Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-mp689 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T17:15:46.363Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Global Characteristics of Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Poison Use in Terrorist Attacks

Part of: Prehospital and Disaster Medicine Counterterrorism Collection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2020

Burc Aydin Open the ORCID record for Burc Aydin [Opens in a new window]
Burc Aydin*
Affiliation:
Department of Medical Pharmacology, Sanliurfa Mehmet Akif Inan Research and Training Hospital, Sanliurfa, Turkey
*
Correspondence: Burc Aydin, MD, Department of Medical Pharmacology, Sanliurfa Mehmet Akif Inan Research and Training Hospital, Esentepe Mah, Ertugrul Cad, Sanliurfa, Turkey, E-mail: burcaydin@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

Chemical, biological, and radiological (CBR) terrorism continues to be a global threat. Studies examining global and historical toxicological characteristics of CBR terrorism are lacking.

Methods:

Global Terrorism Database (GTD) and RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents (RDWTI) were searched for CBR terrorist attacks from 1970 through 2017. Events fulfilling terrorism and poisoning definitions were included. Variables of event date and location, event realization, poisonous agent type, poisoning agent, exposure route, targets, connected events, additional means of harm, disguise methods, poisonings, and casualties were analyzed along with time trends and data gaps.

Results:

A total of 446 events of CBR terrorism were included from all world regions. A trend for increased number of events over time was observed (R2 = 0.727; coefficient = 0.511). In these attacks, 4,093 people lost their lives and 31,903 were injured. Chemicals were the most commonly used type of poison (63.5%). The most commonly used poisonous agents were acids (12.3%), chlorine or chlorine compounds (11.2%), riot control agents (10.8%), cyanides (5.8%), and Bacillus anthracis (4.9%). Occurrence of poisoning was confirmed in 208 events (46.6%). Most common exposure routes were skin, mucosa, or eye (57.2%) and inhalation (47.5%). Poison was delivered with additional means of harm in 151 events (33.9%) and in a disguised way in 214 events (48.0%), respectively.

Conclusions:

This study showed that CBR terrorism is an on-going and increasingly recorded global threat involving diverse groups of poisons with additional harmful mechanisms and disguise. Industrial chemicals were used in chemical attacks. Vigilance and preparedness are needed for future CBR threats.

Keywords

biologicalchemicalpoisoningradiologicalterrorism
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , June 2020 , pp. 260 - 266
Copyright
© World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2020

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

Martens, M. Chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear terrorism: the rise of DAESH and future challenges. NATO Parliamentary Assembly, Science and Technology Committee. 175 STCTTS 16 E rev. 1 fin. https://www.nato-pa.int/sites/default/files/documents/2016%20-%20175%20STCTTS%2016%20E%20rev%201%20fin%20-%20REPORT%20-%20CRBN%20TERRORISM%20-%20MARTENS.docx. Published November 20, 2016. Accessed August 22, 2019.Google Scholar
European Parliament, Directorate General for Internal Policies, Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs. Member states’ preparedness for CBRN threats – Terrorism. PE 604.960. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/3357f853-5efd-11e8-ab9c-01aa75ed71a1/language-en. Published April 2018. Accessed August 22, 2019.Google Scholar
United States Department of State. Country reports on terrorism 2017. https://www.state.gov/reports/country-reports-on-terrorism-2017/. Published September 2018. Accessed August 23, 2019.Google Scholar
United Nations Secretary-General. Remarks to the open formal consultation for the comprehensive review of the UN Security Council Resolution 1540 (2004). https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/speeches/2016-06-21/remarks-open-formal-consultation-comprehensive-review-un-security. Published June 21, 2016. Accessed August 23, 2019.Google Scholar
United Nations Security Council. Resolution 2325. S/RES/2325. http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/doc/2325. Published December 15, 2016. Accessed August 23, 2019.Google Scholar
Hughart, J. Industrial chemicals as weapons of mass destruction. Paper presented at: Chemical and Biological Medical Treatment Symposium - Industry II the First World Congress on Chemical and Biological Terrorism; April 21-27, 2001; Dubrovnik, Croatia. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/206e/a06a08a8f6a94d3ffdfab8ad24c492b28fa4.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2019.Google Scholar
European Commission. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Action plan to enhance preparedness against chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear security risks. COM(2017) 610 final. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52017DC0610. Published October 18, 2017. Accessed August 23, 2019.Google Scholar
Bentur, Y.Medical toxicology: a distinct medical subspecialty sprouting from ancient roots. Isr Med Assoc J. 2008;10(11):747–748.Google ScholarPubMed
National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START). Global Terrorism Database, 2018. https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd. Accessed June 17, 2019.Google Scholar
RAND Corporation National Security Research Division. RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents. https://www.rand.org/nsrd/projects/terrorism-incidents.html. Accessed June 17, 2019.Google Scholar
National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START). Global Terrorism Database. Codebook: Inclusion Criteria and Variables. https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd. Published July 2018. Accessed June 17, 2019.Google Scholar
LaFree, G, Dugan, L.Introducing the global terrorism database. Terrorism and Political Violence. 2007;19(2):181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaFree, G, Dugan, L, Fogg, HV, Scott, J. Building a global terrorism database. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/214260.pdf. Published April 27, 2006. Accessed August 23, 2019.Google Scholar
Ding, F, Ge, Q, Jiang, D, Fu, J, Hao, M.Understanding the dynamics of terrorism events with multiple-discipline datasets and machine learning approach. PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0179057.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Institutes of Health. US National Library of Medicine. Medical Subject Headings. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/meshhome.html. Accessed August 7, 2019.Google Scholar
Aydin, B. Chemical, Biological, and Radiological Terrorist Attacks 1970-2017 GTD and RDWTI. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/KXIMTV. Published 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Central Intelligence Agency, Directorate of Intelligence. Terrorist CBRN: materials and effects (U). CTC 2003-40058. https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/CBRN_threat.pdf. Published May 2003. Accessed August 23, 2019.Google Scholar
Lloydʼs and Chatham House. Emerging risk report 2016. Use of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons by non-state actors - Emerging trends and risk factors. https://www.lloyds.com/~/media/files/news%20and%20insight/risk%20insight/2016/cbrn.pdf. Published 2016. Accessed August 23, 2019.Google Scholar
Santos, C, El Zahran, T, Weiland, J, et al.Characterizing chemical terrorism incidents collected by the global terrorism database, 1970-2015. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2019;34(4):385–392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krenzelok, EP, Allswede, MP, Mrvos, R.The poison center role in biological and chemical terrorism. Vet Hum Toxicol. 2000;42(5):297–300.Google ScholarPubMed
Soltaninejad, K. “Preparedness against chemical terrorism: poison information centers roles.” In: Tonev, S, Kanev, K, Dishovsky, C, (eds). Medical Management of Chemical and Biological Casualties. Sofia, Bulgaria: Military Medical Academy; 2009:66–74.Google Scholar
Hughes, JM, Gerberding, JL.Anthrax bioterrorism: lessons learned and future directions. Emerg Infect Dis. 2002;8(10):1013–1014.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sezigen, S, Ivelik, K, Ortatatli, M, et al.Victims of chemical terrorism, a family of four who were exposed to sulfur mustard. Toxicol Lett. 2019;303:9–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martens, A, Sainudiin, R, Sibley, CG, et al.Terrorist attacks escalate in frequency and fatalities preceding highly lethal attacks. PLoS One. 2014;9(4):e93732.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nathwani, AC, Down, JF, Goldstone, J, et al.Polonium-210 poisoning: a first-hand account. Lancet. 2016;388(10049):1075–1080.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
John, H, van der Schans, MJ, Koller, M, et al.Fatal sarin poisoning in Syria 2013: forensic verification within an international laboratory network. Forensic Toxicol. 2018;36(1):61–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed