Toxins as Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Comparison and Contrast With Biological-Warfare and Chemical-Warfare Agents

2001 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 593-606 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ltc James M. Madsen
2003 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 208-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pål Aas

AbstractThe use of chemical warfare agents against civilians and unprotected troops in international conflicts or by terrorists against civilians is considered to be a real threat, particularly following the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001 against the World Trade Center in New York and against the Pentagon in Washington, DC. Over the past 10 years, terrorists have been planning to use or have used chemical warfare agents on several occasions around the world, and the attacks in 2001 illustrate their willingness to use any means of warfare to cause death and destruction among civilians. In spite of new international treaties with strong verification measures and with an aim to prohibit and prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction, nevertheless, some countries and terrorist groups have been able to develop, produce, and use such weapons, particularly nerve agents, in domestic terrorist attacks or during warfare in international conflicts. This article reviews current medical therapy for nerve-agent intoxication and discusses possible future improvement of medical therapies.Present medical counter-measures against nerve agents are not sufficiently effective particularly in protecting the brain. Therefore, new and more effective countermeasures must be developed to enable better medical treatment of civilians and military personnel following exposure to nerve agents. Therefore, it is important with an enhanced effort by all countries, to improve and increase research in medical countermeasures, in the development of protective equipment, and in carrying out regular training of medical and emergency personnel as well as of military nuclear, biological, or chemical (NBC) units. Only then will nations be able to reduce the risk from and prevent the use of such weapons of mass destruction (WMD).


2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 525-528 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Brinker ◽  
Kate Prior ◽  
Jan Schumacher

AbstractIntroduction:The threat of mass casualties caused by an unconventional terrorist attack is a challenge for the public health system, with special implications for emergency medicine, anesthesia, and intensive care. Advanced life support of patients injured by chemical or biological warfare agents requires an adequate level of personal protection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the personal protection knowledge of emergency physicians and anesthetists who would be at the frontline of the initial health response to a chemical/biological warfare agent incident.Methods:After institutional review board approval, knowledge of personal protection measures among emergency medicine (n = 28) and anesthetics (n = 47) specialty registrars in the South Thames Region of the United Kingdom was surveyed using a standardized questionnaire. Participants were asked for the recommended level of personal protection if a chemical/biological warfare agent(s) casualty required advanced life support in the designated hospital resuscitation area.Results:The best awareness within both groups was regarding severe acute respiratory syndrome, and fair knowledge was found regarding anthrax, plague, Ebola, and smallpox. In both groups, knowledge about personal protection requirements against chemical warfare agents was limited. Knowledge about personal protection measures for biological agents was acceptable, but was limited for chemical warfare agents.Conclusions:The results highlight the need to improve training and education regarding personal protection measures for medical first receivers.


1998 ◽  
Vol 38 (322) ◽  
pp. 81-104
Author(s):  
Rainer Baudendistel

During World War I, chemical warfare agents were widely used for the first time on all major fronts with an unprecedented number of casualties, and immediately after the war attempts were made to outlaw this latest weapon. Responsibility for the drafting of specific laws fell to the League of Nations, reflecting the belief that this was a matter of concern for the whole world, not just for the victors in the war. On 17 June 1925, the Geneva Protocol for the prohibition of the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases and of bacteriological methods of warfare was signed by 26 States.3 It contained a categorical prohibition to resort to chemical and biological warfare. The signature of the Protocol raised high hopes of an effective ban on chemical warfare, but adherence progressed slowly. A number of States, visibly not trusting the Protocol to be implemented in the forthright manner suggested by the text, made major reservations.


2003 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 306-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pål Aas

AbstractThere is a spectrum of several threat agents, ranging from nerve agents and mustard agents to natural substances, such as biotoxins and new, synthetic, bioactive molecules produced by the chemical industry, to the classical biological warfare agents. The new, emerging threat agents are biotoxins produced by animals, plants, fungi, and bacteria. Examples of such biotoxins are botulinum toxin, tetanus toxin, and ricin. Several bioactive molecules produced by the pharmaceutical industry can be even more toxic than are the classical chemical warfare agents. Such new agents, like the biotoxins and bioregulators, often are called mid-spectrum agents. The threat to humans from agents developed by modern chemical synthesis and by genetic engineering also must be considered, since such agents may be more toxic or more effective in causing death or incapacitation than classical warfare agents. By developing effective medical protection and treatment against the most likely chemical and mid-spectrum threat agents, the effects of such agents in a war scenario or following a terrorist attack can be reduced.


2006 ◽  
Vol 37 (S 1) ◽  
Author(s):  
N Iwasaki ◽  
S Miyamoto ◽  
K Ishii ◽  
T Takeda ◽  
T Ohto ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document