Analyze

The article is supported in three main ways

1. A background on mental illnesses such as PTSD and MDD is presented drawn from information establised in other papers, studies, and previous research on disasters and mental health. 
2. Personal stories and individual case studies of people suffering from severe disaster related mental illnesses were used to establish the relationship and causation between disaster exposure and mental illness
3. Statistics and demographics were used to show which groups in particular were effected by mental illness in disaster scenarios.

The film shows that health infrastructure is imperative in the treatment of patients and containment of an outbreak. Also, it is suggested that the government’s attempts to contain the spread of the disease were challenged in part by a lack of awareness and available information.

The data used to support the claims of the article were from existing sources such as the Aid Worker Security Database, as well as from the interviews and focus groups help by the authors. It is important to note that the methods used to support the argument depended on data that may be incomplete, from questionable sources, or biased due to the lack of research and dependable data gathering for this topic.

The narrative is made and sustained by establishing Jerry's back story, then following his investigation and persuit of the truth which lead all the way up to a congressional hearing. Information on the chemicals found in the water and the effects on humans is presented in the film, and it does have an emotional impact at these diseased effect children and destroy families and lives.

Emergency response is not addressed in terms of the immediate response. The article focuses instead on the aftermath of the incident on Sept. 11th, dealing primarily with the cleanup efforts and investigation that followed in an effort to provide closure to the public and resume the regular business of the city, both important steps in recovering from a disaster.

"The real challenge of a disaster involving nuclear facilities, however, lies in how to handle the unexpected, unpredictable, utterly novel, and barely intelligible chain of events unfolding in real time."

"...existing organizations with subject expertise have negligible international autority and often ave problematic rapport with general public, and confirm the need for a well-coordinated and integrated sociotechnical approach."

"Ellis clearly realized that a nuclear disaster response team would face tremendous challenges on the international level. He emphasized it would be necessary 'to find the sweet spot between national sovereignty and international accountability.'"

The bibliography indicates that a large ammount of the information for this article was drawn directly from field work, including interviews with workers at the chernobyl site during the inial response efforts and in the recovery efforts undertaken in the aftermath, as well as effected citizens, officials, and healthcare practitioners involved in the new welfare/healthcare system formed in the aftermath for those who were exposed.

The article has not been referenced extensively, as it is focused on a very specific topic. However the ideas presented in the article, and by extension the ideas presented in the book have been included in other papers including some of the author's later works.

This article argues that many of the root causes of disease are based on social inequality and structural violance, citing factors such as environmental conditions, racism, pollution, housing conditions, poverty, infrastructure, and access to food, water, and healthcare. It presents the case that if clinicians take these factors into account, programs can be put into effect which, even in the poorest of rural communities, could help to mitigate disease transmission.

This article finds that based on the culture an individual belongs to, with its special beliefs, stigmas, and customs, how a patient may describe the "narrative" of an illness can vary greatly. A connection is shown to exist between the physical impact of an illness on the individual, how the illness is percieved by their culture, and the way they will describe the illness and seek treatment for it.