Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-10T16:50:56.652Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Spectrum of Human Reactions to Terrorist Attacks with Weapons of Mass Destruction: Early Management Considerations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Cleto DiGiovanni Jr.
Cleto DiGiovanni Jr.*
Affiliation:
Institute for Crisis, Disaster, and Risk Management, School of Engineering and Applied Science, The George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA
*
11091 Saffold Way, Reston, VA 20190–3815 USA, E-mail: cdig@july.dgsys.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Residents of a community who are intentionally exposed to a hazardous biological, chemical, or radiological agent (including medical first-responders and other civil defense personnel who live in that community) will exhibit a spectrum of psychological reactions that will impact the management of the incident. These reactions will range from a variety of behaviors of normal people under abnormal circumstances that either will help or hinder efforts to contain the threatening agent, deliver medical care, and reduce the morbidity, mortality, and costs associated with the disaster, to the development of new, or exacerbation of preexisting, mental disorders.

Anticipating the decisions that people will make and actions they will take as the crisis develops is hindered by the limited number of previous disasters that bear crucial similarities to a terrorist attack with a weapon of mass destruction. Such actions, therefore, could serve as models to predict community reactions. One result of a study that attempted to fill in these gaps suggested that medical first-responders and their spouses/significant others may require separately crafted information and advice to reduce the potential for disharmony within the family that could affect job performance during the crisis.

For those persons who exhibit emotional lability or cognitive deficits, evaluation of their psychiatric signs and symptoms may be more difficult than imagined, especially with exposure to nerve agents. Appreciation of these difficulties, and possession of the skill to sort through them, will be required of those assigned to triage stations. The allocation and utilization of mental health resources as the incident unfolds will be the responsibility of local consequence managers; these managers should be aware of the results of a recently-held workshop that attempted to reach consensus among experts in disaster mental health, based on the peer-reviewed literature, on the efficacy and safety of various approaches to early psychological interventions for victims of mass trauma and disasters.

Thus, psychological factors are likely to be significant in the management of a terrorist incident that involves an agent of mass destruction. Emergency medical workers with managerial responsibilities, whether limited in scope or community-wide, should be aware of these factors, and should train to handle them through effective risk communication as part of their planning and preparation.

Keywords

behaviorbioterrorismcommunicationconsequence managementmass behaviorpsychologicalRift Valley feverterrorismweapons of mass destruction
Type
Special Report
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 18 , Issue 3: Terrorism-II: Special Reports , September 2003 , pp. 253 - 257
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Bryan, JL: Human Behavior and Fire. In: Cote, AE (ed), Fire Protection Handbook. Quincy, MA: National Fire Protection Association, 1986. pp 1–17.Google Scholar
2.Glass, TA, Schoch-Spana, M: Bioterrorism and the people: How to vaccinate a city against panic. Clin Infect Dis 2002; 34: 217–223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Killian, LM: The significance of multiple-group membership in disaster. American Journal of Sociology 1952; 57: 309–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Quarantelli, EL: Structural Factors in the Minimization of Role Conflict: A Rreexamination of the Significance of Multiple Group Membership in Disasters. Preliminary Paper 49. Columbus, OH: The Disaster Research Center at The Ohio State University, (undated).Google Scholar
5.DiGiovanni, C: Domestic terrorism with chemical or biological agents: Psychiatric aspects. Am J Psychiatry 1999; 156: 1500–1505.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6.Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute: White Paper: The medical and psychological consequences of radiation dispersal devices. Bethesda, MD: Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, 2000.Google Scholar
7.Dodd, B: The radiological accident in Goiania. Presented at the NATO-Russia Advanced Research Workshop in Social and Psychological Consequences of Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Terrorism, held at NATO Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium, 25–27 March 2002.Google Scholar
8.Mileti, DS: Testimony before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in the matter of Long Island Lighting Company, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1, Docket No. 50–322-OL-3, Emergency Planning Proceeding, 18 November 1983.Google Scholar
9.Kolata, G: The Story of the Great Influenza Pandemic of 1918 and the Search for the Virus that Caused It. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1999. pp 3–4, 7–8: 12–13:18–20:52.Google Scholar
10.Carus, WS: Working Paper: Bioterrorism and biocrimes: The illicit use of biological agents since 1900. Washington, DC: National Defense University Center for Counterproliferation Research, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.DiGiovanni, C, Reynolds, B, Harwell, R, et al: Community reaction to bioter-rorism: Prospective study of simulated outbreak. Emerg Infect Dis 2003; 9: 708–712. Available at http:www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol9no6/02-0769.htm.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Norris, F, Friedman, M, Watson, P, et al: 60,000 disaster victims speak, Part 1: An empirical review of the empirical literature, 1981–2001. Psychiatry 2002; 65: 207–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13.Norris, F, Friedman, M, Watson, P, et al: 60,000 disaster victims speak, Part 2: Summary and implications of the disaster mental health research. Psychiatry 2002; 65: 240–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14.Bowers, MB, Goodman, E, Sim, VM: Some behavioral changes in man following anticholinesterase administration. J Nerv Ment Dis 1964; 138: 383–389.Google ScholarPubMed
15.Sidel, FR: Soman and sarin: Clinical manifestations and treatment of accidental poisoning by organophosphates. Clin Toxicol 1974; 7: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Eyer, P: Neuropsychopathological changes by organophosphorus com-pounds—A review. Hum Exp Toxicol 1995; 14: 857–864.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Nozaki, H, Aikawa, N, Fujishima, S, et al: A case of VX poisoning and the difference from sarin Lancet 1995; 346: 698–699. Letter.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18.Minton, NA, Murray, VS: A review of organophosphate poisoning. Med To xicol Adverse Drug Exp 1988; 3: 350–375.Google ScholarPubMed
19.Levin, HS, Rodnitzky, RL: Behavioral effects of organophosphate in man. Clin Toxicol 1976; 9: 391–403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20.Feldman, RG, Ricks, NL, Baker, DL: Neuropsychological effects of industrial toxins: A review. Am J Ind Med 1980; 1: 211–227.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Mearns, J, Dunn, J, Lees-Haley, PR: Psychological effects of organophosphate pesticides: A review and call for research by psychologists. J Clin Psychol 1994; 50: 286–294.3.0.CO;2-P>CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.National Institute of Mental Health: Mental Health and Mass Violence: Evidence-Based Early Psychological Intervention for Victims/Survivors of Mass Violence. A Workshop to Reach Consensus on Best Practices. NIH Publication No. 02–5138 Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2002. Available at http://www.nimh.nih.gov/research/massviolence.pdf.Google Scholar