Analyze

The argument is mainly supported by historical examples of structural failures and the subsequent investigations. The post incident investigation tactics, or lack thereof, discussed support the argument that disasters require an existing structure for authority and procedure. The 1814 Burning of the Capitol Building is an example of an unrestricted investigation that had a successful ending, the building was reconstructed. The 1850 Hauge St. Explosion shows how a joint investigative team without proper distribution of expertise and responsibility leads to an incomplete investigation.  Finally, the 1903 Iroquois Theater Fire is an example of a modern investigation process that utilized available knowledge and resources effectively.

The main argument is supported primarily through interviews with many individuals living in Ankara, through which they describe the first presentation of their seizures and in many cases the steps they tool to attempt a cure. Along with the interviews, statistics of the individuals interviewed and their diagnoses is used to provide a reference point to better understand their stories. Finally the article includes an analysis of narratives in a more general sense that can be applied to the narrative of an illness.

The main argument is supported primarily through policy changes that show a changing approach to public health safety in the government and private organizations, with specific examples such as changes to the US government funding for biodefense research in the early twenty-first century. The paper also includes examples of changing scientific knowledge during the later twentieth century, referencing studies and reports that highlight the changing opinions of the scientific community. Finally, the authors divide the paper into several sections each outlining a specific type of problem and the practices devised as a solution, this format clarifies the main argument and aids the reader in understanding the authors views.

The argument is supported through a combination of historical description, statistical aspects of the health care system available to exposed citizens, and accounts from doctors and sufferers of radiation poisoning. The use of such diverse methods gives a more complete picture of the long term effects of Chernobyl and how it continues to dictate the work, education, and health care options of those in the surrounding area.

The argument is supported through a combination of historical information including rates of AIDS in the early 1990’s and a study done in Baltimore in an effort to reduce AIDS rates in African Americans, who were more likely to be in poverty, by addressing monetary barriers to heath care. Two more recent cases are also used to support the main argument, implementing a method created by the Partners in Health to prevent transmission and provide AIDS care in rural Haiti and rural Rwanda. Throughout the article references were made to the current medical professional’s dilemma, where they are in a position to see the social inequalities contributing to disease rates but not trained to report or change common social contributing factors. This makes the article more relatable to the reader that may have experience in the medical field which elps to support the argument.

The main argument is supported through several methods, first the use of demographic statistics on the patients suffering from mental illness after several significant disasters. The experiences of patients with severe mental illness are also presented as supporting evidence of the complicated causes of disaster related mental illness. Finally the article includes data and theories presented in several other papers to provide a basis for the claims of the authors regarding the future studies of mental illness and the support systems that would be ideal in minimizing the trauma of a disaster.

The main argument is supported primarily with a detailed description of the events surrounding the Fukushima Daiichi plant disaster on March 11th, 2011 as an example of the need for a specilized group to respond to nuclear emergencies. Schmid also supports the effectiveness of such a group by tracing the recent shift in opinion away from an accident prevention mindset to the idea that nuclear disasters are a risk in the nuclear industry and therefore plans for the effective response to future nuclear disasters must be made in order to mitigate the damage caused. Several other works addressing similar problems in risk management, such as Risk Society by Ulrich Beck, as also cited to support the main argument.

The main argument is supported primarily through interview segments with displaced residents from New Orleans, some of whom had returned to the city and some who had not yet been able to go home. The article also supplied descriptions of the government programs and security teams that were assigned to protect the city, which supported the claims that the government failed to properly support survivors. Finally the article included statistics as to the conditions of the communities after several years and the percent of the population that had returned, rebuilt, or was still living in trailers or temporary housing.

The main argument is supported through the existing research, which is minimal, as well as expert interviews, focus groups, and information from the Aid Worker Security Database.

The argument is supported through a combination of personal stories, historical changes in protocol, and analysis of the reasons why applicants resort to a medical argument for residence permits. The use of personal stories of applicants highlights the inconsistencies in the process largely due to compassionate bias on the part of officials reading the applications, as well as the resources available in different cities. As the protocols were changed the article shows that while some of the inconsistencies were resolved, the process of determining who can and cannot receive medical treatment necessitates personal judgment which inevitably affects the outcome.