Currently the IAEA is dependent on funding from its own member states. This becomes precarious when the organization policing nuclear compliance is also dependent on the same states for funding. (iaea.org)
The film takes more of an observer stance than an active role. The corrective action I imagine being effective is better preparedness on the local national and international level to be able to better respond not only to the direct impact of the disease but also the secondary social impacts to the community such as food, water, enforcing emergency orders, and travel restrictions.
The IAEA finds cooperation between the industry, member countries, and the IAEA to be particularly challenging.
I found the part where the healthcare worker relates to the difficulty of his position most compelling and persuasive. A man on the burial team talks about some of the challenges he faced. He says that they are in denial about the disease. For example, a man’s wife died from the disease. They took the body and marked the room with the health tattoo, do not enter and barricaded the door. A health team was tasked to disinfect the building but the moment they left the husband bust the door down and went inside. He died as well. “You see the challenges? You tell people, don’t do this, they pass behind you go do it, don’t do this, they say we are eating free money, the government is lying”.
I was probably influenced by the fact that I am a healthcare worker and while not the same situation, I can relate to his dilemma.
The IAEA failed to properly prevent the Three Mile Island or Chernobyl incidents. After these events the IAEA started two conventions for notification and response to nuclear disasters. Since the Fukushima incident, the IAEA has evolved the way they approach disaster and health to include even the most outlandish scenarios and actively trains first responders how to deal with such occurrences. (iaea.org)
More focus on the care, treatment, containment, and management of contagious diseases like Ebola would have increased its educational value, especially to first responders.
This organization seeks to promote the use of nuclear technology which creates an inherent bias in how it looks at nuclear disasters. On one side, it does not want any nuclear accidents and wants to promote safe nuclear use as disasters cause the public to be less favorable towards nuclear. On the other hand, in the event of a nuclear incident, the IAEA is biased against being too critical of the nuclear industry when assigning blame, as it did with the Fukushima incident.
Emergency responders were not the main focus of the film but were portrayed as having to deal with difficult situations that they had little real control over, mostly because the state was portrayed as trying to do the right thing but making things worse. The consequences of the government fell on the emergency workers. The doctors and responders had to risk personal safety and had to deal with people not trusting them and ignoring their requests.
The IAEA’s approach is to be a friend of the countries and nuclear partners of those countries which hold IAEA membership. One of the IAEA’s missions is to promote nuclear power while on the other hand its other mission is to promote safety and check adherence to the nuclear treaties, agreements, and standards.
There were a few notable viewpoints that were not included. First, those on the international level, but also the doctors and those managing the outbreak (other than the one Ebola response member that was interviewed).