Investigation of Federal Bureau of Investigation Bomb-Related Death and Injury Data in the United States between 1988 and 1997

Military Medicine, Jul 2005 by Noji, Eric K, Lee, Catherine Y, Davis, Timothy, Peleg, Kobi

Limitations

Although the FBI data were very helpful in many respects, there still exist some limitations that constrain the ability to continue more accurate and comprehensive assessment of the bombing problem as it relates to injuries. The FBI BDC uses a passive system to collect information about bombing incidents within the United States and its territories, which can include U.S embassies.6 Data collected may include reports of actual bombings, attempted bombings, hoax devices, recoveries of nonexploded devices, illegally possessed explosive materials and their precursor chemical materials, and military ordnance devices.

This information is voluntarily reported by federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, including more than 600 bomb squads, the Postal Inspection Service, Military Explosive Ordnance Disposal units, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.6 As a result, the FBI data are possibly more incomplete than some data sources like the National Vital Statistics System due to limitations of voluntary reporting habits and varying investigative resources.4 However, it is important to consider that data codes are often very limited in definition and sometimes ambiguous, thus making it difficult to characterize what truly caused the injury.

The U.S Department of Justice acknowledges that statistics reflect only incidents reported to federal databases and are not completely representative of the scope of bombings and injury in the United States.16 It would be of great benefit to learn the methods by which injuries are actually reported to the bomb data center, including data fields and instruments used to report injuries, timeliness of reporting, and any areas of incomplete or unknown reporting. Also, as is the case with many databases, FBI data were often incomplete and many unknowns were encountered. For example, although the FBI reported 16 perpetrators affiliated with terrorist motivations in 1997, motivations of more than one-half of the population were still unknown (n = 1,639, 53.6%).6 Although we were able to infer a trend in explosive versus incendiary bombings during the 10year period, the FBI data were aggregated and did not provide information on a case-by-case basis. In other words, the data were not presented in such a way that one could identify specific injuries to specific people or types of devices.

To conduct a more extensive epidemiological analysis, data such as demographics of those injured (age, sex, location, or area of country), medical treatment, and types of injuries would be needed. This ideal data set would merge the capabilities of medical and public health information with law enforcement records. This type of registry system would provide data on the characteristics of the bombing event (bomb characteristics, scene setting, environmental and building traits), demographics of victims, injury types and severity, medical treatment, and outcome. It would be helpful to make a direct correlation between different bombing events and resulting injuries so that risk factors can be identified to mitigate injury.