Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-g5fl4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-27T21:28:11.120Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Computer Modeling for Disaster Planning (Nuclear Attack)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Edward L. Hill  and
Russell O. Lyday Jr
Edward L. Hill
Affiliation:
From the Operations Analysis Division, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
Russell O. Lyday Jr
Affiliation:
From the Operations Analysis Division, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Although none of us likes to think of nuclear war as a possibility, a truly prepared society evaluates the unthinkable. This paper specifically addresses a model for evaluating the medical situation of an area after a nuclear attack.

Consider the situation shown in Table 1 [all Tables and Figures follow the text], which shows an estimation of casualties resulting from a nuclear attack on an area with a preattack population of 9.5 million. The table indicates over half of the population survives and more than half of the survivors (about 3.4 million people) have injuries. This large number of injuries requires medical attention, and, if the area is unable to get outside help (as would be the case for nuclear war), only resources already available within the area could be used.

Type
Part III: International Organizations - Planning - Disaster Events
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 1 , supplement S1: Disaster Resuscitology , 1985 , pp. 321 - 324
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1985

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. Hill, EL, Voors, AW, Lyday, RO et al. National emergency health preparedness study including the development and testing of a total emergency health care system model. Final report R-OU-332. Research Triangle Park, N.C.: Research Triangle Institute, November 1968.Google Scholar
2. Pyecha, JN, Voors, AW, Poole, WK. Postattack medical care measuresof effectiveness. Final report RTI-43U-555-1. Research Triangle Park, N.C.: Research Triangle Institute, September 1971.Google Scholar
3. Pyecha, JN et al. Alternative designs for systems for providing postattack medical care. Final report R-OU-407. Vol.1. Research Triangle Park, N.C.: Research Triangle Institute, October 1970.Google Scholar
4Lyday, RO Jr, Users and operators manual for the total emergency health care system model. Final report RTI-44U-1716. Research Triangle Park, N.C.: Research Triangle Institute, August 1979.Google Scholar
5. Soper, HE. Interpretation of periodicity in disease prevalence. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 91:34–73.Google Scholar
6. Reed, LJ, Frost, WH, (1928), asquoted by Abbey in An examination of the Reed-Frost theory of epidemics. Human biology, 24:201–233.Google Scholar
7. Pyecha, JN, Lyday, RO Jr, Botkin, GM. Users and operators manual for the local and aggregate total emergency health care system models (revised edition). Final report 43U-555-3. Research Triangle Park, N.C.: Research Triangle Institute, December 1972.Google Scholar