Skip to main content

Long-Term Health Monitoring of Populations Following a Nuclear or Radiological Incident in the United States Proceedings of a Workshop (2019) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:

Overarching Workshop Themes
Pages 1-6

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 1...
... , through Emergency Support Function (ESF) #8–Public Health and Medical Services, has the responsibility of coordinating federal resources to assist state and local agencies with responding to the public health and medical consequences of such an incident (DHS-FEMA, 2016a,b)
Read the entire page →
From page 2...
... Experience from past public health emergencies shows that congressional authorization and appropriation and construction of code and statute to set up and operate a public health surveillance system such as a registry take approximately 1–2 years. CDC recognizes that an effective analysis of how information collected immediately after the incident3 can be transferred to the registry planners likely months or years after the incident, what type of registry needs to be set up, and who to include cannot happen during the response to an incident when the emergency management community focuses on life-saving activities.
Read the entire page →
From page 3...
... Stakeholder agreement on the distribution of roles and responsibilities before an incident occurs would help plan for a framework to which everyone subscribes and alleviate confusion, duplicative or conflicting efforts, and competition for available resources that are expected to be scarce. The state and local public health community expects CDC to have a central role in setting up a radiation registry.
Read the entire page →
From page 4...
... For (3) , workshop participants discussed that the process of transferring information collected during the early response phase to registry planners raises issues related to system compatibility for merging information collected by different entities.
Read the entire page →
From page 5...
... Decisions about screening for cancer will involve balancing scientific evidence in relation to screening principles and other considerations that affect screening policies, including costs of implementation, available resources, public expectations, and ethical and legal factors. P ­ sychological health effects following a nuclear or radiological incident are expected to be significant because of the high perception of risk among those affected.
Read the entire page →
From page 6...
... 6 LONG-TERM HEALTH MONITORING OF POPULATIONS Many participants recognized that the list of pre-planning activities identified during the workshop is not exhaustive and that ultimately, an exercise focusing on long-term recovery that includes setting up a radiation registry would reveal additional gaps and planning needs.
Read the entire page →

Key Terms

  • radiological incident
  • health monitoring
  • registry planners
  • participants discussed
  • local agencies

  • dose threshold
  • information collected
  • response phase
  • health surveillance
  • monitoring following

  • scientific evidence
  • radiation health
  • radiation screening
  • radiation dose
  • implementing radiation

  • local health
  • health authorities
  • local public
  • health community
  • perform health

  • health preparedness
  • health emergencies
  • sychological health
  • local jurisdictions
  • workshop noted

  • past public
  • participants asked
  • radiological emergencies
  • public expectations
  • disease registry


    • This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
    More information on Chapter Skim is available.