Analyze

The main argument presented in the article states that the Louisiana Revised Statute section 14:61 of the Louisiana Critical Infrastructure Bill should be revoked as it is impermissibly in violation with the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The article notes the timing and vagueness of the additions to the infrastrutcure bill to be discriminatorily motivated towards silencing a certain type of speech. The Revised Infrastructure Bill included the addition of "pipelines", both in construction and operating as apart of the definition of "critical infrastructure". The revised bill estabilished a strict penalty of jail for no more than 20 years or fine of no more than $25,000. The revision followed the Bayou Bridge Pipeline construction protests. The article argues for the regulation to be held under strict scrutiny under the law as, though it is content-neutral, the legislative motive appears to be content-based. An analysis is appropriate to conduct despite being content neutral. As well, the article argues that the new regulation silences speech, in violation with the first amendment. Noted in the article, First amendment arguments fall into three theories or categorizes: "self-realization" theory, "marketplace of ideas" theory, and "democracy" theory. The article argues that all three theories that enable the preservation of the first amendment are violated through the revised bill sections. The statute distorts the marketplace of ideas as it enforces such a harsh punishment, is standardless, and vague that it has the effect of creating self-censorship. Without access to dissenting ideas in opposition to the pipelines, this deprives the public from the marketplace of ideas but also denies them from self realization in creating their own opinions from the opposining ideas around them. Finally, the statue is argued to deny democracy in that it restricts the publics ability to share their desires for their communties, excluding them from the political process, denying them a democratic process to voice an opinion. The article goes on to propose ways in which the courts can fix their practices in reviewals of Due Process and First Amendment legal cases. 

 This text employs a case study approach to characterize how villagers in a village in China have been displaced “in-place” as a result of new industrial activities within the area  (all specific details have been hidden within the publication, wherein the names of villager groups and the site of study itself is referenced only by coded letters). The scale of analysis primarily centers at the village level, though analysis of the case study itself extends towards the country level specifically when analysis of state actors are involved. 

The narrative of the text highlights the following key points extrapolated from survey responses and interview participants:

• Impacts of the Formosa disaster on households vary by livelihood strategies, and were particularly amplified for poorer households, women, and households without diversified livelihood strategies. 

• Coping mechanisms of households primarily involved reducing household expenditures, accessing loans, adopting a new livelihood strategy, and expanding existing livelihood strategies. However, adoption rates of these coping mechanisms vary across households with livelihoods across the service, fishing, and fish farming enterprises. 

• Compensation, though cited to have ignited protests from parties not qualified for restitution, did offer substantial help to those who were able to receive compensation. Additionally, compensation delivery was delayed (between one to two years after the incident was reported), further escalating impacts across families without savings. 

• Economic recovery of household income 30 months after the Formosa incident indicates that the majority of households have recovered their livelihood activities. However, this does not take into account families who are no longer in the region (out migrated following the disaster prior to the inception of this study).

"In the interest of sustainable and socially legitimate solutions, arguably decisions to even the technical responses to disasters should not be left to scientists and engineers alone"

This statement is very thought-provoking and is not exactly expected in a research article - that a scientist's or engineer's decision should be influenced or editied by those without such specific education or expertise.

-balancing point between safety and profitability

-disaster did not happen as a chain of events that made it bound to occur at some point, it happened on a system that was in good shape

-over regulation of the industry and workers results in a lack of flexibility and therefore an inability to be creative in emergency situations

-need emergency response team to be skilled professionally and socially, but on a low budget - and very importantly - cooperation from nuclear corporations

This article argues that the creation of an international nuclear emergency response group would be an important undertaking due to the global increases in the nuclear industries. The article also establishes some of the chalenges that would be faced in forming, staffing, training, and operating the group.

The main argument that Sonja makes is that there does not exist any international organization with capabilities and expertise to respond to nuclear disasters. Further, with talk of forming such an organization/team since Fukushima, any international nuclear disaster strike team will need to have good relations with the communities and workers that they help as well as good communication at the international level to see the maximum effective response.

The main findings/arguements presented in this article is the need to stop putting the possibility of a nuclear disaster on the back burner and becoming more well versed in how to handle these accidents and how to prevent them from occuring. This can be accomplished by creating an internation SWAT team that is trained to handle international nuclear diasters.

Schmid argues that previous nuclear disasters, such as Fukushima, Three Mile Island, and Chernobyl demonstrate the need for a nuclear emergency response group with the expertise to handle unexpected disasters as well as public and international support. The article focuses not only on the need for such a group but also on the requirements and challanges such a group would face.

The main argument that Sonja makes is that there does not exist any international organization with capabilities and expertise to respond to nuclear disasters. Further, with talk of forming such an organization/team since Fukushima, any international nuclear disaster strike team will need to have good relations with the communities and workers that they help as well as good communication at the international level to see the maximum effective response.

Schmid works to analyze the course of events that occured at Fukushima as well as outline what a nuclear emergency response group needs in order to be successful. She specifically addresses the knowledge and expertise that would be necessary. She also highlights the lack of international authority and the implications that holds.