2 results
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE) Science and the CBRNE Science Medical Operations Science Support Expert (CMOSSE)
- C. Norman Coleman, Judith L. Bader, John F. Koerner, Chad Hrdina, Kenneth D. Cliffer, John L. Hick, James J. James, Monique K. Mansoura, Alicia A. Livinski, Scott V. Nystrom, Andrea DiCarlo-Cohen, Maria Julia Marinissen, Lynne Wathen, Jessica M. Appler, Brooke Buddemeier, Rocco Casagrande, Derek Estes, Patrick Byrne, Edward M. Kennedy, Ann A. Jakubowski, Cullen Case, Jr, David M. Weinstock, Nicholas Dainiak, Dan Hanfling, Andrew L. Garrett, Natalie N. Grant, Daniel Dodgen, Irwin Redlener, Thomas F. MacKAY, Meghan Treber, Mary J. Homer, Tammy P. Taylor, Aubrey Miller, George Korch, Richard Hatchett
-
- Journal:
- Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness / Volume 13 / Issue 5-6 / December 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 17 June 2019, pp. 995-1010
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
A national need is to prepare for and respond to accidental or intentional disasters categorized as chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosive (CBRNE). These incidents require specific subject-matter expertise, yet have commonalities. We identify 7 core elements comprising CBRNE science that require integration for effective preparedness planning and public health and medical response and recovery. These core elements are (1) basic and clinical sciences, (2) modeling and systems management, (3) planning, (4) response and incident management, (5) recovery and resilience, (6) lessons learned, and (7) continuous improvement. A key feature is the ability of relevant subject matter experts to integrate information into response operations. We propose the CBRNE medical operations science support expert as a professional who (1) understands that CBRNE incidents require an integrated systems approach, (2) understands the key functions and contributions of CBRNE science practitioners, (3) helps direct strategic and tactical CBRNE planning and responses through first-hand experience, and (4) provides advice to senior decision-makers managing response activities. Recognition of both CBRNE science as a distinct competency and the establishment of the CBRNE medical operations science support expert informs the public of the enormous progress made, broadcasts opportunities for new talent, and enhances the sophistication and analytic expertise of senior managers planning for and responding to CBRNE incidents.
7 - Norse Greenland settlement and limits to adaptation
- Edited by W. Neil Adger, University of East Anglia, Irene Lorenzoni, University of East Anglia, Karen L. O'Brien, Universitetet i Oslo
-
- Book:
- Adapting to Climate Change
- Published online:
- 31 August 2009
- Print publication:
- 25 June 2009, pp 96-113
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
The end of Norse Greenland sometime in the mid to late fifteenth century AD is an iconic example of settlement desertion commonly attributed to the climate changes of the ‘Little Ice Age’ combined with a generalized failure to adapt (for example, Diamond, 2005). The idea of chronic Norse adaptive failure has been widely accepted, in part because other peoples in Greenland (the Thule Inuit) survived through the period of Norse extinction. Human settlement of Greenland was definitely possible through the climate fluctuations of the thirteenth to seventeenth centuries AD, despite increasingly well-documented changes in temperature, probable growing season, sea ice, storminess and sea level. The Inuit achieved sustainability during this period of instability and change, but the Norse did not. It is assumed there must have been some degree of Norse maladaptation or more constrained limits to their adaptations than those of the Inuit, and the Norse are seen to have ‘chosen extinction’. We suggest that the picture emerging from recent and current research is far more complex, and propose that the Norse had achieved a locally successful adaptation to new Greenlandic resources but that their very success may have reduced the long-term resilience of the small community when confronted by a conjuncture of culture contact, climate change and new patterns of international trade.
The reasons for the final collapse of Norse Greenland are still incompletely understood, but new data from Greenland and across the North Atlantic, combined with changing ideas and developing cognitive frameworks, are refining and deepening our understanding on both adaptation and its limits (Dugmore et al., 2007a; McGovern et al., 2007).