PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 15457976

Preparing for a terrorist event: a scenario-driven approach.

David L Glotzer·Walter J Psoter·E Dianne Rekow
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Since September 11, 2001, government agencies on all levels have focused on planning and preparing to respond to another possible terrorist attack. In addition to emergency and medical issues, these agencies must be concerned about the public's behavior and psychological response when they plan the management of a bioterrorist event. We present readers with one such possible incident, a radiological bomb scenario, with the aim of educating dentists and communicating the risks involved.

Explore related subjects

Disaster PlanningExplosionsHumansNew York CityRadiation InjuriesSchools, DentalTerrorismJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

David L Glotzer, Walter J Psoter, E Dianne Rekow. Preparing for a terrorist event: a scenario-driven approach.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15457976/

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↗