Analyze

pece_annotation_1475595537

josh.correira
Annotation of
In response to

The IHS mainly focuses on disaster prevention and preparedness with initiatives such as teaching children about illness prevention, teaching about safe drinking water and food safety, preventing the spread of disease, and preventing injuries. They also have a number of resources available to their members to connect with healthcare professionals. This seems to be a community awareness type approach that prevents the spread of disease by teaching the community. It resembles that of many healthcare systems and does not seem to suggest problems with other approaches.

pece_annotation_1473112208

josh.correira
Annotation of
In response to

The program is situated in Hiroshima and is based on the benefits and disasters of radiation to humans, including the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It is also based on the Fukushima disaster and the University's response to it, realizing that there is a need for global leaders in the field of emergency response.

pece_annotation_1474515346

josh.correira
Annotation of
In response to

One major point outlined in the article is the way that disease outbreaks have been viewed and prepared for has changed over the past few centuries. It started out in the view of public health where social factors like sanitation and clean water were valued but then shifted towards preparedness after outbreaks of various influenza viruses seemed to not fit the paradigm of public health.

pece_annotation_1475597865

josh.correira
Annotation of
In response to

The organization has the infrastructure of the Federal government, however they operate in areas that are more rural, including Alaska and the Southwest where environmental issues such as clean drinking water can be present, which they address in their community health approach. All members also are allowed access to the internet, which I'm assuming is available at each of their locations.

pece_annotation_1473104682

josh.correira
Annotation of
In response to

One argument presented is that public engagement in technical decisions can lead to great vigilance and confidence in emergency preparedness and that decisions governing technologies should not be left to the scientist. There is benefit in including lay people and STS scholars. This also includes public awareness about emergency response instead of one elite governing body controlling what is best for the public. Nuclear emergency responses must be transparent.