Search

“More than 20 years ago, social scientists Harry Otway and Brian Wayne cautioned that accident prevention (safer designs, better operator training, etc. , but even more so emergency planning, faced significant economic and managerial hurdles.”(p199)

“Nuclear accidents have tended to trigger organizational reform with regard to nuclear emergency response, but not on an international level. In considering this problematic ground, where might we start to develop a global approach to nuclear disaster mitigation?”(p200)

“The specific kinds of highly specialized knowledge involved with operation nuclear reactors however may not be accessible to broad public debate to the same degree as, for example, evacuation policies. But in the interest of sustainable, socially legitimate solutions, arguably decisions about even the technical responses to disasters should not be left to scientists and engineers alone, whether they are based within the nuclear industry, a regulatory bod, or a nongovernmental organization.”(p196)

“For all its undeniable flaws, the nuclear industry worked for several decades- in Japan and elsewhere. That is also the truly frightening realization after Fukushima: this disaster was not ‘waiting to happen’, but occurred in a system that had been functioning reasonable well for quite some time.”(p198)

“…The Way Forward is embedded in a technocratic rationality that seeks an effective ‘technical fix’ for reducing the risk of a nuclear disaster to manageable proportions. That misses the less tangible social expertise and improvisational skills inevitable involved in any successful disaster response.” (p206)

Sonja D. Schmid is an assistant professor at Virginia Tech. Her area of expertise is in the history of technology, science and technology policy, and social studies of risk. Specifically, Schmid researches the history and the organization of nuclear industries in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. With respect to emergency response, Schmid has studied how agencies and personel have responded to nuclear disasters.

A recent article Schmid has written: Schmid, Sonja D. "What If There's a next Time? Preparedness after Chernobyl and Fukushima - A European-American Response." Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. N.p., 01 July 2016. Web. 05 Sept. 2016.

 “safety sometimes gets pitted against profitability”

“Consequently, we see a trend where mitigating the consequences of a nuclear disaster is also increasingly being regarded as an international task.”

“We need to create a credible organization-one that combines the legitimacy of the United Nations agency and the executive vigor of an industry group.”

The shift in thought from prevention to response is well supported as a necessary move. This can obviously be seen by the occurrence of these accidents despite adequate regulation. Nuclear energy is a promising, but dangerous thing, and can quickly become disastrous despite efforts to maintain control. This was seen in the accident at Fukushima, following the earthquake and resulting tsunami in the region. Despite preparation for such an event and the existence of backup generators and batteries, responders were rendered useless in the efforts as they could not access the area. This is where the need for a prepared system of nuclear response is needed. Historically, such emergency response groups have been poorly resourced and short-lived, such as the Soviet Spetsatom developed after the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. This group, which focused on preserving lessons learned and developing response systems, was absorbed by a larger ministry with the goal of integrated disaster response.

Additionally, the author cites a number of factors that played a role in creating the Fukushima-Daiichi disaster, such as “environmental, social, and technical systems” that, due to their complexity and separate protocol, resulted in lack or preparedness for the disaster. Following the disaster, the response efforts were delayed by this lack of preparation, and the media called out TEPCO and the Japanese government for this. STS analysis is important in this aftermath as much as in the creation of the initial plan. By utilizing an interdisciplinary approach, the media (and the people) can be heard and used to reform existing policies, or create new ones. This establishes a continuously evolving system of response that can adapt and take into account many different view of disaster relief. 

In addition to this article I looked further into the Chirnoble disaster, the IAEA policies, and where there are nuclear plants in the United States. 

I did an initial google search of “international emergency response team” and found an article from IAEA about the establishment of RANET. This network was made operational by Finland, Mexico, Sri Lanka, and the US in 2008. I found this interesting as, aside from the US, none of these countries were what I thought of in terms of nuclear energy production. Upon further research, I learned that Mexico has two reactors supporting 4% of their electricity and Finland has four reactors providing 30% of the total electricity. At the time of the article, Sri Lanka had no future in nuclear power, but in 2015 signed a deal with India to jointly create a new power plant. 

One way Schmid supports her argument of unification through her discussion and presentation of data from nuclear organizations that single countries have attempted to establish but could not take authority because the practices of nuclear science were still in question. Schmid also discusses that in order to allow proper emergency response individual companies need to share the types of reactors they are using so responders understand the equipment they will have to deal with. Lastly Schmid discusses how nuclear response needs to be more of an international because when a nuclear disaster does strike it is not just the nation in ownership of the nuclear facility that is affected.

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. 

The article’s bibliography is quite long and includes a variety of sources, this suggests the author researched this topic in detail and thoroughly. 

The author likely read through the referenced articles to find where they could be appropriately cited, and then conducted first hand interviews with select people (as mentioned in the notes) to put the information into context. Together, the multiple forms of media allow for a well-rounded point of view in writing the article, with various angles being well-represented throughout.