"... it remains to be seen whether the 'nuclear village' [of STS scholars] is ready to collaborate in the international governance of nuclear emergencies" (Schmid, 207)
"... nuclear emergency preparedness has hardly gained traction." (Schmid, 200)
"In high-risk industries... safety sometimes gets pitted against profitability..." (Schmid, 199)
The authors pulled information from a variety of sources and tools. They pulled from information procured by their non-profit, Partners in Health as well as from other research articles. Some of them are also on the ground level, treating and interacting with patients who are symptoms of their structural violence argument. These patients are able to provide first-hand information to the authors.
This article seemed like an introduction to a book and didn't really present any susbstative arguments. It mostly talked about how large organizations like WHO function and what some of their protocols are. It also discussed how infections and diseases can spread differently in the current era versus how they used to be spread.
MSF relies upon what ever technology and infrastructure they can afford to send to a certain area. Becuase they avoid using facilities that the host country has, they are able to establish their own infrastructure in an area. Additionally, certain areas may be greatly helped by some types of medical technology while others aren't. They rely upon doctors being able to make due in difficult environments as well.
CEHC offers Undergraduate majors and minors and a Graduate certificate. The major requires 39 credits, or 13 courses, to complete. Students must select a concentration from Emergency Preparedness, Homeland Security, and Cybersecurity. There are 9 core courses and the remaining 4 are in the concentration. The minor requires a student to take 6 classes in the college. The graduate course of study is divided into tracks in which students take courses.
The data for this report were collected through over 70 interviews with people displaced from their homes and over 50 interviews with teachers, HCPs, activists, academics, lawyers, and government officials. In July and August 2004, with a follow-up visit to Bogot in September 2005.
I further examined the course of events and response to the nuclear disaster at Fukushima. I also drew upon my knowledge of how the UN works to investigate how they would be able to assist in response to emergencies of the nuclear type. I also looked at how the nuclear reactor near my home town prepares citizens in its immediate vicinity for emergencies related to it.
This system was built for academia worldwide to study the historical context behind technical and scientific issues related to large-scale disasters. They enhance the knowledge of scholars of where science and technology, history, and Asia meet. The site uses volunteers to translate various resources into English, Japanese, Korean, Bahasa Indonesia, and Chinese so many people can share in the knowledge that others have.
On "researchgate.net" there are 28 separate citations of this article. They consist of a range of articles mostly dealing with the subject of biosecurity. I could not find any references that weren't on researchgate.
The article shows a number of responses historically that show competition among people or organizations who are conducting inquiries. The article provides a great deal of information and primary-source testimony that described the responses to various incidents. This testimony provided insight into how much people fought over who was to blame after disasters, and that people's rhetoric when discussing that has not changed greatly over time. This article supported its argument by including facts spread over the three other disasters mentioned.