Search

This report is written following an apparent “failure” in the disaster response following the 2010 Haiti earthquake

This policy directly affects first responders and technical professionals as they will be the ones interacting with patients and following the protocols outlined in this plan. First responders are required to recognize and report suspected ebola incidents, use appropriate PPE, and transport to appropriate facilities if feasible.

I could not find any data or reports on their website that have been collected to support their approach to healthcare other than the legislation previously mentioned.

The author is Sonja D. Schmid who is a professor of Science and Technology in Society at Virginia Tech. Her area of expertise is the social aspect of science and technology, esp. during the Cold War, as well as science and technology policy, science and democracy, qualitative studies of risk, energy policy, and nuclear emergency response. As a professor and researcher she has does relevant studies on Fukushima and nuclear disasters relevant to the DSTS network. One such article titled "The unbearable ambiguity of knowing: making sense of Fukushima" is cited below:

Schmid, Sonja D. "The Unbearable Ambiguity of Knowing: Making Sense of Fukushima." Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. N.p., 2013. Web.

The program targets students with global skills, interdisciplinary skills, and management skills, with the goal of developing global leaders.

The report has been cited by many other articles and reports including ones published by the NIH

The main point of this article is to argue how the EPA falsely stated that the air quality around the site of the tower collapses in the day following 9/11 was safe. They argue this by stating that the building was constructed of 2,000 tons of asbestos and 424,000 tons of concrete which generated millions of tons of dust around the site of the collapse, per EPA estimates. They also argue that the EPA is at fault for making false statements of security and should be mandated to fund the cleanup process.

As they sustain in their web page, their goal is: no poverty, zero hunger, good health weel being, quality educational, gender quality, clean water and sanitation, affordable and clean energy, decent work and economic growth, industry, innovation and infrastucture, reduced inequality, sustainable cities, partnership goals, peace, justice, strong institucions, life below water, and much much more.

What is more they divide their focus, though, on three ways: sustainable development, democratic governance and climate and disaster resiliance.

Three quotes that support this are

“Numerous case studies have document that meaningfully engaging lay communities in decisions traditionally made by scientific and technical elites can enable greater vigilance and raise confidence about individual emergency prepardeness.” (Schmid 196)

“So far, the nuclear industry has almost exclusively focused on accident prevention.” … “nuclear emergency preparedness and response has hardly gained traction.” (Schmid 200)

“They created an organization, Spetsatom” … “and with defining generalizable strategies about how to respond to a possible future nuclear emergency” (Schmid 200)

One of the main arguments in this publication is that the spread of illness is often determined by social forces. For example, impoverished individuals may be more susceptible to illness because they cannot afford the proper treatment, not because they are more likely to contract the illness. This is described as structural violence: socio-structural factors that prevent people from achieving their full potential, e.g. receiving medical care.