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.
This article has been referenced in several other works concerning the Fukushima plant disaster, such as “The Fukushima Effect: Traversing a New Geopolitical Terrain” by Hindmarch and Priestley, where it was quoted for its opinion that an international group would be needed to overcome bias that may be present in national regulatory agencies.
The author Sonja D. Schmid is an assistant professor at Virginia Tech, she has expertise in the history of national energy policies looking at the risk associated with the nuclear industry. She has written several papers on the Soviet nuclear industry as well as policies and political controversies surrounding the nuclear industry and its potential military uses.
The article focuses on the inherent necessity for emergency response to include community education, risk assessment, and premade policies that designate decision making authority in the event of a disaster, while also acknowledging the inherent unpredictability of emergencies that require flexible response plans. Emphasis is placed on the need for rapid response, and the importance of safeguarding expertise through training and records.
A method used to support the claim is to relate the potential future disasters in the nuclear industry to historical examples which gives credence to the claims in the article and provide relatable evidence to the reader as to the risks associated with not only the nuclear industry but also a lack of preparedness for nuclear disasters. Data used to support the claim includes case studies that the author analyzed as a part of the article, and several other works were cited.
“Within the nuclear industry, an almost exclusive emphasis on accident avoidance has given way to a new strategy of accident preparedness.” (Schmid 207)
“…creating a group or agency that is both capable of assembling the needed expertise for effective emergency response, and that also is accepted as legitimate by the broader public.” (Schmid, 195)
“...an emergency response requires…expertise, trust, legitimacy, as well as public engagement as part of that response” (Schmid 195)
I was interested in the accident prevention mindset that was in part responsible for poor response in past nuclear disasters, so I read a summary of “Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity” by Ulrich Beck, one of the works referenced in Schmid’s article. The summary better explained the societal mindset that a structured set of rules for accident prevention was more reliable that the educated and adaptive individual.
The point that nuclear fallout does not respect national borders was interesting, so I looked at how far fallout can spread. An understanding of how geological features such as mountains and valleys can affect the immediate fallout zone and how meteorological conditions can spread eradiated rain and wind significant distances from the site of a disaster would be important in the evacuation and clean up portions of a response to a nuclear disaster.
When discussing existing emergency response groups that dealt with nuclear disasters the IAEA was mentioned several times, so I looked into the organization and their responsibilities. Although the IEAE is often criticized for its slow response to Fukushima, I found that the organizations stated missions are to promote peaceful use of nuclear energy and safety, as well as implement safeguards meant to prevent military use of nuclear energy. While an international group that works closely with the nuclear industry it does not claim any responsibility to act as a response group to nuclear disasters.
The main argument is supported primarily with a detailed description of the events surrounding the Fukushima Daiichi plant disaster on March 11th, 2011 as an example of the need for a specilized group to respond to nuclear emergencies. Schmid also supports the effectiveness of such a group by tracing the recent shift in opinion away from an accident prevention mindset to the idea that nuclear disasters are a risk in the nuclear industry and therefore plans for the effective response to future nuclear disasters must be made in order to mitigate the damage caused. Several other works addressing similar problems in risk management, such as Risk Society by Ulrich Beck, as also cited to support the main argument.
The bibliography suggests this article was produced through analysis of historical events and other works without any new experimentation or data collection.