Analyze

A main focus of this article was the emergency response to nuclear power plant disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant, or in better words, the lack there of. Points and arguments made include the fact that this won't be the last the world sees of nuclear mishap and risk and also the severe need to not only depend on accident prevention, but focus must be shifted onto being prepared during emergencies. During the essay the author point blank states that, the essay is to raise awareness on the need for the creation of an  "international nuclear response team." The essay then focuses on what we can learn from the nuclear accident in Japan in order to establish better post emergency protocols and responses. 

Overall, Schmid outlines the fact that changes need to be made on a global level. She illustrates where there are shortcomings in current protocols and the desperate need to establish a team that is equipped and trained to response to nuclear mishaps, such as the one seen in Japan. She also accentuates the need for this response team to be established should be fast and that we can no longer drag our feet, citing dangers seen at Fukushima, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl.  

Dr Schmid discusses her view that the engineers and scientists should not be the only people looking at the response to a nuclear incident. She believes that nuclear response teams need to move away from those in the late 1900s, in which a select technically-competent few were in charge of maintaining the safety and security of nuclear facilities, to those that bring together scholars, technical experts, and international relief organizations to educate the public and determine what is in the best interest of the residents of the area as well as society in general. Dr. Schmid believes that scholarship in science, technology, society studies applies to this situation and can be a great help in determining future actions.

The main findings of the article are that the relationship between natural disasters and communicable diseases is not as much due to dead bodies or high trauma as it is to population displacement and a lack of preparredness of the local governing body for the disaster and the crowding of survivors that follows a disaster as this

Sonja argues that no one is prepared for nuclear disasters, and that there should be planning, training, and resources available for these disasters.

The main arguments brought up in this article are the shift in thought from nuclear disaster prevention to disaster response and the importance of the STS community in providing input for policy. From these arguments, another is proposed in the form of the need for an international nuclear disaster response team. 

One of the main arguments of this article is that there is a large focus on nuclear safety but instead there should be a focus on emergency preparedness for when there are nuclear disasters. Schmid argues that safety and preparedness needs to take a higher priority than keeping industry secrets. Individual nuclear industries should to an extent be sharing reactor designs so in the event of an emergency responding agencies know the equipment they will be facing. 

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.

The main argument of this article is that there needs to be more of a focus on emergency response to nuclear disasters and less directed toward nuclear safety and that safety/emergency response should take a higher priority than company trademarks. She claims that nuclear emergency response should be more of an international response and less of a single nation response. 

One argument presented is that public engagement leads to increased vigilance and emergency preparedness. Nuclear emergency response should not be governed by one elite body of scientists. Information should be crowd sourced from the public to increase awareness and transparency and lead to more ideas as well as public support. Another argument presented is that risk prevention has historically been the focus of governing bodies instead of risk acceptance and emergency response. A nuclear reactor being placed near the ocean is more fiscally responsible but natural disasters are unavoidable, regardless of the amount of risk prevention that has been taken. Instead, the focus should be on emergency response after natural disaster strikes. Safety is also sometimes substituted for profitability.

This report provides a detailed analysis of international response to nuclear emergencies. In addition to reviewing historic nuclear emergencies and their responses, it examines current nuclear policies. Initial reactions to previous nuclear emergencies (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, ect.) focused on preventing future incidents. Yet,  Dr. Schmid argues increased safety measures and rigorous regulation cannot possibly safeguard against all emergency scenarios. She emphasizes the need to create an international organization to serve as an emergent response team, and explores several candidates such as the International Atomic Energy Agency and World Association of Nuclear Operators. However, Dr. Schmid concludes none of these suggested organizations currently have the fiscal capability or internation authority to act in this role.