulsa. As such, the exercise presented a unique opportunity to simultaneously and somewhat realistically examine the response capabilities of multiple agencies and institutions within the NDMS and to 'game' several aspects of the Federal Response Plan's Emergency Support Function 8.

Explore related subjects

Disaster PlanningEmergency Medical Service Communication SystemsHumansInservice TrainingInterdisciplinary CommunicationMilitary MedicineMinnesotaTerrorismTransportation of PatientsJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Edward J Lord, Theodore J Cieslak. Joint Regional Exercise ("JREX") 2000.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dmr.2003.11.002

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Evaluation of two commercially available portal monitors for emergency response.

The Human Monitoring Laboratory has compared two types (the P3 and the MiniSentry) of portal monitors that can be field deployed in response to an emergency. They can be used to screen persons for internal or external radioactive contamination by fission activation products (neither unit is capable of detecting alpha or beta radiation, and the amount of material required to alarm the monitors is unacceptably high for low energy x rays or gamma rays) following an incident involving the release of radioactive material (accidental or intentional). It was found that the P3 benefits from simplicity but requires slightly more activity to alarm than the MiniSentry, although for emergency response, the amount of activity that can be detected is far below a level where significant health effects will occur. The MiniSentry was found to have more capability than the P3, but these benefits also bring their own disadvantages. It was also found that the MiniSentry would be difficult to deploy in an outdoor setting whereas the P3 is well designed for a field setting. Despite the differences found, the HML has concluded that both have a distinct place in emergency monitoring. In the future, the HML plans to have both instruments ready for field deployment.

Disaster Planning↗