According to a report published online today by the Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness journal, a publication of the American Medical Association, a new survey has revealed there are serious gaps in U.S. radiological preparedness.
The authors explain:
“The magnitude 9.0 earthquake and resulting tsunami off the coast of Tohoku, Japan on March 11, 2011 triggered the first nuclear crisis of the 21st century, which involved a series of operational failures, explosions, and partial core meltdowns at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. The situation was severe enough to warrant a classification as a major incident with major release of radioactive material with widespread health and environmental effects requiring implementation of planned and extended countermeasures.”
In the U.S. there were concerns regarding the exposure to radiation from the event in Japan, however, these concerns were alleviated by data from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) nationwide radiation monitoring system. The authors state: “In 1999, APHL (Association of Public Health Laboratories), CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation formed the Laboratory Response Network (LRN) to ensure national capability for identifying and characterizing potential agents of biological and chemical terrorism in clinical specimens.” The authors add, “public health laboratories constitute a first line defense against a range of public health hazards.”
Together with her team, Megan Weil Latshaw, Ph.D., M.H.S, from the Association of Public Health Laboratories, Silver Spring, Md., examined data from two independent surveys of public health laboratories representing the 50 U.S. states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.
Overall laboratory capability (ability to perform certain activities) as well as capacity (amount of work that be performed) were analyzed in the 2009 All-Hazards Laboratory Preparedness Survey, which also included questions regarding responding to chemical, radiological, biological, and other threats. A survey from 2011 focused solely on radiation readiness.
The authors report:
“Twenty-seven percent of the All-Hazards Survey respondents reported the ability to measure radionuclides in clinical specimens; six percent reported that another state agency or department accepted and analyzed these samples via a radioanalytical method. Of the Radiation Capabilities Survey respondents, 60 percent reported the ability to test environmental samples, such as air, soil, or surface water, for radiation; 48 percent reported the ability to test nonmilk food samples; 47 percent reported the ability to test milk; and 56 percent reported sending data for drinking water to the Environmental Protection Agency.
A total of 15 responding laboratories reported the ability to test one or more types of human specimens for radionuclides. Given federal regulatory restrictions, however, it is likely that many of these laboratories are not certified to perform diagnostic testing for radiation exposure. Thus, in the event of a large-scale incident, such as the 2011 Japan radiation event, at least 70 percent of states would likely send their clinical specimens to CDC for analysis.”
They Conclude:
“In 2007, federal experts estimated it would take more than four years to screen 100,000 individuals for radiation exposure and six years to test environmental samples from a large-scale radiological emergency, relying on existing laboratory assets. Although some progress has been made since 2007, public health radiological test capabilities and capacities remain insufficient to respond to a major event. Adequate preparation requires significant new investment to build and enhance laboratory emergency response networks, as well as investments in the broader public health system in which public laboratories function.”
Written by Grace Rattue