Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:29:23.557Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Threat of Mid-Spectrum Chemical Warfare Agents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Pål Aas
Pål Aas*
Affiliation:
Norwegian Defence Research Establishment, Kjeller, Norway Professor, Department of Physiology, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
*
Chief Scientist, Norwegian Defence Research Establishment, Postbox 25, NO-2027 Kjeller, Norway, E-mail: pal.aas@ffi.no
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is a spectrum of several threat agents, ranging from nerve agents and mustard agents to natural substances, such as biotoxins and new, synthetic, bioactive molecules produced by the chemical industry, to the classical biological warfare agents. The new, emerging threat agents are biotoxins produced by animals, plants, fungi, and bacteria. Examples of such biotoxins are botulinum toxin, tetanus toxin, and ricin. Several bioactive molecules produced by the pharmaceutical industry can be even more toxic than are the classical chemical warfare agents. Such new agents, like the biotoxins and bioregulators, often are called mid-spectrum agents. The threat to humans from agents developed by modern chemical synthesis and by genetic engineering also must be considered, since such agents may be more toxic or more effective in causing death or incapacitation than classical warfare agents. By developing effective medical protection and treatment against the most likely chemical and mid-spectrum threat agents, the effects of such agents in a war scenario or following a terrorist attack can be reduced.

Keywords

biological warfare agentsbioregulatorsbiotoxinschemical warfare agentsdisarmamentgenocidal agentssynthetic virusestoxic industrial chemicals
Type
Terrorism Special Report
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 18 , Issue 4 , December 2003 , pp. 306 - 312
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Pearson, GS: The Technical Challenge to Counter the CBW Spectrum. In: Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Protection against Chemical Wa r fare Agents, Umeå, Sweden 1989, pp 375–383.Google Scholar
2. Chemical Weapons Convention, 1993: Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and the Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction. Signed in Paris 13 January 1993.Google Scholar
3. The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, 1972. The Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction. Signed in Washington, London, and Moscow, 10 April 1972.Google Scholar
4. Pearson, GS: The prohibition of chemical and biological weapons. In: Dando, MR, Pearson, GS, Toth, T (eds): Verification of the Biological and Toxin We apons Convention. NAT O-ASI Series. Disarmament Technologies. 2000;32, pp 1–31.Google Scholar
5. Göransson-Nyberg, A, Hjalmarsson, K, Cassel, G, Hammarström, LG, Norlander, L: Neurotoxins - Medical Research Device for New Pharmaceutical Drugs or Warfare Agents? FOA-Report 00–01535–862-SE 2000, Umeå, Sweden.Google Scholar
6. Tucker, J: Dilemmas of a dual-use technology: Toxins in medicine and warfare. Politics and the Life Sciences 1994:51–62.Google Scholar
7. Canadian Report, 199: Novel Toxins and Bioregulators: The emerging scientifically and technological issues relating to verification and the Biological Weapons Convention; September 1991, Ottawa, Canada.Google Scholar
8. United Nations: The United Nations and the Iraq-Kuwait Conflict, 1990–1996. The United Nations Blue Book Series, Volume IX, Department of Public Information, United Nations, New York, USA, 1996.Google Scholar
9. Pearson, G: The UNSCOM Saga: Chemical and Biological Weapons Non-proliferation. 1999. London, England: MacMillan Press Ltd.Google Scholar
10. United Nations Security Council: Note by the Secretary-General, The eight report submitted by The United Nations Special Commission under paragraph 8 of Security Council Resolution 715 (1991), S/1995/864, 11 October 1995.Google Scholar
11. Cello, J, Paul, AV, Wimmer, E: Chemical synthesis of poliovirus cDNA: Generation of infectious virus in the absence of natural template. Science 2002;297:1016–1018.Google Scholar
12. Jackson, RJ, Ramsay, AJ, Christensen, CD, Beaton, S, Hall, DF, Ramshaw, IA: Expression of mouse interleukin-4 by a recombinant ectomelia virus suppresses cytocolic lymphocyte responses and overcomes genetic resistance to mousepox. J of Virology 2001;75(3):1205–1210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature 2001;409: 860–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Nixdorff, K, Brauburger, J, Hahlbohm, D: The Biotechnology Revolution: The Science and Applications. In: Dando, MR, Pearson, GS, Toth, T (eds.): Verification of the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. NATO ASI Series, 2000;32:77–124.Google Scholar
15. Bartfai, T, Lundin, SJ, Rybeck, B: Benefits and Threats of Developments in Biotechnology and Genetic Engeneering. SIPRI Yearbook 1993; 1993; 293–305.Google Scholar
16. Holden, C: Soviet biowarfare apparatus: All gone? Science 1992;257:1866.Google Scholar
17. Mahant, N, Clouston, PD, Lorentz, IT: The current use of botulinum toxin. J Clin Neurosci 2000;7(5):389–394.Google Scholar
18. Savarese, JJ: The new neuromuscular blocking drugs are here. J Anes 1981;55(1):1–3.Google Scholar
19. Schachter, M: Moxonidine: A review of safety and tolerability after seven years of clinical experience. J Hypertension 1999;17(3):S37–S39.Google Scholar
20. Aas, P: UNSCOM's and IAEA's disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Internasjonal Politikk 1997;55(1):41–60.Google Scholar
21. The CBW Conventions Bulletin. “Law enforcement” and the CWC, Issue no 58, 2002.Google Scholar
22. OPCW, 2001: Report of the OPCW on the Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction in the year 2000.Google Scholar
23. OPCW, 2002: Draft Report of the OPCW on the Implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction in the year 2001.Google Scholar
24. Pearson, GS, Magee, RS: Critical evaluation of proven chemical weapons destruction technologies (IUPAC Technical Report). Pure Appl Chem 2002;74(2):187–316.Google Scholar
25. Zajtchuk, R, Bellamy, RF: Textbook of Military Medicine: Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological Warfare. Published by the office of The Surgeon General at TTM Publications, Bordon Institute, Walter Reed Army Medical Center: Washington DC, 1997.Google Scholar