IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v28y2008i5p1431-1444.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ranking Nuclear and Radiological Terrorism Scenarios: The Italian Case

Author

Listed:
  • Alessandro Tofani
  • Massimiliano Bartolozzi

Abstract

A quantitative criterion for ranking the different scenarios of nuclear and radiological terrorism has been developed. The aim of the model is not to predict terroristic events but only to indicate which scenario has the higher utility from the point of view of a terroristic organization in terms of balance between factors favoring and discouraging the attack, respectively. All these factors were quantified according to a scoring system that takes into account the logarithmic relationship between perceptions and stimuli. The criterion was applied to several scenarios, each of which was modeled in a simple but not trivial way in order to estimate the expected damage in terms of probable life losses from both radiative and nonradiative effects. The outcome from the ranking method indicates that the attractive scenario appears to be the detonation of a low yield improvised nuclear device in the metropolitan area of a major city.

Suggested Citation

  • Alessandro Tofani & Massimiliano Bartolozzi, 2008. "Ranking Nuclear and Radiological Terrorism Scenarios: The Italian Case," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(5), pages 1431-1444, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:28:y:2008:i:5:p:1431-1444
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01100.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01100.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01100.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew J. Dombroski & Paul S. Fischbeck, 2006. "An Integrated Physical Dispersion and Behavioral Response Model for Risk Assessment of Radiological Dispersion Device (RDD) Events," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(2), pages 501-514, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alessandro Tofani, 2011. "Assessing the Radiological Impact of Radiation Exposure Devices," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 31(4), pages 566-577, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lawrence M. Wein & Youngsoo Choi & Sylvie Denuit, 2010. "Analyzing Evacuation Versus Shelter‐in‐Place Strategies After a Terrorist Nuclear Detonation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(9), pages 1315-1327, September.
    2. Fagner C. Rother & Wilson F. Rebello & Matthew J. F. Healy & Mauricio M. Silva & Paulo A. M. Cabral & Hélio C. Vital & Edson R. Andrade, 2016. "Radiological Risk Assessment by Convergence Methodology Model in RDD Scenarios," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(11), pages 2039-2046, November.
    3. Matt Dombroski & Baruch Fischhoff & Paul Fischbeck, 2006. "Predicting Emergency Evacuation and Sheltering Behavior: A Structured Analytical Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(6), pages 1675-1688, December.
    4. Michelle Sydes & Lorelei Hine & Angela Higginson & James McEwan & Laura Dugan & Lorraine Mazerolle, 2023. "Criminal justice interventions for preventing radicalisation, violent extremism and terrorism: An evidence and gap map," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:28:y:2008:i:5:p:1431-1444. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.