Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2016 Aug;111(2):169-82.
doi: 10.1097/HP.0000000000000538.

Evaluating the Special Needs of The Military for Radiation Biodosimetry for Tactical Warfare Against Deployed Troops: Comparing Military to Civilian Needs for Biodosimetry Methods

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Evaluating the Special Needs of The Military for Radiation Biodosimetry for Tactical Warfare Against Deployed Troops: Comparing Military to Civilian Needs for Biodosimetry Methods

Ann Barry Flood et al. Health Phys. 2016 Aug.

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to delineate characteristics of biodosimetry most suitable for assessing individuals who have potentially been exposed to significant radiation from a nuclear device explosion when the primary population targeted by the explosion and needing rapid assessment for triage is civilians vs. deployed military personnel. The authors first carry out a systematic analysis of the requirements for biodosimetry to meet the military's needs to assess deployed troops in a warfare situation, which include accomplishing the military mission. Then the military's special capabilities to respond and carry out biodosimetry for deployed troops in warfare are compared and contrasted systematically, in contrast to those available to respond and conduct biodosimetry for civilians who have been targeted by terrorists, for example. Then the effectiveness of different biodosimetry methods to address military vs. civilian needs and capabilities in these scenarios was compared and, using five representative types of biodosimetry with sufficient published data to be useful for the simulations, the number of individuals are estimated who could be assessed by military vs. civilian responders within the timeframe needed for triage decisions. Analyses based on these scenarios indicate that, in comparison to responses for a civilian population, a wartime military response for deployed troops has both more complex requirements for and greater capabilities to use different types of biodosimetry to evaluate radiation exposure in a very short timeframe after the exposure occurs. Greater complexity for the deployed military is based on factors such as a greater likelihood of partial or whole body exposure, conditions that include exposure to neutrons, and a greater likelihood of combined injury. These simulations showed, for both the military and civilian response, that a very fast rate of initiating the processing (24,000 d) is needed to have at least some methods capable of completing the assessment of 50,000 people within a 2- or 6-d timeframe following exposure. This in turn suggests a very high capacity (i.e., laboratories, devices, supplies and expertise) would be necessary to achieve these rates. These simulations also demonstrated the practical importance of the military's superior capacity to minimize time to transport samples to offsite facilities and use the results to carry out triage quickly. Assuming sufficient resources and the fastest daily rate to initiate processing victims, the military scenario revealed that two biodosimetry methods could achieve the necessary throughput to triage 50,000 victims in 2 d (i.e., the timeframe needed for injured victims), and all five achieved the targeted throughput within 6 d. In contrast, simulations based on the civilian scenario revealed that no method could process 50,000 people in 2 d and only two could succeed within 6 d.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Ainsbury EA, Bakhanova E, Barquinero JF, Brai M, Chumak V, Correcher V, Darroudi F, Fattibene P, Gruel G, Guclu I, Horn S, Jaworska A, Kulka U, Lindholm C, Lloyd D, Longo A, Marrale M, Monteiro Gil O, Oestreicher U, Pajic J, Rakic B, Romm H, Trompier F, Veronese I, Voisin P, Vral A, Whitehouse CA, Wieser A, Woda C, Wojcik A, Rothkamm K. Review of retrospective dosimetry techniques for external ionising radiation exposures. Radiat Prot Dosimetry. 2011;147(4):573–592. DOI: 10.1093/rpd/ncq499. - PubMed
    1. Ainsbury EA, Al-Hafidh J, Bajinskis A, Barnard S, Barquinero JF, Beinke C, de Gelder V, Gregoire E, Jaworska A, Lindholm C, Lloyd D, Moquet J, Nylund R, Oestreicher U, Roch-Lefevre S, Rothkamm K, Romm H, Scherthan H, Sommer S, Thierens H, Vandevoorde C, Vral A, Wojcik A. Inter- and intra-laboratory comparison of a multibiodosimetric approach to triage in a simulated, large scale radiation emergency. Int J Radiat Biol. 2014;90(2):193–202. DOI: 10.3109/09553002.2014.868616. - PubMed
    1. Ainsbury EA, Livingston GK, Abbott MG, Moquet JE, Hone PA, Jenkins MS, Christensen DM, Lloyd DC, Rothkamm K. Interlaboratory Variation in Scoring Dicentric Chromosomes in a Case of Partial-Body X-Ray Exposure: Implications for Biodosimetry Networking and Cytogenetic “Triage Mode” Scoring. Radiat Res. 2009;172(6):746–752. DOI: 10.1667/RR1934.1. - PubMed
    1. Albert GC, McNamee JP, Marro L, Bellier PV, Prato FS, Thomas AW. Assessment of genetic damage in peripheral blood of human volunteers exposed (whole-body) to a 200 muT, 60 hz magnetic field. Int J Radiat Biol. 2009;85(2):144–152. DOI:10.1080/09553000802641169. - PubMed
    1. Bahar N, Roberts K, Stabile F, Mongillo N, Decker RD, Wilson LD, Husain Z, Contessa J, Williams BB, Flood AB, Swartz HM. Carlson DJ: SU-C-BRD-05: Non-Invasive in Vivo Biodosimetry in Radiotherapy Patients Using Electron Paramagnetic Resonance (EPR) Spectroscopy. Med Phys. 2015 Jun;42(6):3192.

Publication types