2002
DOI: 10.1016/s0048-9697(01)01112-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessing homeland chemical hazards outside the military gates: industrial hazard threat assessments for department of defense installations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2009
2009

Publication Types

Select...
2
1
1

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…• Cargo tank leaking gas region model [2] According to the principle of conservation of energy, the mass flow model of gas or steam leaking through the holes is shown below:…”
Section: 1the Source Strength Model Of Leakage Sourcementioning
confidence: 99%
“…• Cargo tank leaking gas region model [2] According to the principle of conservation of energy, the mass flow model of gas or steam leaking through the holes is shown below:…”
Section: 1the Source Strength Model Of Leakage Sourcementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Military operations place individuals in contact with chemicals and materials that may be different from those in their normal base settings (Kirkpatrick et al, 2002). Additionally, the exposure durations and levels may vary.…”
Section: The Need For Chemical Hazard Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One example of a cross-disciplinary, multi-layer answer to the September 11th event has involved the Department of Defense's U.S. Army Centre for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine's assessment of environmental health threats to continental U.S. military installations. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the American Industrial Hygiene Association have collaborated in using geographic referenced data (e.g., satellite imagery and population distribution), emergency response planning, and other assessment data sources to determine terroristic threat to continental United States military installations [28].…”
Section: Promising Evidencementioning
confidence: 99%