Analyze

The government should organise all the source and fund for the disaster. Using good political to communicate with other nations and organisation who offer the supporting. Make sure the people get help such as money, food and water. As well as help people get back confident to government, therefore the government need to manage the sources in suitable areas. Medical supporting and equipment are offered for more saving and treatment. To provide the epidemic comes up post disaster, the government and organisations should be care about the weather, environment and other circumstances. If Haiti's government can help people get the supporting on fundings and others, it can really make the Haiti's restore and control the cholera epidemic. In addtion, it might can bring the confident from U.N. and other organisations.

Prepare nucleaer emergency plants in the area which might be influenced, even expand the area as much as possible. Educated the resisdents about the evauation and emergency respond. When the disaster is happen, people should go indoor and close all the window and door. Keep updating the news and office information. and  follow the guidence to evacuate. Government should immediately active the emergency plants and radiological respond when the nuclear disaster acident happen. 

In this case, the main point of the article was to be rpepared ahead of time so that the damage during and after the disaster would be minimized. With education for the communities, after a disaster it would be much easier to move and treat people without as much confusion as there might have been.

The situation now is worse than it was after the disaster, which is the main point of this article. 

The latter part of the piece addresses current plans to combat the cholera epidemic sparked during relief efforts post-quake. However, due to many of the factors discussed earlier in the article, donors are hesitant to put money towards efforts. Moreover, the UN's plan worked on a 10-year timeline given the appropriate funding; stalling finances have pushed that timeline out to almost 40 years. Currently a lawsuit is being put forth by the Haitian government to obtain the promised money and support from the UN.

This article claims that after the disaster and initial relief efforts Haiti has not changed for the better and is "back more or less to normal." However many Haitians are suffering from cholera after a water polution mishap with the United Nations initial relief efforts. 

Increased funding from the U.N., distribution of cholera vaccines, focus on poorer populations to educate and give access to medications/water, and clean up of the Arbonite River.

The article does not offer solutions on how to address this problem after the inital epidemic, it is instead a collection or statement in addressing what has been happening and leaves the question unanswered and leaves it up to others to find a solution.

Preston's article mentions the EPA still had not formulated and enacted a plan for cleanup-- it should be noted the year of publication was 2006. She claims "After an expert panel failed last year to settle on a method for organizing an E.P.A. cleanup, the agency said it would proceed anyway with limited testing and cleaning". Moreover, in the 10 years since publication, several studies have indicated increased public health risks and chronic illness prevalence in populations near the disaster zone. It seems the approach of sit-and-wait did nothing but exacerbate the issue, leading me to believe this will serve as a symbol in any future pollutant-laden disasters.

I'm not sure what this question is asking. The situation was clearly worsened by the EPA allowing people to move back into their homes following the collapses and no reference to damage control was made in this article.