Analyze

Walsh's piece gives us a concise history and geography of environmental racism in Austin, by drawing our attention to how ineequality is written into city law and urban planning. The ongoing legacies of segregation have shaped social life from access to public services to access to recreational spaces. Given the foundations of environmental racism in zoning laws and land use regulations, so succinctly highlighted by Walsh, how does/must the process of energy transition address these issues? Can there be zoning for justice, and what would that look like? In what way can our work at the field campus contribute to the existing work being done by orgs like El Pueblo and PODER?

Providing a historical overview of EJ-related issues and organzing in Austin, Walsh's piece gestures to the need for deep engagement with those already doing what we might consider 'quotidian anthropocenic' work in our field campus locations. What are our ethical relationships and obligations to those we collaborate with during our time physically in the city? What should they be after? How can our analytical contributions help organizations like PODER and other local activists fighting gentrification and biased zoning laws?

The policy is the IAEA: Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident. Written in 1986, it aimed to create an international system for reporting a nuclear accident, transferring vital information from the source to those who would need it to facilitate effective emergency response.

The convention was drafted and signed at a special meeting of the IAEA that took place 5 months after the Chernobyl Disaster. No one author or author country could be determined based on the document.

This policy applies internationally, to 119 states who were subject to it after the entry to force date. 69 states signed the convention at the IAEA special meeting in 1986.

This policy was created as a direct response to the Chernobyl Disaster. An interesing historical note is that the USSR and the Ukranian SSR were among the 69 states that signed the convention at the 1986 meeting, and both quickly ratified it afterward. 

By establishing for effective communication of information regarding a nuclear accident to other states which could be effected by it, and creating policies for the transfer of information, the convention addresses public health by giving goverments access to the information needed to respond to a nuclear disaster from abroad. 

This policy doesn't specifically address the needs of vulnerable popluations. 

This policy would help provide first responders and technical professionals with specific information on a nuclear emergency from a forign source which they could be responding to. This information could allow them to more effectively mitigate the effects of such a disaster. 

This policy was innitially well recieved and was quickly ratified by a number of countries with major nuclear capabilities. However after the Fukushima Disaster, this policy and other international policies were percieved by the public to be slow and inefficient in spreading vital information.