Search

ABSTRACTBackground:Prior assessments of public health readiness had identified gaps in radiation preparedness. In recent years, preparedness planning has involved an “all-hazards” approach. Current assessment of the national status related to radiation public health emergency preparedness capabilities at the state and local health department levels was needed.Methods:A survey of state health departments related to radiation readiness was undertaken in 2010 by the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE). States with nuclear power plants were instructed to consider their responses exclusive of capabilities and resources related to the plants given that the emergency response plans for nuclear power plants are specific and unique.Results:Thirty-eight (76%) state health departments responded to the survey, including 26 of the 31 states with nuclear power plants. Specific strengths noted at the state level included that the majority of states had a written radiation response plan and most plans include a detailed section for communications issues during a radiation emergency. In addition, more than half of the states indicated that their relationship with federal partners is sufficient to provide resources for radiation emergencies, indicating the importance states placed on federal resources and expertise. Specific weaknesses are discussed and include that most states had completed little to no planning for public health surveillance to assess potential human health impacts of a radiation event; less than half had written plans to address exposure assessment, environmental sampling, human specimen collection and analysis, and human health assessment. Few reported having sufficient resources to do public health surveillance, radiation exposure assessment, laboratory functions and other capabilities.Discussion:Levels of planning, resources and partnerships varied among states, those with nuclear power plants were better prepared. Gaps were evident in all states; however and additional training and resources are needed to ensure adequate levels of preparedness.Conclusion:Overall results of this assessment indicate that in most measures of public health capacity and capability, states are poorly prepared to adequately respond to a major radiation emergency event. Specific recommendations are noted in the discussion.(Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2011;5:S134-S142)

Objective. Pyrethrin and pyrethroid insecticides are commonly applied in homes and businesses and on some agricultural crops. This research used a two-state regional approach to analyze reports of acute pesticide poisonings due to pyrethrin and pyrethroid insecticides.Methods. The Washington State Department of Health and the Oregon Public Health Division collected pesticide poisoning surveillance data from 2001 through 2005. Cases were included if they involved exposure to at least one pyrethrin or pyrethroid insecticide. Descriptive statistics were calculated; differences between categories were assessed using Chi-square analysis.Results. A total of 407 cases fit our definition. Overall, the rate of poisoning in Oregon was significantly higher than in Washington (incidence rate ratio 1.70, 95% confidence interval 1.40, 2.07), and rates for both states generally increased during the time period. For both states, most exposures resulted in low severity illnesses (92%), and most were classified as possible cases (73%). Only about one-fourth of cases were related to a person's work. The most common category of clinical signs and symptoms of illness was respiratory (52% of cases), followed by neurological (40% of cases). Exposure route was predominantly inhalation; there was no association between route and case severity. There was a significant association between illness severity and losing time from work or regular activities (p<0.0001).Conclusions. Although the majority of pyrethrin and pyrethroid poisoning cases were low in severity, adverse reactions have occurred, as transpired in Oregon in 2005. Regional analysis has the potential to improve the surveillance system and provide unique opportunities for targeting preventive interventions.

Here we present generalizations of a recently proposed aging model to include several ages and the “Dauer” state. The results show that increasing the number of ages does not matter in one version of the model, but matters in another version, and that the Dauer state does provide a favorable mechanism for survival.