No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Don't Ignore the Cow in Field Investigations of Chemical, Biological, or Toxin Warfare
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 May 2016
Extract
Anyone interested in assessing an allegation of unconventional warfare would agree with the statement by Peter Barss that “the investigation of an alleged outbreak of CBTW should be conducted, whenever possible, in accordance with the well-tested steps that guide the standard epidemiologic investigation of an outbreak of disease or injuries.” In fact, during my tenure as commander of the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, response teams were organized in various configurations to deploy on short notice to carry out thorough epidemiological investigations should an incident occur in which the use of biological agents might be suspected or considered. The teams were equipped and organized with the appropriate mix of expertise to carry out the type of epidemiological investigations discussed by Barss.
- Type
- Roundtable Commentaries
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences
References
Hamilton-Merritt, J.(1982). Hmong and Yao: Mountain Peoples of Southeast Asia. SURVIVE, P.O. Box 50, Redding Ridge, CT, USA.Google Scholar
Schiefer, H.B.(1982). “Study of the Possible Use of Chemical Warfare Agents in Southeast Asia.” A Report to the Department of External Affairs, Canada.Google Scholar
Second Review Conference of the Parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (1986). BWC/CONF. 11/13. Geneva.Google Scholar