This article goes far beyond the enviroment of an EMT. The article discusses the involvemnt of a systematic government that works with the people to discover the most effective way of responding to the events as a whole. She explains the increase in randomness atributted with nuclear disasters compared to other natural disasters.
Schmid looks back on many accounts of what the results were for other nuclear and non-nuclear events. She is trying best to figure out how to involve the "lay society" into the currently highly scientific disscussion.
The three quotations that more capture the message of the article are:
"Regardless of the specific national roadmaps, however, nuclear safety has returned to the international stage with a vengence." - I love the use of 'vengence' because it's such a powerful descriptor.
"Numerous case studieshave documented that meaningfully engaging lay communities in decisions... enable greater vigilence and raise confidence about individual emergency preparedness."
"The real challenge of a disaster involving nuclear facilities lies in how to handle the unexpected, unpredictible, utterly novel, and barely intelligible chain of events unfolding in real time."
I have never hear about the 3 Mile Island accident, so I researched that. I had never heard of the fact that this happened kinda close to home. Granted it was only a partial meltdown, but still.
The article uses Fukushima as a catalyst to progress the discussion of creating a effective Nuclear Emergency Response Team. Schmid uses the examples of the unexpected flow of events to support the unprecedented need for a diverse group of individulals, not just "Scientific Elites". She compares the responses fromthe 1979 Three Mile Island incident to the current state of respond to show how little has changed dispite the short lived boost in attention.
The article has a very diverse bibliography with multiple references from the International Atomic Energy Agency. If you can learn anything, it's that Schmid pulls information from reliable sources.
Schmid’s main argument is that in order to create an effective international nuclear emergency response team one must take the opinions of the “lay community” not only the opinions of the scientific elites. This increase in diversified opinions will allow for not only a better prevention method, but for more of a better response to disaster.
This has been referenced in "Nuclear Disaster at Fukushima Daiichi" by R Hindmarsh.
Sonja D. Schmid is a professor at Virginia Tech in Northern Virginia. Her studies and research focus on “technology policy, qualitative studies of risk, energy policy, and nuclear nonproliferation” as stated on her directory website for VT. She has been an associate professor since 2011 and her current project, such as the article suggests, is investigating the challenges of globalizing nuclear emergency response. She has many published articles including her most recent publication in Global Forum earlier this year titled “What if there’s a next time? Preparedness after Chernobyl and Fukushima - A European-American response.”