![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
The July 2005 terrorist attacks in London demonstrated the resilience of Western society in the face of low-level conventional terrorism. But the psychological damage from the London bombings would likely pale next to the severe, unpredictable, long-lasting effects of a radiological attack. One unique hazard of radiation exposure beyond the obvious physiological effects is that it is colorless, odorless, and tasteless, making it difficult for ordinary citizens to evaluate, quantify, and rationally understand the dangers confronting them. Radiological weapons stand out among the tools available to terrorists for their capacity to inflict far-reaching psychological damage to civilian populaces well beyond the immediate victims. A possible solution to mitigate the psychological consequences is to build a “resilience culture,” an interlocking set of beliefs, attitudes, approaches, and behaviors that help people fare better in any disaster or extraordinary circumstance. The “all-hazards approach,” which emphasizes the identifiable similarities among the “disaster triad”—that is, natural, accidentally man-made, and intentionally man-made disasters—extends to acts of terrorism and could help demystify the fears associated with radiological terrorist weapons.
Notes
1. The option of using improvised nuclear devices, devices built from components of a stolen weapon or from scratch using nuclear material that could produce nuclear explosions, is beyond the scope of this article, largely because these scenarios represent a wider range of potential situations and are much less likely. It must be noted, however, that given their improvised design and low reliability, there is a good chance that some of these devices will fail to detonate and will simply disperse nuclear material like a radiological device.
2. Numerous books, reports, and articles have been produced on this subject, including Jason Porterfield, Terrorism, Dirty Bombs, and Weapons of Mass Destruction (New York: Rosen Publishing Group, 2005); Graham Allison, Nuclear Terrorism: The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe (New York: Henry Holt , 2004); David Bodansky, Nuclear Energy: Principles, Practices, and Prospects, 2nd ed. (New York: Springer-Verlag, 2004); Morten Bremer Maerli, Crude Nukes on the Loose, Paper No. 664, (Oslo: Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, 2004); and Charles Ferguson, Tahseen Kazi, and Judith Perera, “Commercial Radioactive Sources: Surveying the Security Risks,” CNS Occasional Papers No. 11 (Jan. 2003). These works either excluded the psychosocial and societal impact of radiological terrorism from consideration or failed to discuss this subject in a wider and balanced interdisciplinary context. Hence, to fill this gap the article focuses on what can be termed as social and psychosocial impact.
3. Evelyn Bromet, “Psychological Effects of Radiation Catastrophes,” in Leif Peterson and Seymour Abrahamson, eds., Effect of Ionizing Radiation: Atomic Bomb Survivors and Their Children (1945–1995) (Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press, 1998), p. 283.
4. Adrienne Butler, Allison Panzer, and Lewis Goldfrank, eds., Preparing for the Psychological Consequences of Terrorism (Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine of the National Academies Press, 2003), p. 34. There is no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism. The word terrorism is usually used to describe violence that is political, social, religious, or ideological in nature and that is designed to influence an audience beyond the immediate target or victims of the attack. One widely quoted definition of terrorism is the one used in the United States by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which describes terrorism as: “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives,” U.S. FBI, 28 Code of Federal Regulations, Section 0.85.
5. WMD generally include nuclear, biological, chemical and, increasingly, radiological weapons. The terms ABC (atomic, biological, chemical), NBC (nuclear, biological, chemical), and CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear) have been used synonymously. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540, mandating efforts to prevent WMD proliferation, does not, however, explicitly cover radiological weapons. There have been attempts to expand the scope by introducing the terms like “weapons of mass disruption” or “weapons of mass effect,” which would clearly include radiological weapons.
6. Raphael Perl, “Combating Terrorism: The Challenge of Measuring Effectiveness,” Congressional Research Service, Nov. 23, 2005, pp. 10–11, <www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RL33160.pdf>.
7. William Potter and Charles Ferguson, The Four Faces of Nuclear Terrorism (New York: Routledge, 2004), p. 11. According to recent media reports, most U.K. intelligence officials now believe that CBRN terrorist attacks involving the use of dirty bombs are “inevitable.” See Sean Rayment, “Islamists Will Set Off Dirty Bomb, Spy Bosses Believe,” Daily Telegraph, June 25, 2006, <www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/06/25/nterr125.xml>.
8. “An Explosion Dispensed Mercury Particles at the FSB Office in Vladikavkaz,” NEWSru.com, June 25, 2006, <http://newsru.com/russia/25jun2006/merc_print.html>. Mercury is a toxic metal that assumes liquid state at room temperature, and whose soluble compounds and vapors are extremely dangerous. Acute mercury poisoning takes effect quickly, damaging tissues by disrupting cellular processes, causing gastrointestinal disorders (such as stomach pains, vomiting, diarrhea, and hemorrhaging), and leading to renal failure and, finally death.
9. Barton Bernstein, “Radiological Warfare: The Path Not Taken,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 41 (Aug. 1985), pp. 44–49; Oct. 30, 1943 memo from Drs. Conant, Compton, and Urey to Brig. Gen. L. R. Groves, Manhattan District, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, USA; declassified June 5, 1974, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiological_weapon>.
10. James Ford, “Radiological Dispersal Devices: Assessing the Transnational Threat,” Strategic Forum 136 (March 1998), </www.ndu.edu/inss/strforum/SF136/forum136.html>. The German program focused on, among other things, on radiological effects. See Thomas Powers, Heisenberg's War: The Secret History of the German Bomb (New York: Da Capo Press, 2000), pp. 204, 353–355.
11. U.S. Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, Medical Management of Radiological Casualties, 2nd ed., April 2003, p. 47, <http://www.afrri.usuhs.mil>.
12. “Salted Bomb,” Wikipedia Web Site, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salted-bomb>.
13. Quoted in Allan Mazur, “Why Do We Worry About Trace Poisons?” Franklin Pierce Law Center Web Site, p. 3, <www.piercelaw.edu/Risk/vol7/winter/mazur.htm>.
14. Richard Pells, “Not with a Whimper: Visions of Mass Destruction in Fiction and Film,” eJournalUSA, March 2005, <http://usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0305/ijpe/pells.htm>. One of the latest entries in this genre was Tom Clancy's 1991 novel The Sum of All Fears, later made into a movie. In Clancy's scenario, the Israelis lose a nuclear weapon, which Arab terrorists find, smuggle into the Super Bowl, and detonate, incinerating tens of thousands of football fans. Before the Sept. 11, 2001 acts of terrorism, only those on the fringe would have thought Clancy's story plausible. What most of the public once perceived as a fantasy has become a real threat in the public mind, providing some graphic continuity for similar nuclear fears in the post-Cold War period. See Lee Clarke, Worst Cases: Terror and Catastrophe in the Popular Imagination (Chicago/ London: University of Chicago Press, 2006), p. 68.
15. Raymond Garthoff, Détente and Confrontation: American-Soviet Relations from Nixon to Reagan, rev. ed. (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1994), p. 832.
16. Jozef Goldblat, Arms Control: The New Guide to Negotiations and Agreements (Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 2002), pp. 162–163.
17. Morten Bremer Maerli, “Nuclear Dimensions of the Iraqi Crisis,” Research Note, Norwegian Institute of International Affairs, May 2, 2003 (shared by the author); Scott M. Nichelson and Darren D. Medlin, “Radiological Weapons of Terror,” Air Command and Staff College, Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, AL, USA, April 1999, p. 16.
18. “Secretary General Congratulates Atomic Radiation Committee on 50th Anniversary,” UN Dept. of Public Information, New York, SG/SM/10486, May 20, 2006.
19. Jessica Stern, “A Rational Response to Dirty Bombs,” Financial Times, June 11, 2002, <http://bcsia.ksg.harvard.edu/publication.cfm?program=CORE&ctype=article&item_id=334>.
20. The International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, adopted by consensus by the UN General Assembly on April 13, 2005, defines radioactive material as nuclear material or other radioactive substances which contain nuclides which undergo spontaneous disintegration (a process accompanied by emission of one or more types of ionizing radiation, such as alpha or beta particles, neutrons, or gamma rays) and which may cause death, serious bodily injury, or substantial damage to property or to the environment, owing to its radiological or fissile properties. UN Document A/59/766, April 4, 2005; Ford, “Radiological Dispersal Devices.”
21. Frank Barnaby, How to Build a Nuclear Bomb: And Other Weapons of Mass Destruction (New York: Nation Books, 2004), pp. 13, 38–41; Allison, Nuclear Terrorism, p. 230.
22. Michael Levi and Henry Kelly, “Weapons of Mass Disruption,” Scientific American (Nov. 2002), pp. 77–88; “Radiological Dispersal Device (RDD),” Human Health Fact Sheet, Argonne National Laboratory, Aug. 2003; Peter Zimmerman and Cheryl Loeb, “Dirty Bombs: The Threat Revisited,” Defense Horizons, National Defense University, Washington, DC (Jan. 2004), <www.hps.org/documents/RDD_report.pdf#search=%22peter%20zimmerman%20dirty%20bombs%22>.
23. U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Nuclear Nonproliferation: U.S. and International Assistance Efforts to Control Sealed Radioactive Sources Need Strengthening,” Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Government Affairs, U.S. Senate, May 2003, GAO-03-638.
24. Meg Fletcher, “Serious Environmental Risks Can Accompany Catastrophes,” Business Insurance, Aug. 8, 2005, <http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1:135004718/Serious+environmental+risks+ can+accompany+catastrophes∼R∼(catastrophe+management).html?refid=SEO>.
25. Board of Radioactive Waste Management, National Research Council,Safety and Security of Commercial Nuclear Fuel Storage, Public Report (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2005), p. 6.
26. See more about the conference and its proceedings at the IAEA website, <http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/2006/spentfuel.html>.
27. Tom Perry, “We Plant Bomb on Nuclear Train,” Daily Mirror, July 21, 2006, <http://www.mirror.co.uk/printable_version.cfm?objectid=17422378&siteid=94762>.
28. “Radiological Emergency Response: Radfacts,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency website, Nov. 30, 2004, <http://www.epa.gov/radiation/rert/radfacts.htm>.
29. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, “NIH Strategic Plan and Research Agenda for Medical Countermeasures Against Radiological and Nuclear Threats,” June 2005, pp. 13–18.
30. Dana Shea, Radiological Dispersal Devices: Select Issues in Consequence Management (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, Dec. 7, 2004), pp. 3–4.
31. Peter Benesh, “More Drug Makers Are Losing Patience Over Bioshield Funds,” Investor's Business Daily, Feb. 17, 2006, <http://www.mvrd.org/BioShieldArchives.cfm>.
32. For more on RDD impact, see Matthew Dombroski and Paul Fischbeck, “An Integrated Physical Dispersion and Behavioral Response Model for Risk Assessment of Radiological Dispersion Device (RDD) Events,” Risk Analysis 26 (2006), pp. 501–514.
33. Marc Siegel, False Alarm: The Truth About the Epidemic of Fear (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley 2005), p. 35.
34. Paul Slovic, The Perception of Risk (London/ Sterling, VA: Earthscan, 2000), p. 228.
35. Lynn Davis, Tom LaTourrette, David E. Mosher, Lois M. Davis, and David R. Howell, Individual Preparedness and Response to Chemical, Radiological, Nuclear and Biological Terrorist Attacks (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2003), pp. 147–148.
36. A theoretical framework developed by Paul Slovic and his collaborators is known as a “psychometric paradigm.” It assumes that risk is subjectively defined by individuals who may be influenced by a wide array of psychological, social, institutional, and cultural factors. P. Slovic, B. Fischerhoft, and S. Lichtenstein, “Facts and Fears: Understanding Perceived Risk,” in R. C. Schwing and W. A. Albes, eds., Societal Risk Assessment: How Safe Is Safe Enough? (New York: Plenum Press, 1980), pp. 181–216. Regarding radiological terrorism, this paradigm can group relevant characteristics into (1) the degree of severity of risk, (2) the degree of familiarity with radiation, and (3) the number of people actually or perceived to have been exposed.
37. Betty Pfefferbaum, “Victims of Terrorism and the Media,” in Andrew Silke, ed., Terrorists, Victims and Society: Psychological Perspectives on Terrorism and Its Consequences (London: Wiley, 2003), p. 177.
38. Randall Bowdish, “Cerberus to Mind: Media as Sentinel in the Fight Against Terrorism,” Strategic Insights 5 (May 2006), <www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2006/May/bowdishMay06.asp>.
39. A. Mazur, The Dynamics of Technical Controversy (Washington, DC: Communications Press, 1981).
40. R.J. Preston, “LNT Is the Best We Can Do–To–day,” Journal of Radiological Protection 23 (2003), pp. 263–268.
41. Jerry Cuttler, “What Becomes of Nuclear Risk Assessment in Light of Radiation Hormesis,” paper presented at the 25th Annual Conference of the Canadian Nuclear Society, Toronto, June 6–9, 2004; LeRoy Moore, “Lowering the Bar,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 58 (May/June 2002), pp. 28–37, <www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=mj02moore>.
42. Zbigniew Jaworowski and Michael Waligorski, “Problems of U.S. Policy on Radiation Protection,” Executive Intelligence Review (May 16, 2003), <http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2003/scitechs/3019us_nuke_safety.html>.
43. Policy Forum: Nuclear Power Plants and Their Fuel as Terrorist Targets, Science 297 (Sept. 20, 2002), available at <http://www.world-nulear.org/opinion/npp-terrorism.pdf>.
44. Board on Radiation Effects Research, National Research Council, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII−Phase 2 (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2005).
45. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, “Fact Sheet: Proposed Protective Action Guidelines for Radiological Dispersion and Improvised Nuclear Devices,” Jan. 3, 2006,<http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=5327>; Matthew Wald, “Even after Dirty Bomb Exposure, Residents Might Be Allowed Back In,” New York Times, Jan. 5, 2006, p. A15. See also the April 14, 2006 letter of comment to the Office of the General Counsel, Federal Emergency Management Agency regarding the DHS draft guidance, signed by 61 organizations and numerous individuals, <http://www.committeetobridgethegap.org/clearup.html/DHSgroup.pdf>.
46. Walter Mayr, “The Pompeii of the Nuclear Age,” Spiegel Outline (April 17, 2006), <http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0, 1518, 411684, 00.html>.
47. World Health Organization, Joint News Release, “Chernobyl: The True Scale of the Accident,” WHO/IAEA/UNDP, <http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/print.html>.
48. Mary Mycio, “Questions from the Alienation Zone,” Kyiv Post, Nov. 3, 2005; Alexander Kuzma, “Don't Trust the IAEA on Chernobyl,” Kyiv Post, Dec. 15, 2005.
49. Ian Fairlie and David Sumner, “The Other Report on Chernobyl (TORCH),” commissioned by Rebecca Harms, MEP, Greens/EFA, in the European Parliament, Berlin, Brussels, Kiev, April 2006,<http://www.greens-eta.org/cms/topics/docbin/118/11855>.
50. International Commission on Radiological Protection,Protecting People Against Radiation Exposure in the Aftermath of a Radiological Attack, April 2004, p. 24.
51. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services, Mental Health Response to Mass Violence and Terrorism (Washington, DC, 2004), pp. 57–58.
52. Bill Durodié, “The Limitations of Risk Management in Dealing with Disaster and Building Social Resilience,” Politik 8 (March 2005), pp. 14–21 <http://www.durodie.net/publicationslist.htm>.
53. U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Risk Communication Principles May Assist in Refinement of the Homeland Security Advisory System,” statement of Randall A. Yim, Managing Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues before the Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives, March 16, 2004, GAO-04-538T.
54. Vivienne Morgan, “Terror Threat Levels to Be Made Public,” Press Association Newsfile, July 10, 2006.
55. Slovic, Perception of Risk, pp. 236–239.
56. Noel Brewer, Sarah Lillie, and William Hallman, “Why People Believe They Were Exposed to Biological or Chemical Warfare: A Survey of Gulf War Veterans,” Risk Analysis 26 (2006), pp. 337–345.
57. Charles Hanley, “WMD Terrorism: Sum of All Fears Does Not Always Add Up,” USA Today, Oct. 29, 2005, <www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-10-29-terror-vision_x.htm>.
58. Ana Maria Arumi and Scott Bittle, “Public Agenda Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index,” Public Agenda, A Report from Public Agenda with support from Ford Foundation, August 2005, <http://www.foreignaffairs.org/public_agenda/report>
59. War on Terrorism, CBS News Poll, Question: “How Likely Do You Think It Is That There Will Be Another Terrorist Attack in the United States within the Next Few Months: Very Likely, Somewhat Likely, Not Very Likely, Or Not at All Likely?” <http://www.pollingreport.com/terror.htm>.
60. “American Attitudes Hold Steady in the Face of Foreign Crises,” Pew Research Center, Aug. 17, 2006, pp. 4, 12.
61. Ann Norwood, Robert Ursano, and Carol Fullerton, “Disaster Psychiatry: Principles and Practice,” American Psychiatric Association website, <www.psych.org/psych_pract/principles_and_practice3201.cfm?pf=y>.
62. American Psychological Association, “Combating Terrorism: Responses from the Behavioral Sciences” <http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/svignetteterror2.html>; American Psychological Association, “APA Releases Fact Sheet on Resilience to Help People Cope with Terrorism and Other Disasters,” Feb. 10, 2004, <http://www.apa.org/releases/resiliencefacts.html>.
63. Dombroski and Fischbeck, “An Integrated Physical Dispersion and Behavioral Response Model”, p. 503.
64. Rosa Gofin, “Preparedness and Response to Terrorism: A Framework for Public Health Action,” European Journal of Public Health 15 (Feb. 2005), pp. 100–104 <http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/15/1/100>.
65. R. Pynoos, “Exposure to Catastrophic Violence and Disaster in Childhood,” in Cynthia R. Pfeffer, ed., Severe Stress and Mental Disturbance in Children (Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press, 1996), pp. 181–208.
66. National Institute of Mental Health, Mass Violence: Evidence Based Early Psychological Intervention for Victims/Survivors of Mass Violence: A Workshop to Reach Consensus on Best Practices, NIH Publication 02-5138 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2002), <http://www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat/massviolence.pdf>.
67. U.S. Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, Medical Management of Radiological Casualties.
68. American Psychological Association, “APA Releases Fact Sheet on Resilience.”
69. Clarke, Worst Cases, p. 79.
70. Bill Durodie and Simon Wessely, “Resilience or Panic? The Public and Terrorist Attack,” Lancet 360 (2002), pp. 1901–1902.
71. “A Failure of Initiative,” Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation For and Response to Hurricane Katrina, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, Feb. 15, 2006.
72. White House, “The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned,” Feb. 3, 2006.
73. “Poll: 52% Confidence in U.S. Hurricane Response,” CNN.com, May 22, 2006, <http://www.cnn.com/2006/weather/05/22/hurricane.poll/index.html>.
74. “Follow-Up 2005: Where the American Public Stands on Terrorism and Preparedness after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita,” Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, NY, Oct. 2005, p. 2.
75. Carlos Pascual, “Chernobyl's Lesson,” Washington Post, June 2, 2006, <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/01/AR2006060100875_pt.html>.
76. George Cvetkovich and Ragnar Lofstedt, Social Trust and the Management of Risk (London: Earthscan, 1999); Paul Slovic, “Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-Assessment Battlefield,” Risk Analysis 19 (1999), pp. 697–698.
77. Roz D. Lasker, Center for the Advancement of Collaborative Strategies in Health, New York Academy of Medicine, “Redefining Readiness: Terrorism Planning through the Eyes of the Public,” Sept. 2004.
78. Barbara Reynolds, “Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication by Leaders for Leaders,” Centers for Disease Control and prevention Web Site, <http://www.cdc.gov/communication/emergency/leaders.pdf>.
79. Amy Westfeldt, “Study: 9/11 Escapees Have Health Problems,” Associated Press, April 7, 2006, <http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/07/D8GRIA080.html>; Centers for Disease Control and prevention, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 55 (April 7, 2006), <http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/ss/ss5502.pdf>.
80. Russell Dynes, “Dealing with Disaster in the 21st Century,” presentation at the Diamond Jubilee of the Institute of Civil Defence and Disaster Studies, Bedfort Lakes, Feltham, Middlesex, United Kingdom, Oct. 22, 1998.
81. J.S. Petterson, “Perception vs. Reality of Radiological Impact: The Goiania Model,” Nuclear News 31 (1988), pp. 84–90.
82. Bromet, “Psychological Effects of Radiation Catastrophes.”
83. Davis et al., Individual Preparedness and Response to Chemical, Radiological, Nuclear, and Biological Terrorist Attacks, p. 106.
84. Anthony Ng, “The Role of the Psychiatric Emergency Service in Disaster,” Psychiatric Times, April 1, 2006: “Disaster Planning for the PES”, Emergency Psychiatry , Summer, 2005, p. 15, <http://emergency-psychiatry.org/PDF/Summer2005pdf>.
85. Donald Thompson, “Terrorism and Domestic Response: Can DOD Help Get It Right?” Joint Force Quarterly 40 (April 2006), <http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/volumes/volume 4/april_2006/4_06_1.html>.
86. Lars Weisaeth and Arnfinn Tonnessen, “Responses of Individuals and Groups to Consequences of Technological Disasters and Radiation Exposure,” in Robert Ursano, Carol Fullerton, and Ann Norwood, eds., Terrorism and Disaster (Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003), pp. 209–15.
87. Pfefferbaum, “Victims of Terrorism and the Media,” p. 179.
88. “Special Report: ‘Crisis at Three Mile Island’,” Chapter 9 (“The Media Corps’ All Out Invasion”), Washington Post, 1979, <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/tmi/stories/ch9.htm>.
89. Peter Sandman, “Tell It Like It Is: 7 Lessons from TMI,” IAEA Bulletin 47 (2006), <http://www.iaea.org/publications/magazines/bulletin/bull472/htmls/tmi2.html>.
90. Center for the Study of Traumatic Stress, Uniformed Services University School of Medicine, “Psychological and Behavioral Issues Healthcare Providers Need to Know When Treating Patients Following a Radiation Event,” <http://www.usuhs.mil/centerforthestudyoftraumaticstress>.
91. “The Human Consequences of the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident: A Strategy for Recovery,” report commissioned by UNDP and UNICEF with the support of UN-OCHA and WHO, Jan. 25, 2002. Also see: Adriana Petryna and Paul Rabinow, eds., Life Exposed: Biological Citizens After Chernobyl (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003); Glen Alan Cheney, Journey to Chernobyl: Encounters in a Radioactive Zone (Chicago: Academy of Chicago Publishers, 1995); Jim Smith and Nicholas Beresford, Chernobyl: Catastrophe, Consequences and Solutions (New York: Springer-Verlag, 2005).
92. Nuclear Energy Agency and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, “Chernobyl: Assessment of Radiological and Health Impacts,” 2002 update of Chernobyl: Ten Years On, 2002, pp. 94–95.
93. Gerd Gigerenzer, “Out of the Frying Pan into the Fire: Behavioral Reactions to Terrorist Attacks,” Risk Analysis 26 (2006), p. 348.
94. Robert Coalson, “Analysis: When a Rumor Is as Good as a Bomb,” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Nov. 11, 2004.
95. National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, U.S. Dept. of Veterans Affairs Web Site, “What Is Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder?” <http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/facts/general>, update on July 20, 2006.
96. Ginny Sprang, “The Psychological Impact of Isolated Acts of Terrorism,” in Silke, ed., Terrorists, Victims and Society: Psychological Perspectives on Terrorism and Its Consequences, p. 139.
97. Laura Gibson, “Acute Stress Disorder,” National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Dept. of Veterans Affairs Web Site, <http://www.ncptsd.va.gov/facts/specific>.
98. Andre Mickley, “Psychological Factors in Nuclear Warfare,” in U.S. Office of the Surgeon General, Medical Consequences of Nuclear Warfare–Textbook of Military Medicine (Falls Church, VA: TMM Publications, 1989), p. 179.
99. Joseph Mangano, “Three Mile Island: Health Study Meltdown,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (Oct. 2004), pp. 30–35. Also see: Samuel Walker, Three Mile Island: A Nuclear Crisis in Historical Perspective (Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2004).
100. Bromet, “Psychological Effects of Radiological Catastrophes,” p. 288.
101. D.P. Rice and L.S. Miller, “Health Economics and Cost Implications of Anxiety and Other Mental Disorders in the United States,” British Journal of Psychiatry 34 (1998), pp. 4-9. By comparison, one million mentally ill people in the United Kingdom draw disability benefits, representing more than the total number of claimants for unemployment compensation. Richard Layard, “Depression, a Disease That We Must Defeat,” Observer, June 18, 2006, <http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/1800252,00.html>.
102. “Mental Health Benefits,” Michigan Psychological Association Web Site, <http://www.michpsych.org/index.cfm?location_/3&subsectionid_/1>.
103. Scientists from the Garvan Institute in Sydney, Australia, issued these findings. “Australia Scientists Find Proof That Stress Makes You Sick,” Breitbart.com, Dec. 4, 2005, <http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/12/04/051205001220.1k2kjzco.html>.
104. Leon Schein, Psychological Effects of Terrorist Disaster (Oxford: Haworth Press, 2006); Yael Danieli, Joe Sills, and Danny Brom, eds., The Trauma of Terrorism: Sharing Knowledge and Shared Care (Oxford: Haworth Press, 2005).
105. Douglas Paton and David Johnson, “Disasters and Communities: Vulnerability, Resilience and Preparedness,” Disaster Prevention and Management 10 (2001), pp. 273–275.
106. “Disaster Reduction and Sustainable Development: Understanding the Links between Vulnerability and Risk to Disasters Related to Development and Environment,” background paper developed as a contribution to the process leading to the World Summit on Sustainable Development, Johannesburg, South Africa, Aug. 26–Sept. 4, 2002.
107. Clarke, Worst Cases, p. 168.
108. Kent Drescher, “Spirituality in the Face of Terrorist Disaster,” in Leon Schein, Henry Spitz, Gary Burlingame, and Philip Muskin, eds., Psychological Effects of Catastrophic Disasters: Group Approaches to Treatment (New York/ London/ Oxford: Haworth Press, 2005), pp. 344–345.
109. E.L. Quarantelli, “Catastrophes Are Different from Disasters: Some Implications for Crisis Planning and Managing Drawn from Katrina,” Social Science Research Council website, Sept. 2005, <http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/Quarantelli/>.
110. H.R. 3565, Library of Congress website, <http:/Thomas.loc.gov/>.
111. Eve Coles and Philip Buckle, “Developing Community Resilience as a Foundation for Effective Disaster Recovery,” Australian Journal of Emergency Management 13 (Nov. 2004), p. 9.
112. UK Resilience, 2005, <http://www.ukresilience.info/home.htm>.
113. State Educational Standard, Specialty 033300, “Safety and Security of Livelihood,” Ministry of Education and Science, Moscow, Jan. 31, 2005, <http://web.referent.ru/security/1/85561/1>.
114. Lee Clarke, “Worst-Case Thinking: An Idea Whose Time Has Come,” Natural Hazards Observer 29 (Jan. 2005), pp. 1–3.
115. Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-5, White House press release, Feb. 28, 2003, <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030228-9.html>.
116. As defined by the UN-operated Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN), a disaster is a sudden, calamitous event that seriously disrupts the functioning of a community or society and causes human, material, economic, or environmental losses that exceed the community's or society's ability to cope using its own resources. Though often caused by nature, disasters can have human origins. The combination of hazards, vulnerability, and inability to reduce the potential negative consequences of risk results in disaster. See IRIN website, <www.irinnews.org/webspecials/DR/Definitions.asp>.
117. E.L. Quarantelli, “Technological and Natural Disasters and Ecological Problems: Similarities and Differences in Planning For and Managing Them,” presentation at Colloquium on Challenges of Technological and Ecological Disasters, Mexico City, Mexico, May 11, 1993.
118. Slovic, Perception of Risk, p. 271.
119. Chitra Ragavan, “Suicide Bomb Scare,” U.S. News and World Report, July 3, 2006, <http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/060703/3bombs.htm>; Foreign Policy, “The Terrorism Index,” July/Aug. 2006, <http://web0.foreignpolicy.com/issue_julyaug_2006/TI-index/index.html>. A complete report on the survey is available from the Center for American Progress, “The Terrorism Index,” June 14, 2006, <http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=1763037>.
120. Marvin Olasky, “Nuke Nightmare,” World Magazine, Feb. 25, 2006, <http://www.worldmag.com/articles/11552>.
121. Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Dept. of State, Country Reports on Terrorism 2005 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, April 2006), p. 15.
122. Sergei Babkin, “Terrorist Search for Ways to Produce WMD,” ITAR-TASS, Dec. 1, 2005.
123. “German Secret Service Chief Says Al-Qaidah Still Capable of Action,” BBC Monitoring International Reports, March 18, 2006.
124. Ben Aris, “Germans Hold Two Suspected of Dirty Bomb Plot,” Guardian, Jan. 24, 2005, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,1396899,00.html>.
125. Craig Whitlock, “Architect of New War on the West,” Washington Post, May 23, 2006, <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/22/AR2006052201627.html>.
126. U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Border Security: Investigators Successfully Transported Radioactive Sources Across Our Nation's Borders at Selected Locations,” GAO 06-545R, March 28, 2006.
127. President's Working Group on Financial Markets: Terrorism Risk Insurance Analysis, American Academy of Actuaries, Washington, DC, April 21, 2006, p. 30.
128. United Nations, “Uniting Against Terrorism: Recommendations for a Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy,” report of the Secretary General, A/60/825, April 27, 2006, p. 4.