Scholars from the Medical Center gathered at the Bryan Center Monday night for the eighth University-wide forum reacting to the Sept. 11 attacks, this one focusing on how the medical community is responding to terrorism.
The forum examined chemical terrorism, biological terrorism--including the recent anthrax scare--and nuclear threats as well as the psychiatric response to mass violence.
Dr. Woodhall "Sandy" Stopford, assistant clinical professor of community and occupational medicine, outlined potential chemical threats to the United States.
"There are some things I don't want to talk about, [such as] specific chemicals," he said at the beginning of his remarks. "The public is well-served if no one is talking about those chemical hazards."
Stopford said that if terrorists use chemicals to attack Americans, they will likely use those readily available at research or industrial facilities, rather than specific highly toxic gases, such as sarin or ricin. Stopford did not want to name the specific chemicals.
In response to a question, he said the nation's water supply will not likely be a target for terrorists.
"You're dealing with a large volume of water, and there will be a large dilution effect in any water supply," Stopford said.
Dr. Keith Kaye, assistant professor of infectious diseases, discussed both the fallout from the anthrax mailings and the possibility of a smallpox outbreak. He said that the silver lining of the past month is that six out of the 11 patients who contracted inhalation anthrax survived and that the inhaled infection has turned out to be more curable than previously thought.
Kaye outlined the history of bioterrorism, noting that the Mongols catapulted diseased cadavers into cities, that the Russians used plague against the Swedes and that Americans used infected blankets to cause smallpox among Native Americans.
He cautioned against the use of antibiotics unless absolutely necessary.
Kaye noted that 32,000 people have been issued antibiotics for prophylaxis--using them as a preventative measure--and 5,000 had been issued a full 60-day course. He also cited a study that found that a fifth of patients taking the full course of antibiotics have suffered one or more side effects from the drugs.
Randy Jirtle, professor of radiation oncology, discussed potential nuclear disasters from a historical perspective.
At the beginning of his discussion, he played an audio clip of nuclear scientist Robert Oppenheimer talking about the nature of the Manhattan Project, which spawned the atomic bomb. In the clip, Oppenheimer noted that he often felt like death, a destroyer of worlds.
Jirtle said that although a nuclear attack would be rare, it is nevertheless something to take seriously. "Does anyone doubt that [Osama] bin Laden would use nuclear terrorism if he had the capability?" he asked.
He said the most likely nuclear event, rather than an atomic bomb, would come in the form of radiological contamination at low levels, through sources contained in letters, boxes, the water supply or the air. Jirtle said the fallout would not immediately be lethal.
John Fairbank, associate professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, said that in the wake of tragic events, people should still consider the likely risk of an attack. Fairbank noted several studies that have found that people routinely overestimate small risks such as terrorist attacks and underestimate larger risks, such as car crashes.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.