Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T19:19:32.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prevalence of Radioactive Signals from Surveillance of an Emergency Department

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Frank Guyette ,
Joe Suyama ,
Jerry Rosen  and
Michael Allswede
Frank Guyette
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
Joe Suyama*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
Jerry Rosen
Affiliation:
Environmental and Occupational Health, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Presbyterian Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
Michael Allswede
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Center for Biosecurity, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
*
Joe Suyama, MD Department of Emergency Medicine University of Pittsburgh, 230 Mckee Place Suite 500, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

Since the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, concerns have been raised regarding the threat of a radiological terrorist weapon. Although the probability of the employment of a nuclear device is remote, the potential of a radiological dispersal device (RDD) or “dirty bomb” is of concern. While it is unlikely that such a device would produce massive numbers of casualties, it is far more likely that it would result in pub- lic panic and perhaps even disable the local healthcare system. The utility of surveillance with radiation detectors in the healthcare setting has not been fully evaluated.

Objective:

The objective of this study was to characterize the prevalence of radioactive sources entering an urban emergency department (ED).

Methods:

A retrospective review of data obtained from a radiation detector positioned to detect radioactive people entering an ED of an urban academic hospital that serves 45,000 patients/year was performed. Graphical outputs of radioactivity were recorded in Microsoft ExcelTM (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, US) spreadsheets in microREM/hour. Data were collected continuous-ly from 22 December 2003 to 22 January 2004. An event was defined as any elevation in radiation levels >95% confidence interval from the mean level of background radiation over 72 hours (h).

Results:

A total of 215 events were observed over a 28-day period, with a mean value of 7.7 events/day, and a maximum of 15 events/day. During the 28-day period, the baseline mean level of background radiation was 2–4 microREM/h. Readings ranged from 2,148.28–17,292.25 microREM/h with a maximum sustained detector exposure of 684.37 microREM. Distinct signal patterns were seen at both detectors including tonic, phasic, dual, and short duration spikes.

Conclusion:

The number of radioactive signals detected from persons entering the ED was much higher than expected. While the vast majority of these signals pose no health threat, they may make routine screening for a radiological terrorist event difficult.Further study is needed to determine this correlation.

Keywords

contaminationdetectordirty bombemergency departmentradiationweapons of mass destruction
Type
Brief Report
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , August 2006 , pp. 276 - 281
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2006

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.Livingston, N: Dirty bombs: The impossible becomes possible. Domestic Preparedness TIPS 2005;1(9):1–3.Google Scholar
2.Elcock, D, Klemic, GA, Taboas, AL: Establishing remediation levels in response to a radiological dispersal event (or “dirty bomb”). Environ Sci Technol 2004 May 1;38(9):2505–2512.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Schleipman, AR, Gerbaudo, VH, Castronovo, FP Jr. : Radiation disaster response: Preparation and simulation experience at an academic medical center. J Nucl Med Technol 2004;32(1):22–27.Google ScholarPubMed
4.Ring, JP: Radiation risks and dirty bombs. Health Phys 2004; 86 (2 Suppl):s42–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Aloise, G: Combating Nuclear Smuggling: Efforts to Deploy Radiation Detection Equipment in the United States and Other Countries. Testimony Before the Subcommittees on the Prevention of Nuclear and Biological Attack and on Emergency Preparedness, Science, and Technology. Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives. 2005 June 21:1–11.Google Scholar
6. “Dirty bomb” threat puts spotlight on unprepared emergency departments: Do you have a plan? ED Manag 2002;14(9):97–100.Google Scholar
7.Toltzis, RJ, Morton, DJ, Gerson, MC. Problems on Pennsylvania Avenue. N Engl J Med 1986;315(13):836–837.Google ScholarPubMed
8.Personal Communication, Department of Nuclear Medicine, UPMC, Pittsburgh, PA, February 2005.Google Scholar
9.Standards for Exposure to Ionizing Radiation, Guidelines for Protecting the Safety and Health of Health Care Workers. NIOSH 28 April 1998.Google Scholar
10.International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health Organization: Generic Procedures for Medical Response During a Nuclear or Radiological Emergency. Emergency Preparedness and Response Section, International Atomic Energy Agency; Austria, April 2005.Google Scholar
11.Zuckier, L, Garetano, GS, Monetti, MA, Lanka, VK, Stabin, MG: Sensitivity of Personal Homeland Security Radiation Detectors to Medical Radionuclides and Implications for Counseling of Nuclear Medicine Patients. Radiological Society of North America. 90th Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting, Chicago, 28 Nov–03 Dec 2004.Google Scholar