Analyze

this

Assessing the PM2.5 impact of biomass combustion in megacity Dhaka, Bangladesh - PubMed (nih.gov)

This article is about crop burning in Dhaka, Bangladesh and attempts to figure out if there is more or less harmful PM2.5 particulate air pollution caused by either fossil fuels or biomass, and during which season is one or the other higher in the air pollution it produces. During monsoon season, fossil fuels lead in the most PM2.5 releases at 44.3%. When it is not monsoon season and is the winter season, the percentages are way higher for PM2.5 air particulate releases at 41.4% for the remainder of the year. Across the globe, there are now people stepping up to uncover the true and real environmental and health impacts this harmful particulate byproduct causes in different parts of the world and with differring weather conditions than what we see in North Carolina. 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351209404_PM25_Emissions_from_…;

This study is set in South/Southeast Asia and uncovering that, when trying to count the percentages of PM2.5 put off during biomass, the true amount of emissions were being gravely undercalculated. Specifically rice straw burning becuase the amount burned varied so much because of different harvest and burning practices that it just wasn't taken into consideration. What this study does is go bottom up using these strategies: "subnational spatial database of rice-harvested area, region-specific fuel-loading factors, region, and burning-practice-specific emission and combustion factors, including literature-derived estimates of straw and stubble burned"(Lasko et al. 2021, 1). 

The most common air pollutants are called criteria pollutants and are regulated by the Clean Air Act and the EPA. These pollutants are: particles, ozone, nitrogen oxides, sulfer dioxide, carbon monoxide, and lead. The EPA have sections under the CAA that help regulate factories and air pollution in the environment. For example section 108 requires the EPA to identify the pollutants that are criteria pollutants, listed above, and determine if where they are coming from and if they "endander public health or welfare". Under section 109 the EPA had to set standards across the board for air pulltion in regard to human health and to the environemtn sperately (Christopher D. Ahlers 2016, 51-52).  There are many more sections that go into detail about what the CAA can do and what the EPA members are required to do as well. 

The American Red Cross has been on the forefront of research and testing, especially when it comes to blood. It was one of the first organizations to implement the testing of infectious diseases and is a single major contributor to clinical trials to improve blood safety according to their site. They were also among the first to develop testing for not only infectious disease, but HIV, Hepatitis B and C, West Nile, and Chagas disease. Currently they are actually working on a study in which they are investigating the blood supply for a tick-borne parasite in donated blood. They often work with the CDC and are always innovating ways to monitor donor blood by way of antibody recognition as well as disease detection and transmission. 

This policy was received in good light by the public for the most part. Patients were only to benefit from this, especially those who lacked insurance. Even those with insurance didn't have to waste time proving it any longer, they were treated and stabilized and insurance issues and payment were brought up later. Any ethically sound doctors, such as the ones working in hospitals that were already implementing the actions set forth by EMTALA (before it was law) had no issues with EMTALA. No doctor should have any issues with it due to their duty to act as well as ethical and moral standards they should be holding themselves up to, written in their oath they took to become doctor. The only people that would stand to receive this act negatively would be the doctors who were actively turning away patients in need, who are clearly morally compromised. Yet, media, patients, a majority of doctors and staff found and received this act positively or with little reservation.

There are two authors Andrew Lakoff and Stephen Collier. Andrew Lakoff works at USC and has roughly 40 publications. He is a professor of anthropology, sociology and communication at USC and has written many works with Stephen Collier. Collier has about 36 publications, and is a professor of international affairs at The New School. They are not directly involved in emergency response research but they do a lot of international studies related to medicine and disaster.

Through the use of surveying, this study identified that there are in fact inequalities in people's understanding of proper responses to pandemic influenza outbreaks. This study helped identify these vulnerable groups, and that social media and forms of mass media are the main ways to reach these groups. To address this vulnerable population, the public needs an increased accessibility to information, overall increasing the public's level of knowledge about the pandemic.

The references show that there was an intense amount of research done by the author. There were a lot of new articles and some studies on disasters in the bibliography. The articles also date back to the times of the actual events, showing an extensive about of work and research on the author's part.

"This delegitimization was not limited to France. When humanitarian reason was introduced into French law in order to protect sick immigrants against the risk of deportation, it was optimistically thought that, under pressure from nongovernmental organizations..the provision would be extended throughout the Union."

"The logic of state sovereignty in the control of immigration clearly prevailed over the universality of the principle of the right to life."

"Should we accept 'getting our hands dirty' by agreeing to work with the immigrants' service of the prefect's office on the difficult issue of deportations?"