Search

These following quotes best exemplify the message of the article: 

" A nuclear emergency response group can no doubt benefit form improving the community resilience and emergency preparedness but this group will unavoidably carry an elite character." (p 196)

"The international community has come to acknowledge the magnitude of risk and responsibly involved in developing and safely operating nuclear facilities." (P. 199)

"To move forward with maximum efficient, an international nuclear response group needs to operationalize relevant experience form international disaster relief organizations." (p 201)

Reading this article caused me to do a further, in depth research on Fukushima and what actions led to what happened as well as what transpired during and after the disaster. I also looked into what the emergency response standards are today which led me to look at the IEAE website. I also looked at some of the author's other works that she wrote as well as explored and researched the WANO site. I read into their operating experiences and read about their pledge to "Prevent events by learning from others." I found out they have implemented "significant operating experience reports" as well as "significant event reports" and numerous other safe guards. 

The article is supported through the use of numerous examples and educated points made by the author. First, the author supports her arguments by going through the events that transpired that day at the Fukushima Daiichi plant. She uses the details of the events in Japan to support her argument that a global emergency nuclear response team is necessary. Schmid also cites other areas in the world where this was an issue and protocols were not clear. Ultimately which caused the incidences at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, all of which would have benefited from a response team equipped and specially trained to deal with this type of situation. The author cites that incidences at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl were the result of systems that were too complex, tightly coupled  and technical, ultimately not allowing broad policy changes when needed. The author also cites that this occurred in one of the world's most advanced areas in the world, both technologically and economically. She states that having scientists and the elite left to make decisions about responses to disasters alone further proves her point and supports her arguments. She also notes that current organizations have little international authority and often suffer when attempting to include or talk to the public in terms of these situation which doesn't allow for full integration with the public. She notes the importance of this integration, but also that world leaders are attempting to do so and see how beneficial this is. She compared the way previous situations similar to that in Japan was handled and she mapped out new regulations that arose based off each of those incidences in order to see what can further be implemented as a blanket response globally for all nations in a situation like this.

Based off the references, it is clear that a very extensive amount of research was done with well over ~70 references. Based off the bibliography, a lot of data was collected from articles and reports on nuclear safety efforts. Also many of the references analyzed historical events and past nuclear disasters and emergency response regulations. The bibliography, which includes some of her other works shows she is an expert in the field and cited other experts as well. 

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.  

This article is discussed and referenced in STS based courses and emergency response seminars and planning committees. The paper is also cited in a book Edited by Richard Hindmarsh and Rebecca Priestley entitles "The Fukushima Effect."

The author is Sonja D. Schmid, who is a professor in STS at Virginia Tech. Her main topic of study and research focus is the Soviet Union and nuclear emergency response. She analyzes nuclear industry risks and policies in Eastern Europe and Soviet Union. She researches the organizational history of nuclear industries including their policies and advances in technology. She's also a well published author on the topic.

The author addresses emergency response by analyzing the responses different nations had to nuclear plant disasters and compared those emergency responses to each other as well as the fallout in Japan. She then analyzed the areas where there was apparent needs that had to be addressed in terms of emergency response. She shows exactly why a nuclear emergency response plan is necessary. The author analyzes the effect that post nuclear disaster had on the people, leaders and areas surrounding Chernobyl and Three Mile Island as well as Fukushima. She also addresses not only the importance of having an international emergency response team, but also the need for integration between the public and scientists/elite that decide protocol. 

The author uses data from the chain of events and steps taken in response to the disaster in Fukushima along with recollection of the event. She analyzes and collects data about how previous situations similar to the one in Japan and involving nuclear fallout were handled and compared those reactions of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island to the reactions that followed Japan's disaster. She also analyzes responses that leaders had in those nations as well as the public and the new policies that arose from those different situations. She pooled data about the reactions of the public, leaders, law and policies and responses. She then uses that data to develop a plan for possible emergency responses as well as support her argument.